You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

October 19, 2021

Bank of Thailand Issues Data Governance Guidance for Financial Institutions

Subscribe to Updates

In September 2021, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) issued its Guidelines on Data Governance to provide financial institutions with recommendations on how to ensure that their data governance will be in compliance with accepted international principles. While there are no penalties for noncompliance, financial institutions should view the recommendations as minimum standard expectations for their data governance in Thailand.

The BOT guidelines set forth five main data governance principles:

  • Data Governance Policy

Financial institutions should set forth their data governance policy in writing in accordance with their business size, business operations, business complexity, and data risk. The policy should cover all types of data, including data related to services from third parties or business partners, as well as provide information on the data governance structure, data lifecycle management, protection of data security and data privacy, and incident management.

Financial institutions should inform their employees and other relevant parties of the policy to ensure their compliance. In addition, the data governance policy must be approved by the designated board or committee of the financial institution, and be reviewed and revised in response to significant changes.

  • Data Governance Structure

Financial institutions should establish a data governance structure with three lines of defense, supervised by an oversight committee. The first line of defense comprises data management personnel, a data approver, and data users; the second comprises a risk management unit and a compliance unit; and the third is an audit unit. While the chosen data governance structure can be tailored to the characteristics of the institution, the structure should cover all of these roles and duties, and must not contravene the principle of checks and balances.

The data governance structure should also be supported by sufficient personnel and equipment, as well as a clear plan—reviewed and revised as necessary—for building awareness at all levels of the financial institution and among third parties.

  • Data Lifecycle Management

A diagram or other record covering all data pathways within an organization should show every step in the data lifecycle, including creation or acquisition, use or disclosure, retention, and deletion or destruction. Metadata management standards and rules should also be set and updated as necessary. Finally, additional standards and rules should ensure the quality, reliability, and usability of data.

  • Protection of Data Security and Data Privacy

Data security measures should cover the sending and receiving of data via communication networks, retention or use of data on the working systems and recording materials, and deletion of data—including data related to third-party service providers or other links to third parties.

The BOT guidelines direct financial institutions to develop security measures in accordance with the BOT’s 2019 notification on information technology risk and other relevant guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. As for data privacy, financial institutions are to comply with the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019). In addition, financial institutions are to follow market conduct prescribed by the BOT in managing and administering customer data.

  • Incident Management

With a focus on preventing incidents that might cause damage, the guidelines advise financial institutions to implement processes for monitoring and managing data incidents. These processes should cover areas such as readiness for a data breach, identification of a data issue, analysis of the cause, evidence gathering, and so on. If an incident affects business continuity, financial institutions may follow their own business continuity plan.

While the BOT guidelines are directed toward financial institutions, business operators in other industries may also adopt the guidelines for their data governance.

For more information on these guidelines, or on any aspect of data protection or financial services provision in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More