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

August 31, 2020

Bank of Thailand Revamps Know-Your-Customer Procedures for E-Money Service Operators

Informed Counsel

A recent notification from the Bank of Thailand (BOT) has introduced new know-your-customer (KYC) guidelines for e-money businesses, updating the country’s regulatory regime to accommodate the greater variety of e-money services that have come into the market. The new regulations better differentiate between the types of risk relating to each product, and are expected to help e-money service providers overcome difficulties in identifying their customers.

Notification Sor Nor Chor 1/2563 Re: Know Your Customer Regulations for Activating the Use of e-Money Services was issued by the BOT on March 13, 2020, supplementing the KYC requirements for e-money services stipulated under the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (AMLA). The notification came into force on May 6, 2020.

Identification and Verification               

The KYC procedures that e-money service operators must adopt are a two-stage process—first identifying, and then verifying, customers. In doing so, they must ensure that the information received is actually the customer’s information, and that the information is correct, true, and up to date.                

The notification sets out specific KYC requirements for different product offerings so that e-money service providers will be able to adapt their procedures to suit the level of risk for each product. For non-transferable payments for products or services in Thailand, e-money services must follow the customer identification and verification procedural requirements in the AMLA. For transferable payments for products or services (whether in Thailand or not), e-money services must conduct additional face-to-face or non-face-to-face verification of customers. 

For face-to-face verification, e-money services must confirm that the information and evidence received for verification is correct, true, up to date, and from a reliable source (e.g., the National Credit Bureau). Service operators must also prove that the information provided by the customer is the customer’s own information and proof of identity. If a smart ID card is provided as evidence, the card must be validated with a smart card reader and verified through a government electronic inspection system (e.g., National Digital ID).

When face-to-face verification is not possible, or not a preferred option, in addition to confirming and verifying the information received, operators must obtain a photograph of the customer and record it using advanced technology that adheres to accepted standards, in order to verify the customer’s identity by comparing the individual’s face with the biometric information embedded in the smart ID card. E-money payment or transfer services that have implemented measures to minimize risks in line with the AMLA’s criteria for low-risk services (such as regulated e-payment services) may confirm the information and evidence used for verification themselves, similar to the requirements for face-to-face confirmation.   

For corporate customers, the procedures must enable the identification and verification of the corporate entity’s authorized person, in addition to the KYC procedures set out by the AMLA (meaning that corporate customers must provide the company name, objectives, address, phone number, etc.). This can be any procedure that meets the standards set out in the BOT’s notification—for example, an e-money service may designate an employee to be in charge of a corporate customer and validate that the information received is correct, true, and up to date. Evidence is also required to prove that the person using the e-money service for the first time is authorized to do so by the corporate entity.    

As part of their internal risk-management procedures, e-money services must implement other KYC procedures for corporate customers when there are temporary technical difficulties that could prevent compliance with any of the above verification requirements.   

The BOT notification also allows e-money service operators to verify customers using the national digital ID system, either alone or in conjunction with the procedures outlined above.    

When a customer of one e-money service intends to activate or use another type of e-money service with the same provider, operators that have already implemented the KYC requirements in the regulations for activating or changing of the type of e-money service, and have kept the customer’s information correct and up to date, should follow authentication procedures that are secure and able to prove the customer’s genuine identity and correlation with the risk level of the relevant product or service. For example, an operator could use a biometric comparison technology to verify customers. 

Other Requirements

Other requirements under the BOT notification include implementing policies, risk management measures, and internal controls to ensure that risk management systems for KYC procedures are appropriate, concise, and aligned with the relevant product and activation channels. In addition, a secured storage system for customer information must be maintained.

E-money service providers that want to implement any other KYC process will need to obtain approval from the BOT and, if necessary, test any new technology in the BOT’s regulatory sandbox.

Compliance Steps and Exemption Requests

E-money services should be in compliance with the BOT’s KYC notification by November 2, 2020. In advance of that compliance, by July 5, 2020, existing services need to have submitted a clear operating plan to the BOT showing how they would bring their operations into compliance with the regulations. Service providers are also required to notify the BOT immediately upon achieving full compliance with the regulations.   

E-money services that are unable to comply with the regulations may submit an exemption request (in writing or electronically) to the BOT, detailing the reasons for not being able to comply with the regulations. Upon receipt, the BOT will consider whether to approve the exemption.
 

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 13, 2026
On January 9, 2026, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) against five individuals for unauthorized operation of a digital-asset dealer business under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This precedent-setting case signals that the regulator is willing to pursue crypto enforcement against natural persons even in the absence of a licensed platform entity. Background and Implications The case follows the SEC’s October 2025 public warning about the use of iris-scanning technology in exchange for certain digital tokens. In its warning, the SEC cautioned that exchanging or trading these specific tokens with unlicensed service providers exposes users to heightened fraud, scam, and money laundering risks. Unlike prior regulatory enforcement matters, which involved platform-level administrative fines for operational or compliance failures, this case targets misconduct by individuals who may not be professional traders but openly advertised their willingness to buy these tokens from the public, opened individual over-the-counter (OTC) trade channels for these tokens, and facilitated off-exchange transactions in a manner resembling ordinary commercial dealing. This enforcement action establishes a clear precedent that natural persons engaging in public-facing digital-asset dealing may face criminal liability under Thai law, even without operating through a corporate or licensed platform structure. Outlook The alleged offenders may not settle this crime by payment of fines. Following the SEC’s referral, the ECD will undertake further investigation, after which prosecutors may review the case and proceed to court. The SEC has stated that it will cooperate fully with enforcement agencies throughout the criminal enforcement process.
January 9, 2026
Vietnam has taken a decisive step into the global artificial intelligence regulatory landscape with the promulgation of the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law), adopted on December 10, 2025, and effective from March 1, 2026. As one of the earliest comprehensive, standalone AI statutes in Southeast Asia, the AI Law signals Vietnam’s ambition to position itself as both an innovation-friendly and governance-conscious AI market. In doing so, the legislature has also streamlined Vietnam’s AI regulatory architecture. The AI Law repeals most AI-related provisions previously embedded in the Law on Digital Technology Industry No. 71/2025/QH15, consolidating AI governance under a single, unified legal framework. This structural move underscores an intent to provide greater regulatory clarity and coherence for businesses operating across the AI value chain. Against this backdrop, the key question for AI developers, providers, deployers, and governance teams is how the new risk-based framework will shape compliance expectations, operational decisions, and governance design in practice. This article examines the new AI Law through that practical lens, focusing on what it means for AI businesses operating in or into Vietnam. Scope of Application The AI Law applies broadly to Vietnamese organizations and individuals, as well as foreign entities that participate in AI-related activities within Vietnam. The law expressly excludes AI activities conducted solely for national defense, security, and cryptography purposes. A defining feature of the AI Law is that it regulates by role, not by industry. It distinguishes between: Developers, who design, build, train, test, or fine-tune AI models and have direct control over the technical methods, training data, or model parameters; Providers, who place AI systems on the market or put them into use under their own names; Deployers, who use AI systems under their control in professional, commercial, or service-provision activities; Users, who interact with AI
January 9, 2026
Thailand continues to advance its legal and regulatory framework for the technology sector, with several key laws undergoing review and proposed amendments. These developments reflect Thailand’s broader efforts to ensure that its regulatory landscape keeps pace with rapid technological change and aligns more closely with international standards and best practices. The following are key legal developments and proposed legislative reforms in 2026 that are expected to impact businesses operating in the technology sector and the broader Thai business landscape. Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) Following the full enforcement of Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) in June 2022, businesses and practitioners have identified practical implementation challenges and interpretative issues. These challenges were reflected in an effectiveness assessment conducted by the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) in late 2024. The PDPC published a set of principles for public consultation to identify issues and directions for potential amendments to the PDPA. Key issues: Emerging issues include clarifying the definitions of “data controller,” “data processor,” and “criminal record”; revisiting the scope of sensitive personal data to better reflect Thailand’s context; proposing amendments to the hierarchy of legal bases to avoid misconceptions of consent as the default legal basis; and clarifying the required level of expressiveness for explicit consent, as well as rules for collecting personal data from other sources. Current status: The first round of public consultation has concluded. Next steps: The proposed amendments are proceeding to a revised draft following the consultation outcomes. Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019) Thailand is moving forward with proposed amendments to enhance the effectiveness of its national cybersecurity framework, as evolving digital technologies bring new risks such as misinformation, system intrusions, and attacks on critical infrastructure, making cybersecurity a national priority. Key issues: The amendments aim to clarify and strengthen
January 8, 2026
Thailand’s Digital Government Development Agency (DGA) has proposed new standards that would require government agencies to select cloud services exclusively from a preapproved shortlist of providers. The draft Digital Government Standards re: Cloud Service Provider Standards aims to strengthen procurement confidence and reduce risks associated with selecting cloud service providers that do not meet the required standards. A public hearing period on these standards concluded on December 27, 2025. The DGA will now review submitted comments and consider revising the standards accordingly. Shortlisted Cloud Service Provider Tiers The draft standards establish three tiers of cloud service providers based on their assessed service capability levels, core qualifications, and certifications. The DGA sets qualification requirements for each tier, and it is at the discretion of each agency to select the tier of cloud service provider that best suits its operational needs, as follows: Tier 1 cloud service providers are suitable for providing services involving disclosable official data. Tier 2 cloud service providers are suitable for handling official data and protected data, such as personal data, which requires a high-security public cloud (e.g., virtual private cloud). Tier 3 cloud service providers are suitable for providing services to agencies with specific regulatory and security requirements that handle highly protected data, such as the national security system. These providers must offer sovereign or hybrid cloud as stipulated by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society. All tiers of cloud service providers must be legal entities incorporated under Thai law and can be authorized distributors of offshore cloud service providers. However, each tier will be subject to different requirements, including infrastructure obligations. Government agencies are encouraged to select a cloud service provider appropriate for their intended use. For example, if a government agency intends to procure cloud services for operating applications that process personal data,