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

Subscribe to Updates
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.
 

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
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