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​ 

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
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
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
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require