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​ 

June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More