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

February 20, 2018

Cambodia’s Recently Launched Corporate Bond Market

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In 2007, Cambodia enacted the Law on the Issuance and Trading of Non-Governmental Securities (“2007 Securities Law”), which paved the way for corporations to issue both debt and equity securities to the public and contributed to steady progress in the Cambodian equity market, with the country’s first initial public offering in 2012 and a total of three state-owned enterprises and two corporations currently listed on the Cambodia Securities Exchange (CSX), the sole securities market operator in Cambodia.

The debt market, however, has been inactive, partly due to the absence of additional subordinating regulations to enforce the 2007 Securities Law. Without a robust securities market, Cambodian businesses had to resort to the more costly conventional financing options offered by commercial banks.

In the past few months, the corporate bond market’s regulatory landscape has quickly developed, with the Securities Exchange Commission of Cambodia (SECC), the governmental agency tasked with regulating the securities sector, issued a series of Prakas (ministerial regulations), including:

  • Prakas 009 on Public Offering of Debt Securities, dated August 17, 2017
  • Prakas 010 on Accreditation of Bondholder Representatives, dated August 17, 2017
  • Prakas 011 on Accreditation of Credit Ratings Agencies, dated August 17, 2017
  • Prakas 016 on Implementation of Listing Rules for Debt Securities of CSX, dated December 26, 2017
  • Prakas 017 on Implementation of Market Operating Rule of CSX, dated December 26, 2017

Cambodia is pushing its corporate bond market ahead of its sovereign bond market. These regulations enable corporations to publicly offer debt securities and subject them to the SECC’s tight regulatory oversight.

Defining “Public Offering” and “Debt Securities”

A “public offering” of debt securities is defined by Prakas 009 as any offering of debt securities that is not considered as a “private placement,” which refers to an offering of debt securities that is made in less than 12 months to no more than 30 people and is not publicly announced in any form or by any means.

The 2007 Securities Law defines “debt securities” broadly to include any instrument that evidences the money deposited with or owed by the person issuing the instrument. However, as the Cambodian corporate bond market is in the early stages, Prakas 009 only introduces three fairly simple debt securities, as follows:

  • Plain bond. A bond that has a fixed coupon rate and a specified maturity date. A plain bond does not have enhancements, additional calls, or put options and is not secured or guaranteed.
  • Secured bond. A bond that is secured with an asset, excluding asset-backed securities.
  • Guaranteed bond. A bond with interest and principal payments guaranteed by a third party.

Other types of debt securities, such as a convertible bond, can only be issued to the public with prior approval from the SECC, or if permitted by a separate regulation.

Requirements for Public Offering of Debt Securities

Under Prakas 009, a company wishing to make a private placement of debt securities must file related documents to the SECC both prior to and upon completion of the debt securities offering.

On the other hand, a company wishing to make a public offering of debt securities must be registered as a public limited company with the Ministry of Commerce and comply with various corporate governance, disclosure, minimum capital, and other requirements set by the SECC in Prakas 009 and by the CSX in Prakas 016.

Under Prakas 016, the company must have a minimum equity of KHR 2 billion (approx. USD 500,000), except in the case of the issuance of secured bonds. The total amount of debt-securities to be issued must be at least KHR 1 billion (approx. USD 250,000), or at least KHR 500 million (approx. USD 125,000) for secured bonds. The company would also need to hire an underwriter and a range of advisors.

In September 2017, the National Bank of Cambodia (NBC) adopted Prakas B7-017-300 on Conditions for Banking and Financial Institutions to be Listed on the Cambodian Securities Exchange. The Prakas sets additional requirements for banks and financial institutions that intend to issue securities to the public, including requiring prior approval from the NBC and minimum equity of KHR 60 billion (approx. USD 15 million), and prohibiting the issuing of equity securities equal to more than 20 percent of their voting shares or debt securities worth more than 20 percent of their total assets.

Accreditation of Bondholder Representatives and Credit Rating Agencies

Prakas 010 and Prakas 011 set accreditation procedures for bondholder representatives and credit ratings agencies, and impose requirements and obligations on them. These two Prakas complement Prakas 009, which requires companies intending to make public offerings of debt securities to obtain a credit rating from an accredited credit rating agency and to appoint a bondholder representative to obtain SECC approval.

Under Prakas 010, only commercial banks, securities firms, securities registrars, securities transfer agents and paying agents, and custodian banks are permitted to apply for accreditation from the SECC to become a bondholder representative.

Under Prakas 011, any local company can apply to become a credit ratings agency, provided it meets the minimum capital, corporate governance, and other requirements. The SECC will issue and publish a list of international credit rating agencies that are qualified to provide credit rating services in the Cambodian securities sector.

Prakas 009 also includes transitional provisions that provide alternative solutions to avoid a regulatory deadlock in the event that there are no accredited bondholder representatives and/or credit rating agencies.

The spate of new banking regulations in 2017 are a promising sign for Cambodia’s nascent banking industry, laying the groundwork for a robust corporate bond market, which is the latest in a series of measures aimed at driving the country’s fast-paced economic development.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More