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

June 13, 2025

Compliance-Driven Cybersecurity: Cyberattack Prevention, Response, and Recovery

In today’s digital age, cyberattacks have become a real threat to organizations worldwide. These attacks can range from phishing and malware to ransomware and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. As the frequency and sophistication of these attacks increase, so does the importance of cybersecurity compliance.

In the corporate world, compliance refers to the process of ensuring that a company and its employees adhere to all relevant laws, regulations, standards, and ethical practices—but it should not stop there. Compliance should also encompass asset recovery and disciplinary measures, which can both help organizations address incidents effectively and promote good governance.

Cyberattacks are malicious attempts to access or damage a computer system or network, often carried out for financial gain, for political activism, or simply to cause disruption. For instance, a successful attack might involve an attacker creating an email address that closely resembles a legitimate one, perhaps by changing only one or two characters. That email address is then inserted into an existing conversation thread, making it appear as if the user with this email address was already part of the discussion. This tactic can easily deceive a recipient into believing the email was sent from a trusted source, thereby leading them to click on malicious links, provide sensitive information, or even make payments in accordance with the attacker’s request or instructions. Phishing attacks like these are particularly dangerous and can have a serious impact on the ongoing business of a corporation because they exploit the trust and familiarity established in the original email chain.

Effective Mitigation Approaches

Mechanisms for addressing the aftermath of a crisis provide important recourse to affected organizations, but effective compliance mechanisms can minimize the risk of such crises ever occurring. Companies should therefore prioritize preventative measures and implementation of effective crisis management schemes.

Various legal and regulatory frameworks govern cybersecurity and data compliance in Thailand. For example, the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019) categorizes cyber threats into three levels: noncritical, critical, and crisis, each requiring specific measures. The Personal Data Protection Committee under the Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) provides guidelines on handling personal data breaches and emphasizes assessing and mitigating risks to individuals.

With respect to minimizing the risks posed by cyberattacks, compliance is essential for several reasons. First, it helps organizations avoid legal penalties and fines associated with noncompliance. Second, it enhances an organization’s reputation by demonstrating a commitment to protecting sensitive information and assets. Third, compliance helps mitigate the risk of cyberattacks, thereby protecting an organization’s financial standing and operational efficiency.

Providing adequate training on these issues gives companies the opportunity to demonstrate to their employees that they support them by providing them with the knowledge to protect themselves with cyber-safety awareness. This approach benefits both the employees and the company and is also an easily overlooked tool for building morale. For instance, during one cybersecurity training session, participants learned about various types of scams and social engineering strategies used by cybercriminals. The training emphasized the importance of being cautious and mindful of cybersecurity to protect both organizational and personal information. Additionally, fake email addresses can lead to financial payments being made to the wrong entity’s account, necessitating actions from corporations to maintain good governance and compliance. Providing employees with the necessary knowledge to identify attacks and take appropriate initial steps could be a crucial measure for an organization to prevent potential damage such as this.

Financial staff and risk management teams are typically the first responders to an attack, halting payments or deliveries and establishing preliminary measures to prevent future occurrences. However, actions taken after an incident are equally important. These include reporting to authorities and attempting asset recovery to mitigate financial losses. Regardless of the likelihood of recovery, such actions promote good governance and are essential for continuous smooth operations of the organization.

Periodic reviews of past activities, along with disciplinary actions for the employees involved, are integral to compliance mechanisms that account for the dynamics of a business. Regular reviews should monitor the company’s cyber health and employee awareness to ensure improvements and sustained vigilance, and when employees have made payments to culprits, the company’s actions speak louder than words. Balancing the maintenance of morale with good governance can be challenging, but human resources knowledge and morale complement each other. A thorough understanding of corporate consciousness and the law enables comprehensive measures tailored to a corporation’s needs.

Having a clear cybersecurity policy and protocols, along with proper training, ensures that employees understand the consequences of failing to follow those protocols. Employees can be held accountable and disciplined based on the facts of the case and company rules, especially if evidence confirms gross negligence or misconduct.

Outlook

The intersection of cyberattacks and comprehensive compliance is critical for any organization operating in today’s digital landscape. By understanding the nature of cyberattacks and adhering to cybersecurity compliance standards, organizations can better protect themselves from potential threats and ensure the security of their information.

Organizations should also remember they are not alone, and they can readily enlist the services of specialists. At Tilleke & Gibbins, we not only provide asset recovery and litigation services but also offer specialized training on compliance, providing comprehensive advice on employment law. Our expert team is dedicated to ensuring organizations are well equipped to navigate the complexities of cybersecurity regulations and employment law.

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