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

Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre

Vietnam’s education sector is entering a new regulatory era. On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly adopted a series of new and amended laws in the field of education, including the 2025 Law on Vocational Education, the 2025 Law on Higher Education, and the amended Law on Education No. 123/2025/QH15 (Amended Law on Education). These laws together took effect on January 1, 2026, marking a significant reform of Vietnam’s legal framework governing the education sector. The legislative package introduces a new lawmaking approach under which foundational and principle-based provisions are codified in the Amended Law on Education, while the Law on Higher Education and the Law on Vocational Education serve as specialized statutes providing supplementary, sector-specific regulatory detail tailored to their respective subsectors. The Amended Law on Education fundamentally restructures how educational institutions are established, governed, and licensed, with direct implications for private investors, foreign-invested entities, and education service providers operating in Vietnam. Below are several highlights of the key changes under the amended law, especially in the private sector, that stakeholders should understand: Change in the National Education System In addition to primary education, lower secondary (junior high school) education is now compulsory in Vietnam. Accordingly, diplomas are no longer awarded upon completion of lower secondary school but only for upper education levels. The national education system is also expanded through the introduction of vocational high school as a new level of vocational education. Such reform creates additional learning pathways that not only enable learners to pursue both further education and participate in the labor market, but also better align education and training with socioeconomic development needs. New Hurdle for Joint Investors: Mandatory Corporate Entity Requirement Where two or more investors jointly establish an education institution, the investors are no longer permitted to directly establish such an institution.

Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation. The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities. Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability. However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security. New Model for Curriculum Development The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime,