Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to the latest edition of the Global FinTech Guide published by Multilaw. The guide offers an overview of the legal and regulatory environment for financial technology across key jurisdictions worldwide. Prepared by leading experts from Multilaw member firms, the Global FinTech Guide explores how innovation is reshaping the financial sector and how governments and regulators are responding to emerging technologies such as digital payment services, cryptocurrencies, and online financial advisory platforms. The publication enables quick comparison of regulatory frameworks and provides detailed country-level insights for investors, startups, and established financial institutions engaging in FinTech activities. The Thailand chapter, authored by lawyers in Tilleke & Gibbins’ technology and financial services teams, outlines the country’s evolving regulatory landscape for fintech operations. It addresses the following topics: Payment services Asset and portfolio management Financial advisory and broking services (including robo-advisory and auto-trading) Trading platforms, social trading platforms, and signal following Crowdfunding, crowdinvesting, and crowdlending DLT and cryptocurrencies Loan services, factoring, loan broking, and finetrading Identification Online banking services Initial coin offerings (ICOs) and token sales Insurtech Regtech and compliance management Know-your-customer (KYC) requirements Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to the Global FinTech Guide. The full guide is available on the Multilaw website.

Attorneys in Tilleke & Gibbins’ regulatory affairs team have produced the Cannabis and Hemp Business Guide – Thailand, a primer on the rapidly developing cannabis industry in Thailand.

On September 29, 2025, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC Office) published its Regulations on the Review and Certification of Binding Corporate Rules B.E. 2568 (2025) (the Regulations). The Regulations provide clarity on the PDPC Office’s approach to reviewing and certifying binding corporate rules (BCRs) under Section 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), and aim to facilitate international data transfers within a group of undertakings or enterprises (a “corporate group”). In conjunction with this development, the PDPC Office also approved BCRs for two companies operating in Thailand on September 30, 2025. This milestone represents the first concrete progress since the PDPC’s Notification on Criteria for the Protection of Personal Data Sent or Transferred to a Foreign Country pursuant to Section 29 of the PDPA B.E. 2566 (2023) came into effect in March 2024. Some key features of the Regulations are set out below. Categorization of BCRs BCRs are classified into two types: (1) BCRs for Controllers (BCR-C) and (2) BCRs for Processors (BCR-P). The category must be clearly specified when submitting the BCRs to the PDPC Office. Documentation Requirement The applicant must prepare and submit the application (a standard template may be provided by the PDPC Office in the future) along with supporting documents for review and certification in the Thai language. If the supporting documents are in a foreign language, a certified Thai translation should be provided. The translation must be notarized by a notary public or qualified person. Supporting documents may include, among others, a binding instrument such as an intra-group agreement, or a list of entities subject to the BCRs. Expedited Process Requirement Organizations with existing BCR approvals under the EU or UK GDPR, or from countries announced by the PDPC under Section 28, may apply through an

Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,