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 3, 2021

Hong Kong-Thailand Fund Passport MOU to Facilitate Cross-Border Investment

Subscribe to Updates

On January 20, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Thailand (SEC) and the Securities & Futures Commission of Hong Kong (SFC) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on mutual recognition of funds. The MOU aims to facilitate the process for eligible funds set up in one country to be marketed and offered to investors in the other country by streamlining qualifications and processes for registration with the regulators.

The key elements of the MOU are outlined below.

Covered Funds

The MOU generally only covers funds in the form of collective investment schemes (CIS), set up in Thailand or Hong Kong and managed by a covered management company that is authorized or licensed in its home country, (i.e., Thailand or Hong Kong) that is seeking approval to offer these funds to the public in the other country (the “host country”).

Apart from the regulatory requirements prescribed by the regulator of the home country, the covered funds must also meet certain eligibility requirements, dependent on the type of fund offering, set by the regulator of the inbound jurisdiction (i.e. the SEC or the SFC). These funds must fall within one or more fund types specified in the MOU, including general equity funds, bond funds, mixed funds, feeder funds, unlisted index funds, and exchange-traded funds. Note that the SEC has agreed to expedite approval for Thai feeder funds that invest in Hong Kong master funds by streamlining certain processes.

Covered Management Companies

Generally, an asset management company that is authorized in its home jurisdiction (i.e., Thailand or Hong Kong) will be able to conduct cross-border marketing and fund offering activities under this MOU.

Requirements for Fund Offerings

Apart from meeting certain qualifications prescribed by the host country, fund offerings must be conducted in accordance with the host country’s requirements. In Thailand, these requirements include the following:

  • Fund offerings must be conducted by intermediaries that are properly licensed by the SEC, and they must comply with the relevant regulations;
  • A local representative of the covered management company must be appointed in the host country;
  • The offering documents must be complete, accurate, fair, clear, effective, and easily understood;
  • The prospectus must also be properly prepared (a prospectus that has been authorized by the SFC may be used); and,
  • The information contained in the fund offering documents must be consistent with the information distributed in Hong Kong.

This Hong Kong-Thailand MOU is the third passporting regime that Thailand has established with alliance countries. The first framework was the ASEAN CIS in 2014, covering Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. In 2019, the Asia Region Funds Passport framework was established, covering Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand.

In signing the MOU, both the SFC and the SEC have agreed to unify their entry processes by promulgating local regulations in order to accommodate the cross-border offering of funds—a step that is anticipated to be complete in the second quarter of 2021.

T&G will continue to monitor the progress of the implementation of this MOU closely. For more details on the cross-border asset management and fund offering activities covered by the MOU, please contact Kobkit Thienpreecha at [email protected] or +66 2056 5534, or Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected]  or + 66 2056 5561.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Capital Markets

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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 19, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has overhauled its approach to related-party transactions (RPTs) by issuing new rules that simplify approval processes while expanding oversight. Capital Market Supervisory Board Notification No. TorJor. 46/2568 will replace the longstanding Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551, which has governed RPT compliance for over a decade. The new regulation takes effect on July 1, 2026. Any RPT matters approved by a company’s board of directors or approved for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551. The new RPT rules will introduce significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Consolidated Definitions Under the previous framework, key definitions relevant to RPT compliance were dispersed across multiple sources, including SEC notifications, Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) regulations, and provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act (before amendments). The new regulation consolidates these definitions into a single notification. Concepts such as “related party” and “connected person,” as well as relevant transaction categories, are now more systematically organized and written in greater detail. The SET has yet to issue corresponding regulations, which should include more detailed related disclosure requirements. Unified Threshold and Mandatory Board Approval The most significant change under the new regulation is the elimination of the multitiered approval framework based on transaction type. Instead of various categories, transactions are now classified as either (1) financial assistance provided to related persons, or (2) other RPTs in order to determine the level of corporate approvals and disclosures for each transaction size in these categories, but the concept remains the same. Under the previous regulation, RPTs were divided into small, medium, and large transactions, with differing approval requirements. The new regulation effectively merges the small and medium categories. As a result, all RPTs must now be approved by the board of directors as a baseline
Read More
February 19, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued a new regulation on material transactions (MTs) to govern asset acquisitions and disposals by listed companies and their subsidiaries. The new notification on MT criteria (No. TorJor. 45/2568) from the Capital Market Supervisory Board replaces the long-standing notification (No. TorJor. 20/2551) that has governed such matters. The SEC has also introduced parallel amendments to the country’s related-party transaction rules. The new regulation will take effect on July 1, 2026. Any MT matters approved by a company’s board of directors for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 20/2551. Following that date, the new MT rules will introduce several significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Expanded Scope of Material Transactions One of the key changes under the new regulation is the expansion of the definition of MTs, which now expressly covers financial assistance and certain lease and business lease arrangements that are not in the ordinary course of business of the listed company or its subsidiaries. For financial assistance, this includes lending, granting credit, providing guarantees, or entering into any arrangement that increases the company’s financial obligations, particularly where the recipient is facing liquidity issues or unable to repay debts. Other forms of financial support also fall within scope. However, whether the provision of collateral for others qualifies as an MT remains somewhat unclear, since no disposal of assets occurs for the provider of collateral. This issue remains to be carefully considered. For lease-related transactions, the MT rules now specifically include the lease or hire-purchase of all or part of a business or assets operated by or belonging to a listed company or its subsidiaries. New Exemptions The new regulation introduces clearer exemptions for transactions between a listed company and its subsidiaries or among subsidiaries, which
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