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

January 13, 2021

IT Risks in Insurance: Thailand’s Regulator Sets Criteria for Monitoring and Managing

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) recently issued two notifications—one for life-insurance companies and another for insurance companies—establishing key criteria and requirements for insurance companies to manage risks relating to IT and cybersecurity.

The notifications, entitled Notifications Re: Criteria for the Supervision and Management of Risks Relating to Information Technology for Life/Non-life Insurance Companies B.E. 2563 (2020) came into effect on January 1, 2021, and cover eight major aspects of IT risk management as detailed below.

IT Governance

Insurance companies are required to monitor and manage IT risks and cyber threats in accordance with the size, characteristics, complexity, and context of their business operations, and each company should have at least one director with knowledge of, or past experience in, the field of information technology.

IT Project Management

Insurance companies are required to develop a written framework for IT project management, covering at least the commencement, implementation, and control of the project, as well as the project closing and post-project auditing. Companies must also appoint a committee for supervising and monitoring IT projects.

IT Security

Insurance companies are required to institute a written IT security policy, which must be reviewed at least once a year or upon implementing any significant changes. The policy must be approved by the board of directors, or a relevant subcommittee appointed by the board of directors.

In outsourcing IT activities to third-party service providers, or entering into any arrangement that allows business partners to connect to or access the company’s IT system, insurance companies are required to specify their own criteria and procedures for the selection of third-party service providers, enter into a written service agreement and a service level agreement with the third-party provider, and conform with other requirements under the notifications. Insurance companies will also be required to comply with the OIC’s forthcoming guidelines on the criteria for the supervision of IT outsourcing to third-party service providers.

IT Risk Management

Insurance companies must also write an IT risk management policy and review it at least once a year, or upon implementing any significant changes. This policy must also be approved by the board of directors or their appointed subcommittee. The companies must also have procedures for IT risk assessment, treatment, monitoring, and reviews.

IT Compliance

Insurance companies are required to implement the required measures for IT compliance to conform with applicable laws and regulations concerning IT and anti-money laundering.

IT Audit

Insurance companies are required to have at least one internal or external IT auditor with experience and expertise in IT auditing. Companies are also required to establish a plan and scope for IT audits, which must be approved by the audit committee and reviewed at least once a year, or upon implementing any significant changes. The IT audit reports must be approved by the audit committee and kept at the company office.

Cybersecurity

Insurance companies are required to establish a framework and guidelines for supervision of and protection against cyber threats, in accordance with cybersecurity laws and commensurate with the size and complexity of their business operations. They must also implement required measures against cyber threats, including risk identification, protection, detection, and countermeasures.

Reporting Obligations

Insurance companies are obligated to report cyber threat incidents to the OIC, and other threats that affect their IT systems, in the following cases:

  • They become aware of any material issue or incident regarding the use of IT that affects the company’s services, systems, reputation, or the data of insured parties. These incidents include cases where a company’s material IT is subject to an actual cyberattack, or there is a potential threat of a cyberattack, that must be reported to the company’s chief executive officer. In this circumstance, the companies are required to report the incident to the OIC, along with other required details, immediately upon becoming aware of it.
  • They are subject to an attack from any cyber threat causing issues or incidents relating to the provision of critical IT infrastructure. These incidents must be reported to the OIC, or the  responsible cybersecurity authority as required under the law, without delay and within 72  hours.

For more information on the requirements under these notifications, or on any aspect of insurance law in Thailand, please contact the Tilleke & Gibbins insurance team at [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Insurance

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More
March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
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