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

August 23, 2013

Licensing Exemptions for Foreign Securities Firms

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The Stock Exchange of Thailand has taken many steps in recent years towards gradual liberalisation of the country’s capital market. For example, more foreign products are now permitted to be offered to Thai investors. This includes qualifying foreign exchange-traded funds, qualifying Asean Collective Investment Scheme and foreign-listed stocks with the intention of secondary listings on the SET. Exchange-control rules have also been relaxed, allowing Thai investors—both institutions and high net worth individuals—to invest in foreign capital markets.  

As a result, Thai mutual funds managed by private firms or government authorities have increasingly invested offshore, leading to numerous foreign mutual fund managers, investment banking and private equity firms focusing on Thailand as a new emerging market. Many of these entities have sought advice on the legal guidelines for approaching their prospective Thai investors.

There are several different regulated securities businesses. The licences to conduct those businesses currently are granted solely to banks and financial institutions and local securities companies, which are subject to heavy controls and compliance regulations.

Foreign securities firms generally are not permitted to conduct any securities businesses except as specifically exempted by Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). For example, qualifying foreign securities firms wishing to offer services, not products, to Thai investors can enjoy exemptions for two securities businesses.

One is a discretionary investment management service or what is officially called a “private fund management service”, defined as “the management of funds of a person or group of persons who has authorised the management of investment to acquire benefit from securities, whether or not investment in other assets is also made, which management is conducted as an ordinary course of business, in consideration of a fee or other remuneration”.

According to SEC Notification Kor. Nor. 43/2549, qualifying foreign securities firms are automatically granted a general exemption to conduct this service without possessing a licence, if the following criteria are met:

  • The foreign securities firm has been licensed to conduct a securities business by a foreign regulator, which is an ordinary member of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (Iosco);
  • The foreign securities firm solicits and provides fund management services exclusively to any of the prescribed “institutional investors” in Thailand such as the GovernmentPension Fund, the Social Security Fund, insurance companies, commercial banks and securities companies, whether for their own accounts or the accounts of their institutional customers.

To qualify for the exemption, solicitations should be made only to institutional investors as defined in the notification.

Another type of securities business for which exemptions are available is investment advisory service, which means “giving advice in the normal course of business to the public whether directly or indirectly concerning the value of securities or the suitability of investing in those securities or the purchase or sale of any securities in consideration of a fee or other remuneration …”

This service is subject to SEC Notification No. Kor. Nor. 22/2544. It gives an exemption to qualifying foreign securities firms to give investment advice to Thai investors, without being licensed in Thailand, if the following criteria are met:

  • The foreign securities firm has been licensed to operate a securities business by a foreign regulator, which is an ordinary member of Iosco; and
  • The giving of advice is conducted in the following manner:

(a) In case of retail investors, the advice shall be conducted through Thai securities companies with proper licences;

(b) In case of institutional investors (same as above), the advice is specifically intended for institutional investors—a document showing the worst-case scenario of the investment in structured notes must be provided.

This essentially means qualifying foreign securities firms are free to solicit and be engaged by any Thai institutional investor to give advice on investments, provided the applicable regulatory requirements are met.

When conducting a securities business under the above exemptions, foreign securities firms should still observe conditions and restrictions imposed by other laws. For instance, the services should be provided on a cross-border basis. Otherwise, the foreign securities firm could be deemed to be “doing business in Thailand”, which would require a foreign business licence (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act.

Although it is probable an FBL could be obtained, the general post-FBL conditions such as establishing a physical branch office and bringing into Thailand an operating fund of at least 3 million baht could be an excessive burden.

Furthermore, representatives of the foreign securities firms sent to Thailand to conduct any business activities would require proper business visas from a Thai embassy or consulate and then work permits from the Employment Department.

Finally, any foreign securities firm wishing to open a representative office in Thailand for the purpose of being a contact point for its Thai investors can formally apply for a licence with the SEC, the process for which should be merely procedural.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

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 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
February 4, 2026
On November 18, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft decree on administrative sanctions in the field of crypto assets and crypto asset markets (the “Draft Decree”), intended to implement Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP dated September 9, 2025, on the pilot crypto asset market in Vietnam (“Resolution 05”). While Resolution 05 sets out who may participate and under what conditions, the Draft Decree addresses a more practical question for market participants, i.e., what happens if those conditions are not met. In doing so, the Draft Decree offers important insight into how Vietnamese regulators intend to supervise, discipline, and ultimately shape the crypto market during the pilot phase. Regulatory Scope and Overall Sanctions Architecture The Draft Decree applies to both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals engaging in crypto-related activities in Vietnam’s market. Covered entities include: (i) crypto asset issuers; (ii) crypto asset service providers, including trading platforms and market operators; (iii) Vietnamese and foreign investors participating in the pilot market; and (iv) other organizations involved in the offering, issuance, or provision of crypto-related services in Vietnam. The breadth of this scope is deliberate. It appears to reflect a regulatory view that cross-border structures, offshore platforms, and indirect participation may not necessarily insulate market actors from compliance obligations once they operate within the pilot framework. For the crypto industry, this may mark a shift from regulatory ambiguity toward a more explicit articulation of jurisdictional reach. At first glance, the Draft Decree’s monetary penalties appear restrained. The maximum fine per administrative violation is capped at VND 200 million (approx. USD 7,700) for organizations and VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,800) for individuals. However, focusing solely on fine levels risks missing the point. The Draft Decree also places great regulatory weight on supplementary sanctions and corrective measures, including: (i)
Read More
January 23, 2026
On December 31, 2025, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular No. 72/2025/TT-NHNN (Circular 72), establishing a streamlined foreign exchange framework for Vietnam’s International Financial Center (IFC). Circular 72, which took effect on the same day, implements core provisions of Decree No. 329/2025/ND-CP and marks a fundamental shift from ex ante licensing to ex post supervision for IFC member enterprises and foreign investors. These changes are designed to accelerate capital flows, reduce compliance costs, and position Vietnam as a competitive regional financial hub by granting IFC members substantially greater autonomy in currency transactions, borrowing, lending, and investment activities. Key provisions for IFC members to note are discussed below. Use of Foreign Currency and Payments within the IFC Vietnam generally requires the use of Vietnamese dong for transactions within the country, with limited exceptions. This can be burdensome for foreign investors, who may be unfamiliar with all the foreign exchange rules they must comply with. Under the new regulation, IFC member enterprises and foreign investors gain the ability to transact, list prices, and settle obligations in foreign currency when dealing with other IFC members or offshore counterparties, avoiding currency risk and conversion friction. With respect to individuals and organizations located within Vietnam who are not IFC members, the use of foreign currency must continue to comply with general restrictions on foreign exchange usage within Vietnam. Dual-Track Account System for IFC Members The new regulation introduces a two-tier account structure that differentiates transactions by purpose and counterparty. IFC member enterprises must use a designated foreign currency capital account at an IFC member bank for four specified activities: Borrowing from offshore individuals and organizations Lending to offshore entities and domestic borrowers Outbound investing from the IFC Investing elsewhere in Vietnam from the IFC All other foreign exchange transactions—including operational receipts, vendor
Read More