On February 2, 2026, Myanmar’s Ministry of Finance and Revenue issued Notification No. 19/2026, reducing the customs duty rate to 0% for certain battery‑electric vehicles, machinery, and related spare parts, applicable from February 2, 2026, through March 31, 2026. Under the notification, imports of battery‑electric special‑purpose vehicles, battery‑electric industrial machinery, and associated spare parts listed in the notification’s annex are eligible for a zero‑percent customs duty rate. These items must be supported by technical recommendations from the Ministry of Electric Power and a recommendation from the Ministry of Industry. The notification applies to a broad range of battery electric equipment, including the following categories: Special purpose vehicles, such as crane trucks, mobile drilling trucks, concrete mixers, mobile clinics, broadcast vans, and street‑cleaning vehicles. Heavy machinery, including excavators, bulldozers, loaders, cranes, rollers, forklifts, and port handling equipment. Spare parts, covering 16 specified categories, including key components such as chargers, inverters, and controllers. Importers and businesses using electric‑powered industrial equipment should review the scope of the eligible items and confirm whether their planned imports fall within the lists covered by the notification.

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

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)

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