On April 29, 2025, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular No. 03/2025/TT-NHNN (Circular 03), which provides detailed guidance on the opening and use of Vietnamese dong (VND) accounts by non-resident foreign investors engaging in indirect investment activities in Vietnam. Circular 03, which took effect on June 16, 2025, amends Circular No. 06/2019/TT-NHNN of the SBV on the management of foreign exchange for foreign direct investment activities in Vietnam (Circular 06) and replaces Circular No. 05/2014/TT-NHNN of the SBV guiding the opening and use of indirect investment capital accounts for implementation of foreign indirect investment activities in Vietnam (Circular 05). Below are some of the key points of Circular 03. Change of Account Name Circular 03 renames “indirect investment capital account” to “indirect investment account” (IIA). This change aligns with the terminology used in other legislation, ensuring consistency across Vietnam’s legal framework governing foreign exchange and investment activities. Additionally, by removing the word “capital,” the new term better encompasses the full range of transactions that may be conducted through these accounts, such as share transfer and other forms of indirect investment-related activities. This helps prevent misinterpretation and facilitates compliance for foreign investors operating in Vietnam. Account Types Circular 03 clearly delineates account types and investor residency status as follows: For non-resident foreign investors: The opening and use of investment accounts in VND is for carrying out transactions related to indirect investment activities. For resident foreign investors: Credit and debit transactions are made through payment accounts in VND in accordance with relevant laws. Additional Permitted Uses of IIAs In addition to the cash inflows and outflows authorized under Circular 05, Circular 03 introduces more cash transactions that can be conducted via IIAs. These include: Receiving interest and other legal income when conducting stock purchase transactions that do not require

Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to Taking and Enforcing Collateral Security and Guarantees in Southeast Asia, a comparative guide developed by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The publication examines the legal frameworks governing collateral security and guarantees across seven Southeast Asian jurisdictions and is intended to assist financial institutions, corporate borrowers, and cross-border investors in evaluating secured lending options in the region. The guide provides a practical overview of key issues relevant to taking and enforcing security interests—covering, among other topics, the types of assets that may be secured, the formalities and registration requirements for creating security, and the rights and procedures available in enforcement scenarios. Each chapter follows a consistent question-and-answer format to allow readers to compare approaches across jurisdictions easily. While the guide offers a high-level survey of the region’s collateral and guarantee regimes, it also notes that country-specific developments and transaction-specific considerations may affect the applicable requirements. Readers seeking detailed advice are encouraged to consult the lawyers listed at the end of each jurisdictional chapter. The full guide is available for download using the button below or directly from the DNA website.

In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith. Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process. The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes. The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process. However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement,

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released draft guidelines establishing principles for managing artificial intelligence (AI) risks in the financial sector. The draft guidelines provide a structured framework for the responsible adoption of AI technologies. Financial service providers will be able to use the guidelines as a reference to appropriately manage their risks in a manner that aligns with internationally recognized best practices. The BOT is accepting public comments on the draft guidelines until June 30, 2025. Scope and Application The draft guidelines apply to all financial service providers, including financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act, as well as payment providers under the Payment Systems Act. These guidelines supplement existing BOT risk management guidelines covering IT risk management, third-party risk management, data governance, and market conduct. The guidelines define AI systems as systems that mimic human intelligence, including machine learning, deep learning, generative AI (such as large language models), and agentic AI. This definition specifically excludes rule-based automation systems like robotic process automation and condition matching. Key Risk Management Principles The guidelines lay out two main principles in managing AI risk. Governance: Financial service providers should define and establish clear roles and responsibilities for their personnel and AI system supervision structures to uphold FEAT (fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency) principles as follows: Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Financial service providers should define roles and responsibilities for boards and executives on AI risk oversight. Responsibilities include establishing an AI system usage policy, designating personnel responsible for AI risk management, and building awareness of AI-related risk within the organization. AI system usage policy. The AI system usage policy should be aligned with organizational objectives, regulatory requirements, and FEAT principles. These policies should be reviewed regularly to respond to technological advancements and evolving risk profiles. Risk management