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 18, 2021

Myanmar Update: New US Sanctions Imposed on Myanmar

As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration.

New sanctions

The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things:

  • operate in the defense sector of Myanmar;
  • be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar;
  • have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or
  • be a spouse or child of the foregoing.

On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs).

Effect of sanctions

As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen.

The SDN list

As many will know, various Myanmar nationals were already blocked under US sanctions and included on the SDN list prior to the coup, primarily for their involvement in crimes against the Rohingya people. For example, General Min Aung Hlaing has been on the SDN list since December 10, 2019. The recent additions to this list as a result of the coup can be seen here: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions/20210211

Possible further sanctions

The US government has indicated that the February 11 sanctions are preliminary, implying that further sanctions may be forthcoming. There are two major military controlled conglomerates in Myanmar: Myanmar Economic Holdings Public Company Limited (MEHL) and Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC). MEHL has subsidiaries with many different kinds of businesses, ranging from jade and ruby mining, to tobacco and retail outlets.  MEC has subsidiaries involved in beverages, ports, and telecommunications. There seems a degree of probability that these conglomerates and their subsidiaries may well be added to the SDN list. Since the coup, certain of their jade and ruby mining subsidiaries have been added.

What should US companies and citizens do?

US companies and citizens need to increase their vigilance when doing business in Myanmar or with Myanmar entities or individuals, because the links to the military may not be readily apparent. Careful due diligence needs to be undertaken to ensure sanctions compliance, especially in an environment where information is not so readily available such as Myanmar. It needs to be remembered that fines that may be imposed on US companies and citizens for sanctions violations can be enormous.

Do the new sanctions affect non-US citizens and companies?

Yes. Importantly, Executive Order 14014 also authorizes OFAC to impose sanctions on any individual or entity that provides material assistance or support for any person designated as an SDN thereunder. Thus, persons that engaged in dealings with SDNs designated under Executive Order 14014 could themselves be designated as SDNs.

In addition, caution needs to be exercised because in our view it is highly likely that the EU, the UK, non-EU countries, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will follow the lead of the US and impose new sanctions. It also needs to be remembered that several countries still have previous sanctioned individuals related to the Rohingya crisis. It is always advisable to check the relevant ministry of your country to confirm the current sanction status of Myanmar individuals and companies.

Reputational risk

Of course, quite apart from sanctions compliance risk, non-US companies and individuals will need to carefully weigh reputational risks before dealing with military controlled companies, military individuals, or representatives of the new administration in Myanmar.

The future

It is too early to say whether more sanctions will be imposed globally, although at present that seems likely. Hopefully these will remain targeted. How long these sanctions will remain will depend entirely on the situation within Myanmar. If elections and a return to largely civilian rule follow swiftly, the sanctions may be lifted relatively speedily too.

This article was coathored with Douglas Maag, special counsel at Clyde & Co (New York), and Justin Tan, partner at Clyde & Co (Singapore).  They can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected], respectively.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
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
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
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