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

October 1, 2025

Precautions for Directors of IPO Candidates and Listed Companies in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage.

Key Legal Risks

The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment.

In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment.

Director and Executive Qualifications

Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in making false statements or concealing material information can immediately call into question their suitability to serve, and may hold other consequences, as noted above. However, grounds for disqualification do not extend to misstatements or omissions in IPO filings, regardless of final court judgment. Companies should be aware of these important distinctions and not assume that all disclosure violations are treated the same under the law.

Materiality Assessment

Information should be considered material if a reasonable investor would regard it as important, especially if it could influence the price or value of securities. Companies should carefully assess both the likelihood and potential impact of events, avoid selective disclosure, and seek expert advice when necessary to ensure a thorough and diligent process.

Ensuring Compliance

Accurate disclosure and strong governance are essential at every stage. Failure to disclose material information or making false statements can result in criminal liability, regulatory sanctions, and disqualification of directors. Proactive controls and transparent communication help reduce risk and support market integrity.

Boards, executives, and advisors should ensure that all disclosures are accurate, complete, and timely. Robust internal controls and clear documentation are essential to support compliance. Companies should also prepare contingency plans for leadership changes in the event of regulatory action, and maintain transparent communication with investors and stakeholders regarding regulatory matters and the company’s responses.

Related Professionals

Practices

Capital Markets

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions
Read More
April 10, 2026
Following Thailand’s recent expansion of the “major shareholder” definition for securities and digital asset businesses, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched a public hearing on April 7, 2026, on expanding the major shareholder definition further to cover funding sources behind share acquisitions in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. The public hearing will remain open for 15 days from the launch date, after which the proposed expansion is expected to take effect promptly so that operators can comply with both the earlier and additional requirements within the 180-day transitional period under the earlier regulations. Funding Sources Captured Under Control-Based Test Under the draft rules, persons who fund direct or indirect major shareholders’ acquisition of shares in a licensed operator would be deemed “controlling persons” and subject to SEC approval as major shareholders. This extends beyond traditional lenders to include guarantors, counterparties to derivatives or structured products, and any arrangement that results in a person being, directly or indirectly, a source of funding to a major shareholder. The SEC proposes to exempt three categories of funding arrangements from approval: Loans from Thai licensed financial institutions or BCBS (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision)-jurisdiction foreign banks; Margin loans for securities trading under Thai securities law; and Repurchase agreements under Thai securities law. Exemptions for Funding Sources of Government-Linked Entities The consultation proposes to stop look-through beyond the level of certain government-linked shareholders, including, without limitation, ministries, departments, bureaus, public organizations, independent agencies, and certain state enterprises. The SEC reasons that these entities’ mandates, duties, and funding sources are already subject to government oversight and audit, presenting minimal ownership-structure risk. Practical Implications Licensed securities and digital asset business operators should begin mapping their funding chains under the expanded definition in preparation for filing approval applications for any newly captured funding providers
Read More
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More
March 31, 2026
Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation. The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities. Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability. However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security. New Model for Curriculum Development The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime,
Read More