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

September 19, 2016

Regulation of Domestic Debit Card Transactions in Thailand

Asian Banking & Finance

Back in 2012, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission issued regulations that mandated domestic processing of domestic debit card transactions with debit cards issued in Thailand. It granted a grace period of one year for service providers to meet the new requirements. This was a policy goal that had been discussed and pursued for some time, with policymakers highlighting the cost savings that would be yielded by domestic processing, rather than offshore processing.

New regulations were issued in March 2016, which were published in the Government Gazette  in April. The changes in those regulations in relation to processing domestic debit card transactions mainly provided greater specificity and rules around outsourcing and requests for temporary exemptions from parts of the regulations.

More recently, in July, amendments were made to the regulations, and these were published in the Government Gazette  in August. Among other things, the new regulations refer to a chip card standard for debit cards, and they state that the standard is to be issued and imposed by the Bank of Thailand through discussions with the Thai Bankers’ Association, the Association of International Banks in Thailand, and the Council of State-Owned Financial Institutions.

Financial institutions that issue debit cards will be required to issue cards meeting this chip card standard, and the cards must be issued to use debit card networks in Thailand, unless an issuer utilizes its own system for processing the transactions. The regulations also affect consumer protection, in that they require issuers to provide users with information and details about the costs of each type of debit card that is sufficient, clear, and correct, so that users can use the service properly for their own purposes.

Where an issuer issues a card that is accepted on more than one network, at least one of those networks must be a domestic debit card network. In working with multiple networks, regulations require an issuer to observe its agreements and take account of the principle of equality.

The regulations also impose new obligations on acquirers. Specifically, they are required to have equipment and systems to accept debit cards that meet the aforementioned chip card standard and that utilize local debit card networks. Importantly, acquirers are prohibited from restricting the rights of merchants to use any debit card networks. They are also required to provide merchants with clear and accurate information on fees and services. In addition, where multi-network cards are processed, an acquirer must not charge any additional fees other than those for the network that is actually used.

Aside from issuers and acquirers, the regulations also set out additional requirements for service providers that provide switching service, clearing service, and settlement service. These service providers are required to arrange their systems to support debit cards on all debit card networks or to connect their systems with those of other service providers that provide switching, clearing, and settlement. In relation to cards that can be accepted on multiple networks, a service provider must not interfere with a merchant’s right to select a debit card network.

The new requirements are to be enforced from February next year. Consistent with earlier regulations, if an issuer or acquirer is unable to meet the new requirements, it can apply to the Bank of Thailand for additional time to come into compliance—up to an additional 180 days.  Also, for those cards issued prior to enforcement of the new requirements, they can continue to be used, but the issuer will eventually need to replace them with cards meeting the chip card standard by December 31, 2019.

These regulations follow an earlier announcement by the Bank of Thailand in May of this year that commercial banks in Thailand would, from May 16 onward, issue cards in conformity with the “Thai Bank Chip Card Standard,” which was established by the Thai Bankers’ Association. Last year, China UnionPay issued press releases about entering into a Chip Card Standard License Agreement with the Thai Bankers’ Association, which contemplated the adoption of China UnionPay’s chip card standard as “the standard of Thailand’s banking industry.” China UnionPay became a member of EMVCo in 2013, thus joining Visa, MasterCard, American Express, JCB, and Discover in the consortium that manages EMV standards (the technical standard for such chips). However, much has also been written about the compatibility problems between China UnionPay’s version of EMV, and the versions of EMV used by other card schemes such as MasterCard and Visa.

In referring to the chip card standard, the new regulations do not make specific reference to the China UnionPay standard, or any particular standard, for that matter. Moreover, in referring to the development of the chip card standard, the regulations make reference not only to discussions with the Thai Bankers’ Association, but also to the Association of International Banks in Thailand and the Council of State-Owned Financial Institutions, which is quite broad consultation.

China UnionPay is a major shareholder in Thailand Payment Network Co., Ltd. (TPN), established in 2014, which is one of the small number of companies that have been granted licenses necessary for providing switching and clearing services for domestic debit card transactions in Thailand. One can now see some debit cards issued by Bangkok Bank—the other major shareholder in TPN—that bear TPN branding, together with China UnionPay branding. In essence, TPN will compete with National ITMX Co., Ltd., which is owned by ten major banks in Thailand and has been providing local debit card switching services for some years.

As it now stands, most banks in Thailand issue Visa and MasterCard debit cards, each with EMV chips. It remains to be seen whether TPN and China UnionPay will become popular.  Customers like Visa and MasterCard because of their ease of acceptance, particularly when traveling overseas. In contrast, TPN has positioned itself as a low-cost provider for local transactions, which it says should enable merchants to accept TPN branded-cards for small transactions. Ultimately, more competition in the processing of domestic debit card transactions is good for merchants. Indeed, this has already prompted several banks to reduce their fees for debit card transactions. Thailand’s electronic payments landscape continues to excite.

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
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
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)
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