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

January 11, 2013

Regulation of Investment Advisors in Thailand

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Many people in Thailand are now focused on their personal investments. Investors want to know the products in which to invest and how to plan their finances. They are therefore increasingly turning to investment advisors. Given the increasing demand for these services, it is worthwhile to examine how investment advisors are regulated.

The Securities and Exchange Act includes investment advisory services within the scope of the securities business, which is subject to regulation by the Finance Ministry and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Act defines “investment advisory service” as giving advice to the public, whether directly or indirectly, about the value of securities or the suitability of investing in those securities and the purchase or sale of any securities, for a fee or other remuneration. Specific SEC notifications may specify ways in which advice can or cannot be given.

Subject to certain exceptions, the law stipulates that securities business can be undertaken only by a limited or a public limited company, or by a financial institution established under other laws, and holding a license granted by the finance minister, on the SEC’s recommendation.

The licensing process is rigorous. The applicant must show the SEC that it meets all relevant requirements, such as not having financial hardship or any deficiencies in necessary controls and sound business conduct. The applicant must also show how it will maintain capital funds and set aside reserve capital as required.

The licensing process also gives consideration to the characteristics of the major shareholder(s) and any director, manager, or person with managerial authority. For example, such managerial personnel must not be or have been bankrupt, nor imprisoned by a final judgment for an offense related to property.

A securities company must comply with the rules, conditions, and procedures specified in the notification of the Capital Markets Supervisory Board. The board may also specify fees and/or service charges that the company may charge its customers.

Once licensed, the company’s appointment of personnel to perform the duties of analyzing investments and giving investment advice is subject to SEC approval. Such investor contacts must meet criteria with respect to education, experience, and/or examination requirements. As with management personnel, investor contacts must have good character. They must not have any record of deceitful, fraudulent, or dishonest management of assets or any improper behavior that materially affected any clients, investors, companies, shareholders, or the money or capital market as a whole. The relevant regulations go into greater depth as to the specifics.

The company must also have in place systems that demonstrate its readiness to undertake the business, including internal controls for the giving of advice and a system for monitoring investments of the advisory company and its employees. It must also have a compliance supervisor in charge of rules related to prevention of conflicts of interest and internal controls as well as to supervise investor contacts for compliance with the law, notifications, and standards of professional conduct.

An investment advisory company, in contacting and soliciting clients, must prepare client information and take into account each client’s investment objectives, knowledge, and understanding related to investment, acceptable risks, and other factors when providing expertise. An agreement to provide advisory services must specify the client’s right to receive clear and sufficient information relating to the provision of those services.

Any term or condition that may cause any conflict of interest between the client and the advisory company and its related persons requires the client’s consent. Advisors must disclose the information necessary for making investment decisions sufficiently and within an appropriate period of time. In this regard, the information must be correct and up to date and must not have any characteristics that mislead or distort facts. There are also extensive record-keeping requirements.

The company must also maintain a system for handling complaints about services promptly and must fulfill reporting obligations to the SEC.

Collateral and/or liquid assets must also be maintained to compensate customers for damage arising from incorrect or incomplete performance of the advisory service. This can include, for example, an insurance policy, a letter of guarantee issued by a financial institution, or other collateral as prescribed by the SEC.

In brief, Thai investment advisors are subject to a robust regulatory regime, which features substantial protection for investors. But it is important to bear in mind that SEC regulations provide a number of exceptions and additional requirements. Derivatives advisors are also subject to a regulatory regime, analogous to the above, when advising on derivatives.

Anyone intending to provide investment advisory services or giving advice on derivatives in Thailand should consult counsel to ensure compliance with applicable laws. As for individual investors, they should make certain they are doing business with licensed advisors so that they benefit from the SEC’s protection.

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