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

April 5, 2021

Stablecoin Policy Guidelines Issued by Bank of Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

On March 19, 2021, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) issued policy guidelines on how stablecoins are to be regulated. These were issued following the BOT’s recent ruling that stablecoins pegged to the Thai baht violate the Currency Act B.E. 2501 (1958).

Stablecoins were developed to offer a more price-stable alternative to traditional cryptocurrencies, which are defined under Thai law as digital units created to serve as means of exchange for goods, services, or any other rights. As traditional cryptocurrencies (such as Bitcoin) have no underlying assets, they are subject to such extreme fluctuations in value, and therefore people often hold them as investments rather than spend them as currency.

Some stablecoins are pegged to the value of a specific fiat currency, such as the Thai baht, and are sometimes even intentionally created to mirror that fiat currency in name, denomination, and value.  The BOT reasoned that such stablecoins—seemingly created to replace Thai baht currency—violate the Currency Act B.E. 2501 (1958), because the public might incorrectly consider them a parallel baht currency.

The BOT’s subsequent policy guidelines on how stablecoins are to be regulated address both baht-pegged stablecoins and those pegged to other currencies or assets.

Stablecoins pegged to the Thai baht (or “baht-backed stablecoins”) that are intended to be used as a means of payment may be considered electronic money (e-money) under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017), which is regulated by the BOT. This type of stablecoin has similar characteristics and risk factors to existing e-money, for which the BOT has issued regulations governing various aspects such as settlement, money laundering, cybersecurity, and consumer protection. Consequently, business operators who intend to launch baht-backed stablecoins in the Thai market should consult with the BOT before doing so. To support their determination on this issue, the BOT notes that their position is consistent with those of other countries, such as Singapore, the UK, and Japan.

The BOT confirmed that stablecoins pegged to foreign currencies or other assets, including those with value backed by a digital mechanism rather than an asset (i.e., algorithmic stablecoins) are currently unregulated. However, the BOT is studying this topic and is open to receiving comments and feedback before deciding whether and how these stablecoins should be regulated.

The BOT itself is developing a cryptocurrency called a retail-type central bank digital currency (CBDC), similar to Digital Yuan of the People’s Bank of China and other government-developed digital currencies, to be freely used by the general public as a stable exchange of value for goods and services. The BOT believes that, when compared to privately issued stablecoins, a CBDC will be more secure and efficient and can meet the demands of all users and business operators.

Cryptocurrency and stablecoins are now at a regulatory crossroads, with Thai regulators set to determine their future. Conceptually, neither traditional cryptocurrency nor stablecoins are regulated under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Business Operation B.E. 2561 (2018), but businesses related to them are. The recent BOT rulings indicate some skepticism by Thai regulators toward stablecoins—especially those pegged to the Baht—and the possibility that their widespread introduction into Thailand could create a new and unregulated financial ecosystem that adversely impacts the stability of the financial sector, and by extension the country’s economic development. Nevertheless, the BOT well recognizes this technological development and is therefore actively engaging with it.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Capital Markets

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
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
April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More
March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
Read More