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​ 

March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
Read More
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
Read More
February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
Read More
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
Read More