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

May 9, 2025

Thai SEC Eases Rules on Fundraising, but Risks Remain

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently amended its regulation on the definition of professional investors, which aids in the issuance of notes to broader private funds by not requiring looking through to the qualifications of the actual investors. However, issuers of notes will still need to take care to comply with existing regulations.

Notes under the Thai Regulatory Framework

The topic of promissory notes was recently in the Thai news after being raised in a no-confidence debate against the government, so this is a fitting time to review the use of notes (in particular bills of exchange and promissory notes) as commonly used financial tools for lending in commercial transactions. These instruments serve as a means of debt settlement and can also be used for fundraising purposes. When using notes, issuers must consider not only tax laws but also fundraising regulations under the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992).

The SEC has classified notes issued to raise funds from more than 10 persons as securities requiring approval from the SEC and an effective filing of a prospectus, with certain exemptions. These exemptions include instances that are not considered “public fundraising,” such as notes issued:

  • For debt settlement,
  • For management of cash flow, which is common in commercial transactions,
  • As evidence for lending within group companies (intragroup issuance), or
  • For lending from financial institutions.

In addition, private placement of notes is another route considered as having been deemed approved (i.e., not requiring an approval process if the required criteria have been met) and may be exempt from filing requirements, depending on the types of investors being offered notes.

Private placement includes offering notes with a minimum face value of THB 10 million for each and maturity not exceeding 270 days from the issue date to professional investors, which will be considered as having been deemed approved, with a filing exemption for foreign professional investors and only minimal disclosure required for Thai professional investors. Professional investors are limited to persons specified in the SEC Notification No. GorJor. 39/2564.

Recent Regulatory Amendment

Prior to the regulatory amendment from the SEC, professional investors included private funds with look-through criteria ensuring that the actual investors were qualified, being financial institutions or having financial status equivalent to ultra-high-net-worth or high-net-worth investors.

The regulatory amendment that came into force May 1, 2025, amended SEC Notification No. GorJor. 39/2564 to simply designate private funds as one of the specified types of professional investors, eliminating the need to scrutinize the actual investors. The SEC considers fund managers as possessing the necessary expertise and a fiduciary duty to manage investments appropriately on behalf of their clients, making additional look-through requirements unnecessary. This can better accommodate issuance of notes to private funds without requiring another layer of scrutiny of funds’ beneficial owners, which can also apply to both domestic and international private funds.

This regulatory change makes funding more accessible for issuers, as private funds alone can be considered professional investors, making them qualified for private placements. This approach aligns more closely with standard loans, facilitates shorter negotiations by eliminating the need for detailed loan agreements, and allows for commercially agreeable terms with private funds through the issuance of notes.

Related Professionals

Practices

Capital Markets

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 1, 2025
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
Read More
July 2, 2025
On June 17, 2025, Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance issued Instruction No. 18574 on Tax Obligations for Share Premiums to clarify that enterprises are not required to pay any income tax on share premiums that meet the conditions set out in the instruction. As outlined in the relevant provisions of the Law on Taxation (Royal Kram No. NS/RKM/0523/004) and Prakas No. 578 MEF.PrK.GDT on Tax on Income, taxable income is the difference between an asset’s value at the beginning and end of a period. This calculation deducts capital contributions, which are not taxable. A share premium is the amount of money that a company receives in excess of the par value of a share when the company issues new shares to a shareholder through a share subscription. In other words, share premiums are capital contributions made by shareholders into the equity of the company and, as a result, are not taxable. However, the government may nevertheless view share premiums as taxable if the company fails to meet certain legal conditions. Cambodian law requires share subscriptions to be properly recorded in the company’s accounting books and supported by documentary evidence. The recent instruction states that if an enterprise does not have proper documentation, any increase in equity, such as a capital increase through share premiums, will be treated as taxable income in accordance with the law. The instruction provides the following example: Enterprise A issues 200,000 new shares to an investor. The shares were registered with a par value of KHR 4,000 per share and were sold for a sale price of KHR 10,000 per share. The share premium of KHR 1.2 billion, which is calculated by subtracting the total par value (KHR 800 million) from the total value of the new capital (KHR 2 billion), is a capital
Read More
May 28, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins attorneys in Vietnam have contributed the 2025 edition of Doing Business in Vietnam, a comprehensive Q&A-style resource from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that provides essential insights for companies navigating business operations in Vietnam. The guide presents a detailed overview of the country’s legal framework and regulatory environment, reflecting recent updates in Vietnamese legislation and practice. This annually updated guide offers key information on the following areas: Legal system: Structure of the Vietnamese judiciary and the role of codified law. Foreign investment: Conditions for market access, licensing requirements, foreign ownership restrictions, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Formation and operation of legal entities, including limited liability companies, joint-stock companies, and representative offices. Employment: Employment contracts, social insurance, labor rights, and procedures for hiring foreign nationals. Tax: Overview of corporate income tax, personal income tax, value-added tax, and other tax obligations. Intellectual property: Procedures for protecting and enforcing patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other IP rights. Data protection: Compliance requirements under Vietnam’s data privacy laws, including the Personal Data Protection Decree. Competition law: Antitrust rules and regulatory oversight under the Law on Competition. Anti-bribery and corruption: Legal framework and enforcement practices aimed at curbing corrupt activities. E-commerce and digital business: Regulations governing online platforms, digital content, and cross-border services. Marketing and advertising: Laws and guidelines on advertising standards and consumer protection. Product regulation and liability: Safety requirements, product liability issues, and roles of relevant authorities. Doing Business in Vietnam is part of Practical Law’s global series of legal guides designed to support international practitioners and businesses. To access the most recent edition of the Vietnam guide, visit the Practical Law website and sign up for a free trial.
Read More