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

February 19, 2026

Thai SEC Issues New Regulation on Related-Party Transactions

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has overhauled its approach to related-party transactions (RPTs) by issuing new rules that simplify approval processes while expanding oversight. Capital Market Supervisory Board Notification No. TorJor. 46/2568 will replace the longstanding Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551, which has governed RPT compliance for over a decade.

The new regulation takes effect on July 1, 2026. Any RPT matters approved by a company’s board of directors or approved for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551.

The new RPT rules will introduce significant changes that market participants should carefully consider.

Consolidated Definitions

Under the previous framework, key definitions relevant to RPT compliance were dispersed across multiple sources, including SEC notifications, Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) regulations, and provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act (before amendments).

The new regulation consolidates these definitions into a single notification. Concepts such as “related party” and “connected person,” as well as relevant transaction categories, are now more systematically organized and written in greater detail.

The SET has yet to issue corresponding regulations, which should include more detailed related disclosure requirements.

Unified Threshold and Mandatory Board Approval

The most significant change under the new regulation is the elimination of the multitiered approval framework based on transaction type. Instead of various categories, transactions are now classified as either (1) financial assistance provided to related persons, or (2) other RPTs in order to determine the level of corporate approvals and disclosures for each transaction size in these categories, but the concept remains the same.

Under the previous regulation, RPTs were divided into small, medium, and large transactions, with differing approval requirements. The new regulation effectively merges the small and medium categories. As a result, all RPTs must now be approved by the board of directors as a baseline requirement—a change from such approval not being required for small transactions under Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551.

Shareholder approval remains required if the transaction size reaches the prescribed threshold, which is largely unchanged from the previous regulation.

The minority veto mechanism, six-month progress reporting requirements, inclusion of updates in the Form 56-1 One Report, and parent-subsidiary dual approval exemption apply in the same manner as under the new material transaction rules issued by the SEC.

Expanded Aggregation Scope

While the past six-month transaction aggregation period remains unchanged, the new regulation expands the scope of persons whose transactions must be aggregated.

The previous regulation required companies to aggregate transactions with the same related party—including that party’s related persons and close relatives. The new regulation expands this requirement. Where the related party is a juristic person, companies must now also aggregate transactions involving the related party’s controlling persons and major shareholders, as well as any related persons and close relatives of those individuals.

Parent-Subsidiary Dual Approval Exemption

Similar to the new material transaction framework, where a subsidiary that is also a listed company fully complies with the RPT requirements, the parent listed company is not required to separately comply for the same transaction.

While this provision is intended to streamline compliance within corporate groups, it raises an important practical issue. The determination of “related persons” is company-specific and can differ from the perspective of each entity. For example, a person who qualifies as a related person of the parent may not be a related person of the subsidiary, and vice versa.

Without further clarification, this may cause potential gaps in shareholder protection, such as where approval by the subsidiary’s shareholders may not address conflicts that exist for different shareholders at the parent level, and where individuals who would be considered interested persons at the parent level may not be required to abstain from voting at the subsidiary level.

Companies and their advisors should consider whether additional safeguards or voluntary disclosures may be appropriate in situations where the related person relationship exists at the parent level but not at the subsidiary level. We anticipate that the SEC may provide further clarification or guidance on this matter.

Next Steps

Market participants should review related party identification processes, approval procedures, and transaction monitoring systems to align with the revised definitions, calculation methods, and aggregation requirements.

Given the scope of the amendments, further clarification from the SEC is expected. A formal guideline is likely to be issued, and both the SEC and the SET are expected to hold seminars to explain the new compliance framework in more detail. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as further clarification becomes available.

Related Professionals

Practices

Capital Markets

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions
Read More
April 10, 2026
Following Thailand’s recent expansion of the “major shareholder” definition for securities and digital asset businesses, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched a public hearing on April 7, 2026, on expanding the major shareholder definition further to cover funding sources behind share acquisitions in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. The public hearing will remain open for 15 days from the launch date, after which the proposed expansion is expected to take effect promptly so that operators can comply with both the earlier and additional requirements within the 180-day transitional period under the earlier regulations. Funding Sources Captured Under Control-Based Test Under the draft rules, persons who fund direct or indirect major shareholders’ acquisition of shares in a licensed operator would be deemed “controlling persons” and subject to SEC approval as major shareholders. This extends beyond traditional lenders to include guarantors, counterparties to derivatives or structured products, and any arrangement that results in a person being, directly or indirectly, a source of funding to a major shareholder. The SEC proposes to exempt three categories of funding arrangements from approval: Loans from Thai licensed financial institutions or BCBS (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision)-jurisdiction foreign banks; Margin loans for securities trading under Thai securities law; and Repurchase agreements under Thai securities law. Exemptions for Funding Sources of Government-Linked Entities The consultation proposes to stop look-through beyond the level of certain government-linked shareholders, including, without limitation, ministries, departments, bureaus, public organizations, independent agencies, and certain state enterprises. The SEC reasons that these entities’ mandates, duties, and funding sources are already subject to government oversight and audit, presenting minimal ownership-structure risk. Practical Implications Licensed securities and digital asset business operators should begin mapping their funding chains under the expanded definition in preparation for filing approval applications for any newly captured funding providers
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
March 31, 2026
Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation. The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities. Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability. However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security. New Model for Curriculum Development The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime,
Read More