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 10, 2026

Thai SEC Proposes Expanding Oversight to Cover Funding Sources of Capital Markets Operators

Subscribe to Updates

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 within the 180-day window established by the notification of the Ministry of Finance. This is particularly relevant for structures involving back-to-back financings, guarantees, or other derivative or structured arrangements that result in a person being, or effectively being, a source of funding to a major shareholder of the licensed operator.

While the proposed amendment does not specify how and to what extent the SEC will review the funding sources and related documentation, licensed operators should conduct detailed due diligence on funding arrangements and counterparties, gather documentation, and potentially renegotiate or restructure arrangements that inadvertently create approval obligations.

Operators whose shareholders rely on ordinary margin credit, repurchase agreements, or loans from Thai banks or BCBS-jurisdiction foreign banks can take comfort in the carve-outs, but the burden of proof lies with the operator. Any funding instrument that resembles equity economically, even if formally documented as debt, may require approval.

The scope of “source of funding” under the proposed amendment is notably broad and may require more detailed definition or interpretation from the SEC. Operators with concerns about definitional ambiguity, such as whether certain indirect funding arrangements fall within the expanded scope, should consider raising these issues during the public hearing stage. The SEC may lessen this ambiguity by issuing supplementary guidance that clarifies:

  • The types of arrangements that constitute indirect funding,
  • Thresholds or materiality standards for triggering approval requirements, and
  • Broader safe harbors for common commercial financing structures that are not intended to confer economic ownership, beyond the specific exemptions currently prescribed in the hearing.

Next Steps

The SEC has compressed the public hearing period to 15 days because the issue is urgent and operators need adequate lead time to comply within the broader 180-day transitional deadline. Operators may submit comments on the proposed expansion by April 22, 2026, and should simultaneously begin internal audits of shareholder funding structures and engage with lenders and counterparties to confirm exemption eligibility or prepare approval filings, as appropriate.

Early engagement with the SEC may help clarify ambiguous arrangements before the rules take effect. Operators can contact us for more information or assistance with submitting comments on their behalf.

Related Professionals

Practices

Capital Markets

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 19, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued a new regulation on material transactions (MTs) to govern asset acquisitions and disposals by listed companies and their subsidiaries. The new notification on MT criteria (No. TorJor. 45/2568) from the Capital Market Supervisory Board replaces the long-standing notification (No. TorJor. 20/2551) that has governed such matters. The SEC has also introduced parallel amendments to the country’s related-party transaction rules. The new regulation will take effect on July 1, 2026. Any MT matters approved by a company’s board of directors for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 20/2551. Following that date, the new MT rules will introduce several significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Expanded Scope of Material Transactions One of the key changes under the new regulation is the expansion of the definition of MTs, which now expressly covers financial assistance and certain lease and business lease arrangements that are not in the ordinary course of business of the listed company or its subsidiaries. For financial assistance, this includes lending, granting credit, providing guarantees, or entering into any arrangement that increases the company’s financial obligations, particularly where the recipient is facing liquidity issues or unable to repay debts. Other forms of financial support also fall within scope. However, whether the provision of collateral for others qualifies as an MT remains somewhat unclear, since no disposal of assets occurs for the provider of collateral. This issue remains to be carefully considered. For lease-related transactions, the MT rules now specifically include the lease or hire-purchase of all or part of a business or assets operated by or belonging to a listed company or its subsidiaries. New Exemptions The new regulation introduces clearer exemptions for transactions between a listed company and its subsidiaries or among subsidiaries, which
Read More
January 16, 2026
As the Thai stock market faces a downturn, Thai investors have shown increased interest in depositary receipts (DRs), which offer the same tax benefits as Thai stocks while providing access to foreign securities. However, recent speculation in the media has raised concerns among regulators and the market, raising questions about whether DR issuers actually hold the underlying foreign securities purported to be backing the DRs. This has brought the structural integrity of DR programs under scrutiny. Why This Question Matters In global practice, DRs are understood to be backed by the foreign securities they reference, giving investors economic exposure that closely mirrors direct ownership. When the issuer does not hold the underlying securities directly, the risk profile shifts to the strength of its custodial, hedging, and liquidity arrangements. Those arrangements determine whether DR holders receive equivalent economic and voting rights, how corporate actions are transmitted, and whether conversions or redemptions can be completed in full and on time. In Thailand, the standardized DR disclosure templates and the express allowance for global custodians indicate a regulatory focus on transparency and structural safeguards that preserve these outcomes, even if the issuer’s name does not appear on the foreign share register. Thai Rules for DR Offerings Thai DR offerings are governed by specific Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notifications and standardized prospectus forms. These instruments establish the disclosure regime for DR structures, risk factors, and the issuer’s arrangements to support the DR program. The framework expressly contemplates the use of a global custodian, indicating that DR issuers are not required to hold the underlying foreign securities directly in their own name if sufficient controls and operational arrangements are in place for the issuer to deliver economic benefits and, where applicable, underlying securities to DR holders when required. More broadly, the relevant SEC
Read More
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