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

June 19, 2025

Thailand Drafts AI Risk Management Guidelines for Financial Service Providers

Subscribe to Updates

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released draft guidelines establishing principles for managing artificial intelligence (AI) risks in the financial sector. The draft guidelines provide a structured framework for the responsible adoption of AI technologies. Financial service providers will be able to use the guidelines as a reference to appropriately manage their risks in a manner that aligns with internationally recognized best practices.

The BOT is accepting public comments on the draft guidelines until June 30, 2025.

Scope and Application

The draft guidelines apply to all financial service providers, including financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act, as well as payment providers under the Payment Systems Act. These guidelines supplement existing BOT risk management guidelines covering IT risk management, third-party risk management, data governance, and market conduct.

The guidelines define AI systems as systems that mimic human intelligence, including machine learning, deep learning, generative AI (such as large language models), and agentic AI. This definition specifically excludes rule-based automation systems like robotic process automation and condition matching.

Key Risk Management Principles

The guidelines lay out two main principles in managing AI risk.

  1. Governance: Financial service providers should define and establish clear roles and responsibilities for their personnel and AI system supervision structures to uphold FEAT (fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency) principles as follows:
    • Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Financial service providers should define roles and responsibilities for boards and executives on AI risk oversight. Responsibilities include establishing an AI system usage policy, designating personnel responsible for AI risk management, and building awareness of AI-related risk within the organization.
    • AI system usage policy. The AI system usage policy should be aligned with organizational objectives, regulatory requirements, and FEAT principles. These policies should be reviewed regularly to respond to technological advancements and evolving risk profiles.
    • Risk management throughout the AI lifecycle. Risk management should encompass the entire AI lifecycle, from establishing risk appetite to implementing continuous risk assessment and control measures tailored to specific use cases. When AI systems are used in strategic functions or customer interactions (e.g., loan approval, account opening), human oversight must be integrated into decision-making processes. In customer interactions with AI systems, customers should be notified and have options to disable or bypass AI features.
  1. Development and security controls: Financial service providers should have risk controls covering the AI development and deployment lifecycle as follows:
    • Data risk. Financial service providers should have measures to assess and ensure the quality, accuracy, currency, volume, and diversity of data used in AI model training. They should also implement data leakage prevention measures.
    • Model development risk. Financial service providers should have (1) clear evaluation metrics for assessing model accuracy and reliability through ongoing testing and monitoring both before and after deployment and (2) measures to ensure the explainability of AI outcomes. For generative AI applications, there should be specific measures to reduce AI hallucination risks.
    • Cybersecurity risk. Financial service providers should have measures to prevent and detect emerging cyber threats targeting AI systems, based on established standards such as the OWASP Machine Learning Security Top 10.

For more details on any aspect of fintech, technology, and cybersecurity in Thailand, please contact Athistha Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], Pornpan Wichawut at [email protected], Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected], or Rujaporn Paritsantik at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 10, 2024
In recent years, Thailand has witnessed a significant transformation in its financial landscape, particularly in the rapid adoption of financial technology (fintech). At the forefront of this evolution are electronic payment systems and services, which have revolutionized how individuals and businesses conduct financial transactions. This transformation has been driven by both traditional financial institutions and alternative financial service operators. Overseeing this dynamic landscape are two primary regulators: the Bank of Thailand (BOT) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This article explores the development of electronic payment systems in Thailand, with a particular focus on the Payment Systems Act (PSA) of 2017 and its role in shaping the fintech ecosystem. Payment Systems Act In October 2017, Thailand took a significant step forward in regulating its burgeoning electronic payment sector by adopting the Payment Systems Act. This landmark legislation was designed to create and ensure electronic payment system stability and enhance consumer protection in the digital financial realm. The PSA establishes a comprehensive framework by categorizing electronic payment businesses into two main categories: payment systems and payment services. Electronic Payment Systems under the PSA The PSA recognizes two types of electronic payment systems that require specific licenses or registration: Central or network systems. These include systems that act as a center or network between service users for fund transfers, clearing, or settlement. Examples include: Inter-institution Fund Transfer System Payment card networks Settlement systems Systems of public interest. This category encompasses any other payment systems that may affect public interest, public confidence, or the stability and security of the payment infrastructure. Electronic Payment Services under the PSA The PSA also identifies several electronic payment services that require specific licenses or registration: Credit cards, debit cards, and ATM cards Electronic money E-payments Acquisition Payment facilitation Receipt of payment on behalf of others
Read More
August 29, 2024
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has revised its regulations on digital asset operators and exchanges to impose stricter governance standards on digital asset business operators and to align digital asset exchange rules with international standards. The new regulations are laid out in SEC Notification No. GorThor. 23/2567 on the Criteria, Conditions, and Procedures for Operating a Digital Asset Business (No. 24) and SEC Notification No. GorLorThor. 24/2567 on Determination of Prohibited Qualifications for Directors and Executives of Digital Asset Business Operators (No. 5). These were published in the Government Gazette on August 16, 2024, with most of the provisions taking effect on the same date. Governance for Digital Asset Businesses The heightened standards for digital asset business operators aim to ensure efficient business supervision and appropriate response to operational risks. The new requirements mainly address: Board of directors composition. Large-sized digital asset business operators (i.e., those with at least 10,000 customers and holding customer assets of at least THB 500 million) who do not provide digital asset custodian services must have at least five directors, at least two of whom must be independent directors. In addition, the business operators must establish an audit committee, with at least two members being independent directors, to create an appropriate “check and balance” mechanism within the organizational structure. Current digital asset business operators must comply with the requirements within 180 days of the notification’s effective date. Qualifications of authorized directors and managers. Authorized directors and managers are now required to (1) either have at least one year of working experience in the digital asset field or have participated in a digital asset course from an SEC-approved list, and (2) participate in a good corporate governance course recognized by the SEC. Current authorized directors and managers who have not previously completed a good
Read More
August 26, 2024
On August 13, 2024, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification on the Criteria for Personal Data Deletion, Destruction, and De-identification in the Government Gazette, taking effect on November 11, 2024. Most of the content remains unchanged from the June 2024 draft of the legislation that was released for public comment. Only minor amendments have been made, as outlined below: Data controllers must respond to data subjects’ requests to delete, destroy, or de-identify personal data, including any copies or backups, without delay and within 90 days of receiving the request. This timeframe has been extended from the previous draft, which allowed only 60 days. In deleting, destroying, or de-identifying personal data, the data controller must ensure that no one is able to recover or reverse personal data to enable the direct or indirect identification of the data subject by any means that could reasonably be expected. If the data controller cannot fulfill the request within the 90-day period, it must take measures to ensure that the personal data is made difficult to collect, use, or disclose until the personal data can be deleted, destroyed, or de-identified according to the notification. In such cases, appropriate organizational, technical, and physical measures must be implemented to protect the data, meeting the criteria set forth by the notification. One newly added provision allows data controllers to delete, destroy, or de-identify a data subject’s personal data using a different method than the one requested by the data subject, provided they inform the data subject of the alternative method. However, this is not allowed when the data subject exercises this right on the grounds that the personal data has been unlawfully collected, used or processed, and there are no grounds to reject the request. In relation to the de-identification or anonymization of personal
Read More
August 23, 2024
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amended its utility token supervisory framework by issuing seven notifications that came into effect on August 13, 2024. Ready-to-use utility tokens (tokens that can be used immediately to acquire specific goods or services), which were previously unregulated, are now subject to the supervisory scheme set forth by the seven new notifications in both primary and secondary markets. This is intended to provide an investor protection mechanism that responds to the characteristics, risks, and usage of the different types of ready-to-use utility tokens. Under the new notifications, ready-to-use utility tokens are categorized into two groups. These are detailed below. Group 1 Utility Tokens Group 1 utility tokens include ready-to-use utility tokens issued for consumption purposes or as a digital representation of a certificate. Examples include loyalty points, digital movie or concert tickets, NFTs, and carbon credits, among others. Principally, there is no change in the regulation of group 1 utility tokens under the new notifications. In the primary market, issuance of this type of token is not subject to the initial coin offering (ICO) requirements. In the secondary market, providing services related to group 1 utility tokens is not considered to be the same as operating a digital asset business with licensing requirements under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). Licensed digital asset operators (including exchanges, brokers, and dealers) are not permitted to list or trade group 1 utility tokens. To provide services in relation to group 1 utility tokens, these licensed digital asset operators must establish a separate entity to provide those services and must not use names or messages that could cause the public to misunderstand that the separate entity is engaged in a digital asset business under SEC supervision. Group 2 Utility Tokens Group 2 utility tokens
Read More