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​ 

July 12, 2023
On June 30, 2023, Vietnam’s Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) issued Circular No. 06/2003/TT-BTTTT to provide implementing guidelines for Decree 71 on editing, ratings, and warnings for video on demand (VOD) sports and entertainment content provided over radio and TV services. Circular 06 will take effect on August 15, 2023. Because Decree 71 allows VOD providers to self-edit and self-rate this type of content, it is important for them to know how the process is regulated in order to fully comply before providing VOD sports and entertainment programs to Vietnamese users. Under Circular 06, radio and TV service providers are required to display ratings and warnings on their programs, following the principles set out in the circular. These service providers must also compile dossiers in a stipulated form on the editing, ratings, and warnings of their programs for reporting to the authority and inspection. The main contents of Circular 06 are as follows. 1. Content Editing The main principles for editing VOD sports and entertainment programs include: Protection of children and other vulnerable people from inappropriate or potentially harmful content. Removal of all illegal/prohibited content, as well as content related to controversial issues or issues not recognized by Vietnamese law. Removal of content or dialogue that disparages the origins of others or makes fun of others’ physical weaknesses, and content that is contrary to Vietnamese culture, morality and fine customs and traditions; Removal of programs if it is discovered during the editing process that in the program or at the venue of the event, there are images or activities violating the prohibitions of the law, violating Vietnamese fine customs and traditions, or containing sensitive political elements. In addition to compliance with the above-mentioned principles, sports and entertainment programs related to health, education, and online gaming must additionally meet
Read More
July 11, 2023
Can computer programs resolve legal disputes? For decades, the answer from much of the legal community has been no. However, developments in artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular natural language processing and machine learning, have led to renewed discussions of this possibility. Increasingly, tools are being developed to assist parties with litigation outcome prediction and judges with litigation outcome determination. However, while some argue that the use of AI in legal disputes can reduce the length of proceedings, cut costs, and improve access to justice, others raise concerns that “black box” AI systems could reduce transparency, entrench bias, and harm the development of the law. Litigation Outcome Prediction The use of computers to predict the outcome of legal cases is not new. As early as the 1980s, researchers developed outcome prediction tools, often in the form of decision-tree algorithms. However, developments in AI have allowed the creation of more sophisticated prediction models. In 2017, a model built by Katz et al. predicted US Supreme Court decisions with an accuracy of 70.2%, while in 2019, a model built by Medvedeva et al. predicted decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with an accuracy of 75%. In various studies, AI tools have been able to predict case outcomes more accurately than expert lawyers. Companies such as Solomonic and Lex Machina, owned by LexisNexis, now provide commercial litigation prediction and analytics tools. Outcome prediction tools can be used by parties and their legal representatives to craft arguments and facilitate settlement negotiations, or by third-party litigation financers to assess the risk of providing funding. More broadly, outcome prediction may be used by the likes of insurance companies to help calculate claim payouts. However, those using such tools must take care to ensure that they do not breach any professional or legal obligations.
Read More
July 10, 2023
One of the more positive outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic is that telemedicine has become remarkably important as an interactive system between patients and healthcare professionals. Thailand, which ranks near the top as a world medical hub, is a highly favored destination in Asia for expat workers. Currently, the Thai market has both Thai-based and foreign-based platforms with information about healthcare providers and telemedicine readily available. “Doctor Locator,” “Weed Map,” and “Find a Teeth Aligner Dentist” are examples of online platforms connecting patients with medical and telemedicine services. These digital platforms provide information about the location of specialized clinics, cannabis dispensaries, pharmacy stores, and orthodontic practitioners in Thailand. These platforms act as intermediaries between medical care businesses and consumers. As actual medical services are not offered or provided, these digital platforms do not have to be regulated under the Medical Facility Act of Thailand. However, healthcare digital platform services that act as an intermediary or conduit managing information used to connect medical clinics or cannabis dispensaries with patients or customers via a computer network are now regulated under the soon-to-be-implemented Royal Decree on Digital Platforms, regardless of whether payment is actually made via the platform. The regulatory authority for this is the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA). Under this royal decree, digital platform providers that intend to operate a digital platform service must notify the ETDA prior to initiating operations. The extent of the details to be included in the notification to the ETDA will be more comprehensive if the digital platform: has annual revenue (before expenses) for digital platform services within Thailand exceeding THB 1.8 million (approx. USD 51,200) for an individual operator or THB 50 million (approx. USD 1.42 million) for a corporate or entity operator; or has more than 5,000 users (on average) per month. Apart
Read More
June 26, 2023
Vietnam’s Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) organized a workshop with industry representatives on June 19, 2023, to discuss its future policy direction for over-the-top (OTT) telecom services and internet data center (IDC) and cloud computing services. OTT telecom services, in the MIC’s interpretation, are communication services such as text messages or voice calls provided over the internet—for example, the services of Zalo, WhatsApp, WeChat, etc. The workshop, the first in an expected series, focused only on the discussion of policy on how to regulate these services. Light-Touch Management Approach A very positive signal of the MIC in the workshop was its clear intention to apply a “light-touch” approach to management. For cross-border provision of OTT telecom services and IDC/cloud computing services, the MIC intends to require notification and a post-check mechanism, instead of a heavy licensing or commercial arrangement regime like the one applicable to traditional telecom services. In addition, there is no limitation on foreign investment if foreigners would like to provide these services in Vietnam. With regard to domestic service providers, the MIC proposes a registration regime with a similar post-check mechanism. The MIC’s reason for registration instead of notification is because the provision of these services by domestic companies may involve setting up data center/cloud systems which require consideration of various issues including location, electricity sources, and connection with telecom infrastructure such as marine cable. However, the MIC is also hoping to make the registration process as light as possible for enterprises (for example, using online registration) to provide a favorable environment and conditions to facilitate development of the industry without obstacles or cumbersome administrative procedures for companies’ operations. For providers of these services, the MIC is also considering an exemption from the responsibility to pay fees for telecommunications activities rights, and from payment to
Read More