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 23, 2026

Thailand Establishes New Refund Process for Victims of Tech Crimes

Subscribe to Updates

On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare.

Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions

When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system.

Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID.

Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation.

When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements.

Notification and Claims Process

Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally.

Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include the victim’s information, damage amount, refund channel, and supporting evidence. Related persons whose accounts have been frozen may file objections with evidence that the funds are unrelated to the crime.

The claim will be reviewed by a designated transaction committee. Dissatisfied parties may challenge the decision in civil court within 30 days. Once an order becomes final, AMLO will coordinate with police and financial institutions to lift freezes and transfer funds to victims’ designated accounts.

Next Steps

Financial institutions, e-money providers, and digital asset service providers should:

  • Assess their current systems and begin integrating with AMLO’s electronic reporting platform before the mid-August 2026 effective date.
  • Develop internal workflows to respond promptly to AMLO orders to lift freezes and transfer funds within the required 7-day timeframe.
  • Coordinate compliance teams to align technology-crime victim refund processes with existing AML obligations, given that the regulation leverages AMLO’s transaction committee and AML infrastructure.
Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 11, 2025
On June 10, 2025, Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court accepted for consideration a pivotal lawsuit concerning the regulatory obligations of administrative agencies over internet-based television broadcasting services, commonly referred to as over-the-top (OTT) services. This court’s decision in the case may set important precedents for how OTT platforms are regulated, especially regarding consumer protections and advertising practices. Background A user of an OTT television application initiated legal action against the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) and related officials, alleging that the lack of clear regulatory criteria and oversight allowed OTT operators to broadcast general television content while compelling users to view advertisements before and during programming. The plaintiff argued this constituted consumer exploitation and claimed that the responsible authorities neglected or delayed their statutory duties under the Act on the Organization to Assign Radio Frequencies and Regulate Broadcasting, Television, and Telecommunications Services B.E. 2553 (2010). Initially, the Central Administrative Court declined to accept the lawsuit. However, on appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court determined that the claim fell within its jurisdiction, noting that OTT television services—defined under section 4 of the governing act—are subject to the same regulatory framework as traditional television services, regardless of the transmission method (frequency, cable, internet, or other system). Implications for OTT Services The key implications for OTT services concern the following issues: Regulatory oversight: The court recognized that OTT television services are explicitly covered under Thailand’s broadcast regulatory regime. Regulatory agencies may be compelled to establish clear operational rules and oversight mechanisms for OTT providers. Consumer protections: The plaintiff’s claim that excessive or unavoidable in-program advertising constitutes consumer exploitation was acknowledged as a matter of public interest. This may prompt stricter advertising standards for OTT platforms. Licensing requirements: The case raises the prospect that OTT operators may be required to obtain licenses from the
Read More
July 10, 2025
For companies and individuals doing business in Vietnam, a common question is whether electronic signatures (e-signatures) are legally recognized under Vietnamese law. This matter is governed by Law No. 20/2023/QH15 on Electronic Transactions issued on June 22, 2023 (ETL 2023) and its guiding legal documents such as Decree No. 23/2025/ND-CP dated February 21, 2025, and Circular 06/2024/TT-BTTTT dated July 1, 2024 (Circular 06). Recognition of Validity of E-signatures in Vietnam As a general principle, the ETL 2023 confirms that an e-signature cannot be denied legal validity solely due to its electronic form. The law categorizes e-signatures into three types: Type 1: Specialized e-signatures for organizations Type 2: Public digital signatures for individuals and organizations Type 3: Specialized digital signatures for government agencies Among these types, only secure specialized e-signatures (a secure e-signature of type 1) and digital signatures (type 2) are explicitly granted the same legal validity as handwritten (wet) signatures. This distinction is particularly important in legal disputes and for transactions with government agencies. (For more details, please refer to our previous article.) Domestic e-signatures A domestic organization can choose to use secure specialized e-signatures (type 1) and/or digital signatures (type 2) while a Vietnam-based individual can choose digital signatures (type 2) for their transactions—particularly for those involving government agencies and transactions of high value and complexity which require stronger legal protection. Specialized e-signatures (type 1) can be created by the organizations themselves, and additionally must be “secure” to be explicitly recognized as having the same legal validity as handwritten signatures. For clarity, “secure” specialized e-signatures are those certified (granted a safety certificate) by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST). (This was formerly the responsibility of the Ministry of Information and Communications, which was merged with MST under Vietnam’s 2025 administrative restructuring.) Digital signatures (type 2) are
Read More
July 9, 2025
On June 16, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 75/2025/QH15 amending and supplementing a number of articles of the 2012 Advertising Law, with an effective date of January 1, 2026. The amended Advertising Law was enacted to further refine the legal framework for advertising activities in the modern era. Online Advertising Under the amended Advertising Law, “online advertising” is defined to encompass not only advertising on electronic newspapers and electronic information pages (as provided under the 2012 Advertising Law) but also advertising on other electronic venues, including social media, online applications, and digital platforms with internet connection. The amended Advertising Law also imposes new requirements for online advertising, including: Identification signs: Advertisements must have clear identifiable signs in numbers, letters, symbols, images, or sounds to distinguish them from non-advertising content. Control features: For advertisements not in fixed areas, there must be easily recognizable features and icons that allow recipients to turn off the advertisement, notify the service provider of violating advertising content, and refuse to view inappropriate advertising content. Linked content: Content in the links embedded in advertisements must comply with the law. Advertising service providers and publishers must have measures to check and monitor the linked content. Advertising on social media: Organizations and enterprises providing social media services must offer users features to distinguish advertising content from other content. Signage for sponsored content: When advertising, users of social media services must use signs to differentiate advertising or sponsored content from other content they provide. In response to the above requirements for online advertising, the amended Advertising Law sets out obligations of advertisers, advertising service providers, advertising publishers, and advertising conveyors in relation to online advertising. Among these, it is notably the responsibility of individuals and organizations engaging in online advertising to prevent and remove violating
Read More
July 2, 2025
On June 27, 2025, Vietnam’s National Assembly adopted a Resolution on International Financial Centers in Vietnam (“IFC Resolution”), which is set to take effect September 1, 2025, putting forward major policy breakthroughs on multiple fronts. The IFC Resolution has the goal of turning Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang into leading international financial centers with autonomy and tools to compete, thereby raising Vietnam’s position in the global financial network, in association with economic growth drivers. Below are some of the key points of the IFC Resolution, which has notable changes from previous drafts (see our articles on Vietnam’s Draft Resolution on Financial Centers: Implications for Fintech and Banking and Vietnam’s Emerging Regulatory Landscape for Blockchain and Cryptocurrency), including: The removal of the Central Supervisory Agency. The addition of a definition of international financial centers, which are specific geographic areas in Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang with members entitled to special policies. The addition of a list of entities eligible for membership, and entitlement to the special policies. Major Policy Breakthroughs The IFC Resolution introduces specific policies in the following areas: Liberalization of foreign exchange control for members, including policies such as open foreign exchange use between members and exemption from foreign exchange control procedures for 100% foreign-owned members. Specialized licensing for members to establish and operate single-member limited liability banks and foreign bank branches with the ability to apply accounting standards, debt classification, risk provisions, and prudential ratios according to the owner’s policies. Creation of a capital market for innovative startups, including a crowdfunding mechanism or private placement mechanism through a licensed platform, and development of a green finance market with green certification. Creation of a regulatory sandbox for fintech technologies, products, services, and business models not yet prescribed by law, offering exemption from compliance with
Read More