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

March 10, 2026

Thailand Expands “Major Shareholder” Definition for Securities and Digital Asset Businesses

Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets.

Expanded Definition

Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder.

Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution

For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder.

First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier shareholders of an entity that directly holds more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company (or where an entity holds 100% or nearly 100% in the layer above), and (2) ultimate shareholders holding more than 50% of the voting rights at each level of an unbroken ownership chain. These approaches reflect the previous application of the shareholding-based test.

Second, the SEC will apply a pro rata calculation to identify ultimate beneficial owners whose effective economic interests in the regulated entity exceed 10%, even where no single tier holds more than 50% of the voting rights. This proportional attribution method increases transparency in complex multilayered ownership structures and reduces the risk of circumvention through dispersed shareholdings. The calculation method will significantly broaden the pool of persons deemed major shareholders under the new rules.

Control-Based Test Adds New Trigger

In addition to the shareholding-based test, the amendments introduce a separate control-based test under which a person may qualify as a major shareholder.

Under the separate control-based test, shareholders will be deemed “major” if they possess the authority to appoint or remove at least half of the company’s board of directors or control a majority of votes at shareholder meetings, regardless of the basis for such authority. This provision captures persons who may hold relatively small equity stakes but nevertheless exercise significant influence over the company’s management or decision-making.

Attribution to Related Persons

In determining whether the major shareholder threshold is met, the SEC will aggregate shareholdings and control among spouses (including de facto partners), minor children, and persons acting in concert. Licensed operators must exercise reasonable efforts to review relevant relationships and identify such arrangements to ensure that all shareholders and controlling persons captured under the new framework are submitted for SEC approval.

Transition and Compliance Timeline

Persons who were approved as major shareholders under the previous regulations are deemed approved under the revised framework. However, where a person newly falls within the expanded definition, the licensed operator must file an application with the SEC for approval of that person as a major shareholder within 180 days of February 21, 2026 (conservatively, August 19, 2026).

For changes involving major shareholders by any action rather than as a result of these amendments, the application must be filed no later than 14 days after the licensed operator becomes aware, or has reason to know, that the person qualifies as a major shareholder under the expanded definition. For newly issued shares, licensed operators must submit the application before a person becomes a major shareholder.

Practical Implications

Securities firms and digital asset business operators should review their shareholding structures and governance arrangements to identify persons who may now qualify as major shareholders. This includes:

  • Mapping multi-tier corporate chains and calculating effective ownership percentages;
  • Examining board nomination and removal rights under shareholder agreements or bylaws; and
  • Documenting spousal and family relationships as well as potential acting-in-concert arrangements.

Operators should prioritize compliance for persons captured under the transitional provisions. Failure to obtain approval within the prescribed 180-day period will result in regulatory enforcement.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 22, 2024
The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) of Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) has announced the first administrative fine under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). A major private company was fined THB 7 million for noncompliance with specific PDPA requirements, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of personal data to a call center gang (phone scam fraudsters). Key Findings of Noncompliance The PDPC determined that there were three key violations of specific requirements of the PDPA: Failure to appoint a data protection officer (DPO): Despite processing personal data for over 100,000 individuals as part of its core operations, the company did not appoint a DPO. Inadequate security measures: The company lacked the required security measures, leading to a data breach involving a call center gang, causing widespread damage. Delayed data breach notification: The company did not notify authorities of the data breach within the required timeframe and failed to address the breach promptly, making it impossible to remedy the situation. In addition to the monetary fine, the PDPC, along with the PDPA’s Expert Committee, issued a corrective order requiring the company to undertake the following actions and notify the Office of the PDPC of the relevant correction measures within seven days of receiving the order: Implement up-to-date security measures: The company must improve its current security measures to prevent future breaches and ensure that the security measures are up-to-date with changing technologies. Raise awareness of personnel: The company must provide training to relevant personnel to ensure awareness of data compliance and protection practices. This significant administrative action establishes a precedent for addressing data breaches in both governmental and commercial sectors in Thailand. It also confirms the importance of PDPA compliance, particularly the need for robust security measures, timely breach notifications, and the appointment of
August 15, 2024
On August 9, 2024, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) opened a period for public feedback regarding the 2022 Royal Decree on Digital Platforms and its subregulations. To collect this feedback, the ETDA has prepared a 44-question survey on specific attributes of the royal decree and its requirements, covering issues such as the definition of digital platform services (DPSs), types of services that are subject to notification requirements, information that must be submitted annually, and the royal decree’s extraterritorial scope. Business operators that fall within the scope of the royal decree and wish to provide feedback on its effectiveness should prepare and submit the survey online to the ETDA by the end of August 2024. Royal Decree on Digital Platforms Thailand’s Royal Decree on Digital Platforms was published in the Government Gazette on December 22, 2022. It defines a DPS as any service that facilitates or mediates transactions between users through a digital platform, such as e-commerce, food delivery, ride-hailing, online travel agency, online payment provider, or social media platform. The decree requires DPS operators to notify the ETDA before commencing operations, with some limited exemptions. The decree also empowers the ETDA to issue notifications (i.e., subregulations) and guidelines for implementing the decree and to monitor and enforce compliance by DPS operators. The ETDA may impose administrative sanctions, such as warnings, fines, service suspension, or revocation of notification, for any violation of the royal decree or the ETDA’s subregulations. In-scope DPS operators should take this opportunity to provide comments to the ETDA in order to voice their opinions on the practicality of the requirements and support the regulator in shaping the requirements of the royal decree and its subregulations. For more information on this initiative from the ETDA, or on any aspect related to the Royal Decree on Digital
August 5, 2024
On June 28, 2024, Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) updated its list of promoted activities to include data hosting, which is listed as “Activity 8.2.4 Data Hosting Services.” Qualifying data hosting services are eligible for a corporate income tax exemption (capped) for eight years, along with other tax and nontax incentives, such as import duty exemption on imported machinery to be used in the project, the right for foreigners to own land, and work permit and visa facilitation for expats, among others. To be eligible for these BOI incentives, projects must: Provide services for leasing host servers for data storage (data hosting); Have at least two data centers located in Thailand that meet or exceed the ISO/IEC 27001 data center standards; and Have an investment amount (excluding cost of land and working capital) of at least THB 5 billion. Apart from the above specific criteria, projects also need to comply with the general BOI criteria, such as a debt-to-equity ratio no higher than 3:1, submission of a feasibility study report, and use of new machinery, among others. For more details on BOI incentives for software and data center activities, or on any aspect of investment promotion in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], or Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected].
July 19, 2024
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to How the Use of Artificial Intelligence Is Regulated in Southeast Asia, a comparative resource published by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The guide provides an accessible introduction to artificial intelligence (AI) and examines how ASEAN member states are approaching governance, regulation, and responsible deployment of AI technologies. The publication begins by outlining core AI concepts and summarizing the ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics, which reflects the region’s collective approach to promoting innovation while addressing risks. It then presents a comparative overview of nine ASEAN jurisdictions, highlighting emerging national strategies, regulatory developments, and institutional frameworks. Each country chapter responds to a consistent set of ten practical questions. These cover whether a national AI strategy has been issued; the extent to which dedicated AI laws or sectoral regulations apply; the existence of relevant judicial decisions; available guidelines and government support schemes; regulators responsible for AI oversight; approaches to liability, copyright, and data protection; and key considerations for organizations deploying AI technologies. By consolidating developments across the region, the guide serves as a useful reference for businesses exploring AI-related opportunities or compliance obligations in Southeast Asia. As regulatory approaches continue to evolve, readers seeking jurisdiction-specific advice are encouraged to contact the practitioners listed in each chapter. The full guide is available for download using the button below or directly from the DNA website.