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​ 

April 18, 2023
On April 17, 2023, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 13/2023/ND on the Protection of Personal Data (“PDPD”), following extensive public consultations and multiple rounds of review since the first release of its draft version in February 2021. This is a long-awaited legal instrument which is designed to be the very first comprehensive regulation on the protection of personal data in Vietnam. The PDPD is set to take effect on July 1, 2023, without any transitional period. All Vietnamese and foreign organizations and individuals located in Vietnam and/or directly participating in or related to personal data processing activities in Vietnam must comply with the PDPD. As expected, the PDPD sets out significantly new requirements on the processing of personal data. The most critical provisions include: Eight principles for the processing of personal data: (i) lawfulness, (ii) transparency, (iii) purpose limitation, (iv) data minimization, (v) accuracy, (vi) integrity, confidentiality, and security, (iv) storage limitation, and (viii) accountability (Article 3). Critical new definitions and concepts, notably including personal data (Article 2.1); basic personal data (Article 2.3); sensitive data (Article 2.4); data subject (Article 2.6); data controller (Article 2.9); data processor (Article 2.10); parties controlling and processing personal data (Article 2.11); third parties (Article 2.12); and cross-border transfer of personal data (Article 2.14). Eleven data subject rights, including the right to know; right to consent; right to access; right to withdraw consent; right to delete data; right to restrict data processing; right to request the provision of data; right to object to data processing; right to complain, denounce and initiate lawsuits; right to claim compensation for damage; and right to self-defense (Article 9). Specific responsibilities of data controllers (Article 38), data processors (Article 39) and third parties (Article 41). Specific requirements in the exercise of data subject rights (Articles 14-16). Rules on
April 17, 2023
Since the issuance last October of Decree No. 71/2022/ND-CP (“Decree 71”), the differentiation of film vs. non-film content has become increasingly important for pay-TV service providers in Vietnam, because they are subject to completely different licensing requirements. With the effectiveness of Decree 71 on January 1, 2023, overseas providers of over-the-top (OTT) pay-TV services, including video on demand (VOD) content, to Vietnamese users are subject to licensing requirements and the establishment of a local presence in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the new Cinema Law promulgated on June 15, 2022, and its guiding Decree No. 131/2022/ND-CP dated December 31, 2022—both of which also took effect on January 1, 2023—do not impose any licensing requirements on film disseminators. Although there are ambiguities in Decree 71’s wording, the Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC) and the Authority for Broadcasting and Electronic Information (ABEI) under the MIC have confirmed orally in a closed industry meeting, without written confirmation, that for VOD film-only content, OTT pay-TV service providers are exempted from the licensing requirements of Decree 71 and are instead subject to regulations of the Cinema Law. This is why film vs. non-film content has become critical in shaping the business models of overseas pay-TV service providers. In this article, we provide an overview of the current regulations and draft regulations with regard to the classification/rating of film content under the regulations of the Cinema Law and its sub-laws, and the classification/rating of non-film content under the regulations of Decree 71.   Film Classification/Rating Under the Cinema Law, “films” are defined to include feature films, documentaries, cartoons, and films of combined genres. The law explicitly provides that “films” do not include recorded products for disseminating news, art shows, video games, recorded products that show the activities of one or more people and describe events and situations,
March 30, 2023
Digital asset litigation is one of the most cutting-edge types of litigation in Thailand. There are factual, technical, regulatory, and legal challenges and hurdles for the parties to the dispute throughout all procedural stages. This is mainly because digital assets are different in nature from more conventional types of assets, as they are digitally created and used on a blockchain network. Legal Status The first issue to be aware of in approaching digital asset litigation is the legal status of digital assets. Under Thai law, there are two key terms concerning digital assets’ legal status: “thing” and “property.” Things are tangible objects, while property provides a much wider range of meaning. Property could be anything—including intangible objects that may be of value and able to be appropriated. It is fairly clear that digital assets are not a “thing” since they are not tangible. However, determining whether digital assets are “property” is even more complicated. Although digital assets are intangible objects, one might argue that, unlike fiat money, they do not have any inherent value but are rather conferred value based on certain people’s perspective. (For example, the Bank of Thailand expressed this opinion of bitcoin in 2014.) Some may even argue that digital assets cannot be possessed and therefore cannot be appropriated. According to these arguments, digital assets should not be regarded as a property either. Legal Grounds Determining whether digital assets are things, property, or something else altogether is crucial to any subsequent litigation. In Thailand, the party initiating the lawsuit (the plaintiff) generally has to state the relevant legal grounds for the complaint—that is, the different relevant legal provisions that the court is to apply to the case. These provisions of Thai laws mostly refer only to “things” or to “property,” not both. This often means that
March 20, 2023
Thailand has enacted new legislation to counter cybercrime and scams. The Royal Decree on Measures for Protection and Suppression of Technology Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023) (“Cybercrime Decree”) was published in the Government Gazette on March 16, 2023, and took effect the following day. The Cybercrime Decree provides a new legal tool to interrupt the money-laundering process and aims to crack down on cybercrime perpetrators and scammers by providing stronger legal measures applying to certain types of offenders that had not been sufficiently covered by existing laws. This new legislation grants victims the right to have commercial banks and online payment platforms freeze suspicious transactions and obligates these banks and platforms to comply with such requests. It further requires these banks and platforms—as well as other service providers—to share data for the prompt prevention and suppression of cybercrime. The key rights, duties, and offenses established by the Cybercrime Decree are detailed below. Freezing Transactions The Cybercrime Decree requires commercial banks and online payment platforms to temporarily freeze (for 72 hours) any related transactions of their account holders upon receipt of an alert from the account holder that he or she is the victim of cybercrime. Victims can report these illicit transactions by phone or electronic means. If by phone, the relevant bank or platform must document the call. The victim must file a police complaint about the illicit transaction within 72 hours of the freeze being made. A police inquiry officer will then notify the bank or platform about the complaint, and the transaction freeze must be maintained for seven days from the filing of the complaint with the police. The police will then determine whether it is necessary to keep the transaction frozen for longer than seven days. If the seven days lapse without a further order to freeze the