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

February 27, 2026

Thailand Introduces Systemically Important Payment System Framework, Starting with PromptPay

Subscribe to Updates

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS.

Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act.

Enhanced Supervisory Requirements

SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below.

1. Governance

SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including:

  • Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms.
  • Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy.
  • Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations.
  1. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including:
  • Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules.
  • A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity.
  • Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or systemic risks, including credit and settlement, liquidity, and operational risks.
  1. User Protection and CompetitionTo promote transparency and equitable market access, SIRPS operators must:
  • Establish fair, transparent, and nondiscriminatory criteria for system access and exit.
  • Develop and maintain business rules aligned with guidelines issued by the BOT’s new Payment Strategy Forum (PSF) working group. The BOT may require SIRPS operators to amend their business rules where appropriate.
  • Ensure fair fee structures covering fees charged by the SIRPS operator to system participants and fees charged by participants to their users (such as merchants). Fee structures must comply with BOT requirements and be approved by the PSF, and SIRPS operators must consider feedback from the SIRPS participants when setting their fees.

Key Takeaways

As PromptPay becomes a core element of Thailand’s retail payment ecosystem, its SIRPS designation heightens obligations for the PromptPay operator and all participating payment service providers. SIRPS participants—whether connecting directly or indirectly—must ensure that their operations and fee structures comply with PromptPay business rules aligned with BOT standards and requirements.

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More