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

September 24, 2025

Thailand Issues AI Risk Management Guidelines for Financial Service Providers

On September 12, 2025, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) officially released its AI Risk Management Guidelines for Financial Service Providers, building upon the draft guidelines issued in June 2025. The guidelines reflect a balanced approach, encouraging innovation while safeguarding financial stability and consumer protection.

The guidelines are targeted at 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.

The guidelines apply to both AI systems developed in-house and those developed by third parties that are adopted for use by financial service providers.

AI Risk Management Guidelines

The two main pillars in managing AI risk are (1) governance of AI system implementation and (2) AI system development and security controls, consisting of the following key elements:

1. Governance

  • Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Boards and senior management assume accountability for decisions and operations involving AI systems, and are responsible for defining roles and responsibilities for AI oversight. This includes establishing an AI system usage policy, designating personnel responsible for AI risk management, and building awareness of AI-related risk within the organization. Organizations are expected to foster internal capabilities to use AI securely and avoid overreliance that could compromise business continuity or customer service.
  • AI system usage policy. Policies governing AI usage should align with organizational goals, regulatory obligations, and recognized responsible AI frameworks—such as the FEAT principles (fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency). 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. Financial service providers should assess risks and impacts of AI usage on operations and customer services. Human oversight must be embedded in decision-making processes, with the degree of oversight calibrated to the level of risk and impact, especially when AI systems are used in strategic functions or customer interactions (e.g., loan approval or account opening). In customer interactions with AI systems, customers should be notified and have options to contact personnel of financial service providers.
  1. Development and security controls
  • Data risk. Financial service providers should have measures to assess and ensure the quality, accuracy, currentness, 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 by adopting techniques such as retrieval-augmented generation and prompt engineering. Financial service providers should also ensure explainability of AI outputs through documentation detailing model inputs, outputs, and parameters.
  • 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.

In addition, the BOT emphasizes the importance of financial service providers strictly complying with applicable laws when adopting AI, including personal data protection laws and intellectual property laws.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 21, 2024
On June 4, Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued a new notification on e-commerce business registration pursuant to the Commercial Registration Act B.E. 2499 (1956) (CRA), replacing a similar notification from 2010. The new notification (officially titled “Notification Re: Business Regulations that Commercial Operators Must Register and Businesses that Are Not Subject to the Commercial Registration Act, B.E. 2549 B.E. 2567”) took effect on June 5, 2024. While the previous notification required all individuals and legal entities engaged in regulated activities, such as selling goods or services online, to register their businesses with the local district office, the new notification effectively lifts this requirement for certain legal entities. The new notification clearly states that the CRA does not apply to regulated activities conducted by: Private limited companies, registered ordinary partnerships, and limited partnerships (i.e., legal entities under the Civil and Commercial Code); and Public limited companies (i.e., legal entities under the Public Limited Companies Act). Now that the new notification is in effect, limited companies and other specified legal entities are no longer required to register their e-commerce activities and obtain an e-commerce certificate from the MOC. E-commerce certificates previously issued to these legal entities are also voided by the new notification. Nevertheless, the requirement to register for direct marketing and obtain a direct marketing certificate under the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act B.E. 2545 (2002) remains in effect for any online sales or e-marketplace platforms administered by legal entities. Given the recent proactive enforcement of penalties for noncompliance with direct marketing registration requirements, we strongly advise business operators to assess whether their operations fall within the scope of direct marketing regulations and require a direct marketing certificate. For more information on e-commerce and direct marketing registration in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon
June 19, 2024
Vietnam’s financial landscape is set to further transform on July 1, 2024, when the government’s long-awaited Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024 (“Decree 52”), will officially replace Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Decree 101”). Decree 52 marks an important milestone by introducing the country’s first-ever legal definition of e-money. In addition, the decree brings forth new updates to regulations governing payment and intermediary payment services, laying the groundwork for more comprehensive guidance that will be provided in draft circulars now being developed by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV). Non-Cash Payment Instruments The new definition of non-cash payment instruments under Decree 52 expands upon the previous definition in Decree 101. Notably, it clearly specifies the issuing entities as payment service providers, financial companies licensed to issue credit cards, and e-wallet service providers. Additionally, the new definition further clarifies that bank cards include debit, credit, and prepaid cards, and adds e-wallets to the list of non-cash payment instruments. Unlawful non-cash payment instruments are still defined as those that are not otherwise specified. E-Money Prior to Decree 52, the concept of e-money lacked a precise legal definition, despite its growing prevalence in forms like prepaid cards and e-wallets. The absence of a clear framework for e-money led to confusion with terms like “cryptpcurrency” and “virtual currency” and left significant ambiguity on whether e-money includes certain instruments, such as online game cards and mobile money. Decree 52 addresses this issue by clearly defining e-money as value in Vietnamese dong (VND) stored electronically and prepaid by customers to banks, foreign bank branches, and e-wallet service providers. It also specifically designates e-wallets and prepaid cards as types of storage mechanisms for e-money. Non-Cash Payment Services Decree 52 categorizes non-cash payment services into services with and without client payment
June 19, 2024
On June 14, 2024, the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released a draft notification under the Personal Data Protection Act 2019 (PDPA), setting out criteria for how data controllers must delete, destroy, and de-identify personal data. According to the PDPA, a data subject can request that a data controller delete, destroy, or de-identify their personal data in any of the following circumstances: The personal data is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, used, or disclosed. The data subject has withdrawn their consent for the processing of the personal data, and no other lawful basis for processing remains. The data subject has objected to the processing of their personal data on grounds of legitimate interests or official tasks, the data controller has no other compelling grounds to refuse the request, and the data is not needed for legal claims. The data subject objects to the processing of their personal data for direct marketing purposes. The processing of personal data is unlawful. The draft stipulates that data controllers respond to a data subject’s request to delete, destroy, or de-identify personal data immediately, and within 60 days of receiving the request. If the data controller cannot fulfill the request immediately, they must take interim measures to ensure that the personal data is made difficult to collect, use, or disclose. This includes implementing measures such as preventing access to the data and applying appropriate security measures to protect the data from unauthorized use or disclosure. De-identification or Anonymization of Personal Data In certain circumstances, a data controller may opt to de-identify or anonymize personal data, rather than delete or destroy it. If doing so, the data controller must satisfy the following criteria: There must be a structured process to remove or eliminate all direct identifiers linked to the
June 18, 2024
On June 1, 2024, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued four notifications amending existing regulations to recognize sustainability-related tokens and institute specific measures for regulating them. These tokens are intended to offer diverse sustainability-related products to ESG funds in Thailand and drive the growth of a sustainable digital economy in the country. The key points in the notifications are summarized below. Definitions Under the notifications, sustainability-related tokens are classified into four types: Green tokens: Digital tokens specifically intended to incentivize or fund projects that promote environmental sustainability. Social tokens: Digital tokens specifically intended to support and fund initiatives that contribute to social welfare. Sustainability tokens: Digital tokens intended to support projects that enhance both environmental and social welfare through funding and incentives. Sustainability-linked tokens: Digital tokens intended to fund activities that promote sustainability. This includes tokens that have adjustable returns based on the performance of the issuing entity or its affiliates in meeting specified sustainability-related goals or outcomes. The offering of sustainability-related tokens is subject to Thailand’s general requirements for token offerings: (1) approval from the SEC and (2) filing the registration statements and the draft prospectus with the SEC before marketing and offering the sustainability-related tokens to public investors in Thailand, unless exempted. The sustainability-related tokens must be offered through an SEC-approved ICO portal, which will assume a role similar to that of a financial adviser and an underwriter in a public offering of securities. Sustainability-Related Token Offerings In addition to complying with the general requirements for token offerings, sustainability-related token offerings must comply with the following measures: Issuer disclosure: The issuer must disclose certain sustainability information, both before and after the offering, according to standards comparable to those of nationally or internationally recognized green, social, and sustainable bonds (GSSBs) and sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs)—such as the principles