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

December 26, 2025

Thailand Issues Mandatory Guidelines Enhancing Digital Fraud Controls

Subscribe to Updates

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released the Guidelines for Digital Fraud Management, which took effect on December 17, 2025, incorporating certain amendments to the draft guidelines issued in March 2025. These official guidelines aim for end-to-end digital fraud prevention, with a particular focus on mule accounts, to enhance trust and security in Thailand’s financial system.

The guidelines apply to “financial service providers,” including:

  • Financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act; and
  • Operators of Inter-institutional Fund Transfer System e-money services and e-fund transfer services under the Payment Systems Act.

Besides commercial banks and e-money operators that offer fund-transfer services, other providers may adopt requirements based on risk proportionality and baseline standards set out in the guidelines (for instance, an e-money operator that does not offer e-fund transfer services could consider implementing a fraud monitoring and detection system according to the risk level of its service).

The guidelines establish the following key requirements:

  • Policy and oversight. Directors and senior executives of financial service providers must adopt appropriate “end-to-end” fraud management policies and KPIs to manage digital fraud, covering prevention, monitoring, detection, management, resolution, and support for affected customers. The fraud management policy must be regularly reviewed, and whenever there is a situation or change that significantly affects the efficiency of the fraud management. Any significant update to the policy must first be approved by the board of the financial service provider. The BOT also encourages providers to collaborate in establishing industry standards aligned with applicable laws and regulations to ensure consistency and best practices across the sector.
  • Fraud management processes. Financial service providers must establish a clear framework for managing digital fraud throughout the customer lifecycle—from customer onboarding to service termination—covering at least the following processes:
    • Know your customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD): The KYC procedure must also include identification of account operating objectives, and the financial service provider must conduct CDD according to the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999).  If customer behavior signals that the customer is a potential owner of mule accounts (i.e., deposit or e-money accounts used as tools to receive and transfer funds obtained through the commission of technology crime), enhanced CDD must be applied. Providers must assess and classify customers based on their risk level for being mule account owners or fraud victims, using information from KYC, CDD, and reliable sources. Risk classifications must remain current and reflect prevailing circumstances.
    • Fraud monitoring and detection: Providers must develop proactive processes to detect and monitor unusual transactions and utilize data from multiple sources (e.g., Central Fraud Registry and data obtained from other financial service providers) to identify potential mule accounts and fraud. This may involve adopting new technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence) to enhance efficacy and stay ahead of emerging fraud techniques.
    • Action and response to fraud: Providers must develop swift and appropriate measures to prevent, limit, and promptly mitigate digital fraud damage, including handling suspected mule accounts. They must also respond clearly, fairly, and swiftly to support customers affected by fraud (e.g., by offering 24/7 customer support through dedicated hotlines and electronic channels, having clear timeframes for assisting customers affected by fraud incidents, and reporting to the BOT any incidents that cause widespread customer damage or affect the financial service provider’s reputation).
  • Information sharing. Financial service providers must have mechanisms to share accurate information promptly with one another, according to the framework under the law on technology crime suppression and other relevant laws, and must appoint a responsible person to coordinate and procure information necessary for any investigations.
  • Awareness. Financial service providers must proactively raise customers’ and the public’s awareness of digital fraud to prevent and reduce potential damage. Required actions include disseminating information on an easily accessible service channel (e.g., mobile app or infographic on social media). The BOT also encourages financial service providers to have customers take awareness tests.
Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
Read More
March 10, 2026
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
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More