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​ 

August 4, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Fintech 2027, a global guide published by Lexology Panoramic that provides comparative insights into the legal and regulatory frameworks governing fintech businesses across multiple jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s rapidly evolving fintech landscape, examining both the regulatory environment and practical considerations for businesses operating in or entering the Vietnamese market. Topics covered include: Fintech landscape and initiatives: General innovation climate; government and regulatory support Financial regulation: Regulatory bodies; regulated activities; consumer lending; secondary market loan trading; collective investment schemes; alternative investment funds; peer-to-peer and marketplace lending; crowdfunding; invoice trading; payment services; open banking; robo-advice; insurance products; credit references Cross-border regulation: Passporting; requirement for a local presence Sales and marketing: Restrictions on the promotion and marketing of financial products and services Cryptoassets and tokens: Distributed ledger technology; cryptoassets; token issuance Artificial intelligence: Regulatory framework governing AI systems and AI-enabled financial services Change of control: Notification and consent requirements for regulated businesses Financial crime: Anti-bribery and anti-money laundering procedures; regulatory guidance Data protection and cybersecurity: Data protection obligations; cybersecurity requirements applicable to fintech businesses Outsourcing and cloud computing: Outsourcing of material functions; use of cloud computing in the financial services industry Intellectual property rights: IP protection for software; employee- and contractor-created IP; joint ownership; trade secrets; branding; remedies for infringement Competition: Competition law issues affecting fintech businesses Tax: Incentives for innovation and investment; developments affecting tax and compliance obligations Immigration: Immigration options for recruiting skilled foreign personnel; special measures available through Vietnam’s international financial centers The chapter also examines a number of significant recent developments shaping Vietnam’s fintech sector, including the introduction of the country’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptoassets, the adoption of a dedicated law on artificial intelligence, implementation of the banking regulatory sandbox,
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
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