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​ 

November 27, 2023
Thailand’s Electronic Transaction Development Agency (ETDA) has released two new subordinate regulations under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services: one detailing the assessment of digital platform services (DPSs) that will be deemed “high-risk” and subject to additional obligations, and another setting guidelines on user verification and authentication for all DPSs. The two subordinate regulations are summarized below. Impact Assessment of DPS Operations Under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services, DPS operations that have the risk of seriously impacting financial and commercial security, reliability and credibility of data message systems, or the general public are subject to additional obligations. The first subordinate regulation mentioned above (officially titled Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission Re: Criteria for Impact Assessment on Operation of Digital Platform Services) outlines the criteria for the ETDA to determine which DPSs are “high-risk.” DPSs falling under this designation include: DPSs whose total value of transactions conducted through the platform in Thailand exceeds THB 100 million (approx. USD 2.8 million) per year; DPSs whose operators have not registered their entities with the Department of Business Development (DBD)—notably overseas operators—and that have 100 or more merchants or business users in Thailand or total users in Thailand between 5 and 10 percent of the country’s population (i.e., approx. 3.3–6.1 million users, calculated using official 2022 figures); DPSs that allow their users to freely post certain messages, or do certain acts, that may affect the public in certain cases, such as: (1) unlawful messages or acts; (2) messages or acts that may affect a child’s rights or people’s fundamental rights; and (3) messages or acts that may negatively affect political opinions of Thai citizens (whether before or after an election) or statements or actions likely to negatively affect other individuals due to gender differences or sexual violence. After considering
Read More
November 23, 2023
On November 14, 2023, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a draft notification on collection of personal data regarding criminal records. The draft notification aims to provide clarifications and prescribe further criteria for processing criminal record data under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), which generally requires the processing of criminal records to be carried out under the control of the relevant official authority under the law or under a data protection measure implemented according to rules prescribed by the PDPC. After its eventual passage, the draft notification will have important implications for businesses’ recruitment and human resources activities in relation to individuals with criminal records. Key aspects of the draft notification include the following: “Personal data regarding a criminal record” and “criminal record data” denote personal data related to the investigations of criminal offenses, criminal prosecution, or criminal punishment that is official information or certified by the relevant supervisory authority, regardless of whether that action is connected to a final judgment. Under the draft notification, data controllers may process criminal record data for the purpose of a recruitment process, checking the qualifications of personnel, and considering the suitability of a person for a position if the processing activities are required by law or when a data controller obtains explicit consent from the data subject. Furthermore, the necessity of processing the criminal record data must be announced at the beginning of the recruitment process. Data controllers’ requests for explicit consent to collect a data subject’s criminal record data must also notify the data subject of the consequences of not providing consent or withdrawing consent. The draft notification sets the allowable retention period for criminal record data at a maximum of six months from the end of the processing activities specified above. After the retention period ends, the criminal
Read More
November 17, 2023
On October 3, 2023, Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) issued a new regulation clarifying the eligibility criteria for investment promotion under the BOI category “5.10 Development of software, platforms for digital services, or digital content.” To be eligible for BOI promotion under the digital activity category, projects must meet criteria related to local development, minimum investment amount, machinery and equipment, and development processes. These criteria for category 5.10 activities, along with the latest clarifications from the BOI, are detailed in the table below. Tax Incentives The BOI also clarified the method for calculating corporate income tax (CIT) exemptions. The CIT cap amount is calculated on an annual basis from the prescribed expenses incurred after applying for BOI promotion and occurring during the year for which the CIT exemption is claimed. The allowances include 100% of expenses for salaries for newly hired Thai IT personnel, technology-related training, and obtaining quality standards (such as ISO 29110). The revenue of projects that qualify for CIT exemption must be from sales or services directly related to software, platforms for digital services, or digital content developed as promoted by the BOI, including licensing fees, subscription fees, pay-per-use expenses, in-app purchase fees, usage fees, revenue sharing, advertising fees, and so on. For more details on BOI promotion for digital activities, or on any aspect of investment promotion in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected] or +66 2056 5600, Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected] or +66 2056 5662, or Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected] or +66 2056 5561.
Read More
November 15, 2023
Four decisions from the Expert Committee under Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) indicate that there will no longer be any relaxation of PDPA enforcement. The enforcement of Thailand’s seminal data protection law had been relaxed for more than a year when, on October 18, 2023, the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published the first decision made by the Expert Committee on the imposition of administrative measures against a company pursuant to authority granted to it under the Notification of the PDPC Re: Rules for the Consideration of the Imposition of Administrative Penalties by the Expert Committee B.E. 2565 (2022), which was one of the first subordinate regulations issued under the PDPA. Shortly thereafter, on October 19, October 25, and November 15, three additional Expert Committee decisions were published. These three decisions made by the Expert Committee are summarized below. October 18 Decision The complainant in this case lodged a complaint with the Expert Committee alleging that an insurance company contacted him to offer the company’s products without his consent. The complaint further claimed that when the complainant requested the company to disclose how his personal data had been acquired and asked the company to stop contacting him through any channel, the company did not take any action on the requests. The insurance company appeared to have obtained the personal data of the complainant from another source prior to the PDPA becoming fully effective (i.e., June 1, 2022). As the Expert Committee explained in its order, the company failed to comply with its obligations under the PDPA regarding the collection of personal data from another source, which requires consent as a legal basis; failed to comply with the grandfather provision by not publicizing opt-out procedures to enable the data subject to withdraw his consent easily; and
Read More