On May 24, 2024, the Central Bank of Myanmar (“CBM”) issued a public notice warning individuals against participating in the sale, purchase, exchange, or transfer of unregulated digital currencies, as well as unauthorized money transfers. The CBM has indicated its readiness to enforce regulations by closing bank accounts and pursuing legal action, which may result in imprisonment, fines, or both, in accordance with the Central Bank of Myanmar Law, the Anti-Money Laundering Law and the Financial Institutions Law. The CBM is the sole legal entity authorized to issue currency in Myanmar, as stipulated in the Central Bank of Myanmar Law. The CBM does not recognize digital currencies as official currency, nor has it granted permission to financial institutions within Myanmar to trade them. The existing legal framework, comprising the Foreign Exchange Management Law and the Financial Institutions Law, further cements the illegality of cryptocurrency transactions within the nation’s borders. Four years ago, in May 2020, the CBM issued Notification No. 9/2020, prohibiting all persons residing in Myanmar from engaging in the sale, purchase, or exchange of unregulated digital currencies. The list of prohibited currencies includes widely recognized cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTD), Ethereum (ETH), and Perfect Money (PM), with a particular emphasis on transactions conducted through personal Facebook accounts and web pages. Before the issuance of the 2020 notification, the CBM had announced that anyone engaging in digital currency transactions did so at their own risk, but no enforcement measures were being taken at the time. However, after the 2020 notification was issued, the CBM has pursued legal action against persons involved in illegal currency conversion and unauthorized hundi money transfers using Tether (USDT). These enforcement measures have included shutting down bank accounts and initiating legal proceedings under the Anti-Money Laundering Law and the Financial Institutions Law.

A bank guarantee or bond is a powerful tool that provides contractual parties with security and assurance. Bank guarantees are commitments made by a bank (as a guarantor) on behalf of a customer (as an obligor) to a beneficiary to ensure that certain contractual obligations will be fulfilled. If the customer fails to comply with these obligations, the bank can compensate the beneficiary up to the amount specified in the bank guarantee. Bank guarantees are widely used in Thailand as a form of security and are common in construction agreements and government procurement contracts, among others. If the beneficiary (e.g., a project owner) concludes that the counterparty in the agreement (e.g., a contractor) has breached the underlying contract in some way, the beneficiary will demand payment from the bank pursuant to the guarantee. Collecting on a Guarantee and Preventing Payment In the context of construction and procurement agreements, there are two types of bank guarantees—conditional and unconditional. A conditional bank guarantee means that the project owner must satisfy certain agreed-upon conditions (e.g., provision of proof of the breach, proof of damages, or even consent from the contractor) to demand payment. An unconditional bank guarantee means that the bank must compensate the project owner for the demanded amount (up to the limit specified in the bank guarantee) without any conditions. When a project owner concludes that a contractor has breached the underlying contract (often for nonperformance or failure to comply with a representation or warranty), the project owner will demand payment from the bank holding the guarantee. Upon receiving such a demand, Thai banks will usually inform the contractor and ask if it has any objections. Even if the bank guarantee is unconditional, in practice, a bank may be reluctant to make payment if the contractor, as the bank’s customer,

As non-cash payments continue to surge in Vietnam, the requirement for strong security standards and a clear legislative framework for intermediary payment services (“IPS”) is becoming more and more critical. Recognizing this, the State Bank of Vietnam (“SBV”) has been working on a draft decree to supersede the outdated Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Draft Non-Cash Payment Decree”), which will lay the groundwork for non-cash payments in general and the provision of IPS in particular. Building upon this, the SBV recently issued a draft circular to replace Circular No. 39/2014/TT-NHNN dated December 11, 2014, on IPS (“Circular 39”) (“Draft IPS Circular”), which will offer more detailed guidance on the provision of IPS in Vietnam on top of the Draft Non-Cash Payment Decree. The Draft IPS Circular will be applicable to (i) IPS providers; (ii) foreign organizations providing IPS in Vietnam; and (iii) organizations and individuals involved in the provision of IPS. Some key updates regarding the Draft IPS Circular are as follows: Scope of Application The Draft IPS Circular sets out further guidance for the provision of IPS as listed under the Draft Non-Cash Payment Decree, including: (i) electronic clearing services; (ii) electronic wallet (“e-wallet”) services; (iii) collection and payment support services; (iv) financial switching services; (v) international financial switching services; and (vi) electronic payment gateway services. Notably, the Draft IPS Circular has explicitly excluded from its scope of application the provision of accounts by goods/service providers to their customers solely for the purpose of payment within the systems of such providers (e.g., cards/coupons or service/transaction accounts of online game service providers, transportation service providers, or securities companies, etc.). Requirements on the Provision of IPS Electronic Clearing Services: The Draft IPS Circular introduces regulations to cover certain elements of electronic clearing services that have

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has opened a public comment period on their consultation paper titled “Criteria for Supervising Virtual Banks” from March 19, 2024, to April 17, 2024. The consultation paper reveals that the BOT intends to apply traditional commercial bank supervisory standards to virtual banks. However, the BOT also explains that the wholly digital nature of the services offered by virtual banks necessitates additional regulatory supervision. Additional Supervisory Criteria for Virtual Banks Financial business group: If a virtual bank is within the same financial business group as other financial institutions, its parent company must structure the virtual bank to be under its own sole consolidated financial business group. After the virtual bank has undergone the “restricted phase” in its initial years of operation (see below), other financial institutions within the group are prohibited from extending credit to or engaging in transactions similar to lending activities with the virtual bank. Shareholding structure: If the increase in the financial institution system capital is higher than the actual capital injection resulting from the bank’s shareholding structure, the BOT aims to issue an additional regulation to supervise the capital of the virtual bank and financial institution system to prevent double counting. Operational risk: Virtual banks must not use a trademark or logo that bears resemblance to or implies association with other financial institutions or financial institution groups. Governance: Virtual banks must have at least one director and chief technology officer (CTO) with at least three years of experience in IT or digital service. Additionally, the CTO must work full-time for the virtual bank and may not be an employee of another legal entity. Restriction on related lending and related-party transactions: Virtual banks must obtain prior unanimous approval from their boards of directors before engaging in transactions with major shareholders or businesses