On July 11, 2026, media reports conveyed key messages from Bank of Thailand (BOT) Governor Vitai Ratanakorn’s announcement of a sweeping regulatory crackdown on grey capital activities. The measures target high-value cash transactions, gold trading, and stablecoin flows, with new requirements set to take effect in the fourth quarter of 2026. The initiative aims to prevent financial institutions from facilitating shadow economy activity, money laundering—particularly through stablecoins—and capital flight, through enhanced compliance obligations on commercial banks across multiple transaction channels. Expanded Cash Controls Close the Deposit–Withdrawal Circuit New fourth-quarter guidelines will require individuals depositing THB 5 million or more in cash to formally verify the source of their funds. This builds on restrictions introduced in April 2026, which required anyone withdrawing 5 million baht or more in cash to provide their bank with verified commercial justification for why electronic transfers or checks could not be used. That initial measure caused high-value physical cash withdrawals to drop by 35 percent nationwide. The upcoming deposit-side requirement closes the circuit on large cash movements. The BOT is also assessing tracking mechanisms for high-value banknote swaps, specifically targeting individuals seeking to exchange large volumes of THB 1,000 notes into smaller THB 100 or THB 500 denominations without clear business justification. Governor Vitai emphasized that these measures require continuous deployment of multiple parallel strategies rather than short-term fixes. Tightened Bullion Reporting Frameworks Restrict Money Laundering Channels The BOT has also tightened reporting frameworks for gold trading to close money laundering loopholes and shield the Thai baht from speculative bullion volatility. Regulators identified a recurring pattern in which buyers purchased large quantities of gold through digital applications in the morning and then made same-day physical withdrawals from retail gold shops in the afternoon. Gold shops are reminded of their duties to flag and report cash

Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require

On July 8, 2026, Thailand enacted a new law significantly expanding the framework for government service delivery and licensing facilitation. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Services Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Facilitation Act 2026) replaces and expands the framework of governmental services under the Facilitation of Official Licensing Consideration Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Facilitation Act 2015) and broadens its scope to cover public services, administrative processes, and public benefits. The Facilitation Act 2026 aims to modernize government services by promoting e-filing, reducing administrative burdens and repeated document requests, and improving predictability. For businesses, this should ease compliance and shorten approval timelines, subject to implementing regulations and agency readiness. Public Services Facilitation Scope The Facilitation Act 2015 applied mainly to permissions, registrations, and notifications required before conducting activities that require licenses, certificates, permits, approvals, or registrations. The Facilitation Act 2026 broadens this framework to include public services and other benefits, such as welfare, subsidies, and grants, provided to Thai citizens, expanding government agencies’ responsibilities beyond licensing facilitation into a wider administrative-service framework. It also introduces a broader definition of “government agency” to include central, regional, and local government bodies, state enterprises, public organizations, and other state entities. Licensing Changes The Facilitation Act 2026 introduces a “super license” (termed a “main license” under the act) that exempts the holder from obtaining multiple related or ancillary licenses issued by different government agencies. Obtaining a super license deems the licensee to have automatically obtained the related “sublicenses” required to conduct the relevant activities. The cabinet will designate eligible activities by royal decree. The act also introduces an expedited licensing option, allowing applicants to pay an additional fee to fast-track their applications in urgent cases. Expedited processing must not interfere with standard application timelines. The criteria, procedures, conditions, and fees for expedited licensing

Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be