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

May 25, 2026

Thailand Strengthens State Custody Procedures for Seized Digital Assets

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws.

For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions.

Expanded Definition of Digital Assets

The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves.

Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody

When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions.

A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. AMLO will transfer them without delay to another licensed domestic provider or, if that proves impossible, to the office’s cold wallet. In either scenario, the seizing official must document the asset account details, asset type, quantity, and value as of the seizure date, and the identity of the responsible custodian.

All fees and expenses incurred in transferring seized digital assets will be deducted directly from the assets themselves. The custodian will be required to report these costs to the secretary-general of the Anti-Money Laundering Board and notify the seizing official.

Cold Wallet Security Standards

The regulation requires cold wallets to use encryption key storage methods that are not connected to the internet. While the text does not enumerate every technical specification, it establishes that offline storage is the baseline security standard and that only designated personnel may maintain custody of these keys. If obstacles prevent compliance with these prescribed methods, the responsible custodian must seek approval from the AMLO secretary-general for alternative storage that still provides adequate security.

Practical Implications

The regulation eliminates discretion over whether and how seized digital assets are moved into state custody. Digital asset businesses should expect that any assets seized from their platforms or their customers will be transferred swiftly to another licensed provider or into offline storage. Operators holding customer funds under investigation must be prepared to facilitate these transfers without delay and to cooperate with documentation requirements. Businesses and individuals who hold digital assets with foreign service providers should also understand that Thai authorities now have a clear legal pathway to compel repatriation of those assets during enforcement actions.

For victims of money laundering, these regulations offer new hope for asset recovery. The clear procedures for seizing and securing digital assets—whether held domestically or abroad—create a more effective enforcement framework that can help trace, freeze, and ultimately return stolen funds to those harmed by financial crimes.

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More
March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
Read More
March 27, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has publicly indicated that it is preparing a new regulatory framework for data center operators that may introduce foreign-ownership restrictions. In particular, the NBTC is considering reclassifying data center operations from a type 1 telecommunications business license to a type 3 license. If implemented, this change would subject data center operators to a significantly more stringent regulatory regime, especially in relation to foreign ownership and control. The NBTC has indicated that it intends to propose a draft framework to the NBTC board. This would be followed by a public hearing process, with a view to implementing the new rules within 2026. Under the Telecommunications Business Act B.E. 2544 (2001), as amended, telecommunications businesses operating under type 3 licenses are subject to foreign ownership restrictions, including a requirement that less than 50% of the total issued shares be held by foreign shareholders. In addition, type 3 licensees are subject to foreign dominance restrictions, which prohibit arrangements that allow foreigners to dominate the business. These foreign dominance restrictions are broad in scope and may capture various forms of direct and indirect control or influence. This includes circumstances in which a foreign national is able to influence or control the formulation of policy, management, or business operations, or the appointment of directors or senior executives. At this stage, the exact scope of the proposed rules remains unclear. Businesses with existing or planned data center operations in Thailand should therefore monitor upcoming NBTC developments in this regard and prepare for the expected public hearing process.
Read More
March 27, 2026
Vietnam’s emerging governance framework for artificial intelligence (AI) is developing through a multi-layered structure comprising three components: Policy instruments setting national priorities for AI development; Regulatory framework governing development, provision, deployment and use of AI; and Technical standards and voluntary guidelines. Policy level. At policy level, the foundation for a strategic framework for AI development and governance was laid in 2021 by the National Strategy for Research, Development and Application of AI until 2030, aimed at strengthening the national AI ecosystem and positioning Vietnam as a regional AI innovation hub. Subsequently, resolution No.57-NQ/TW (2024) identified AI as a key driver of science, technology, innovation and national digital transformation. AI was also designated as a strategic technology under decision No.1131/QD-TTg (2025) listing priority technologies across sectors. Regulatory framework. At the legislative level, the new Law on Artificial Intelligence took effect on 1 March 2026, establishing the core regulatory framework governing development, provision, deployment and use of AI systems. Controlled testing for emerging AI technologies is implemented under the Law on Science, Technology and Innovation. The AI Law is expected to be further operationalised through implementing instruments, most notably a draft decree guiding the AI Law, and draft decision of the prime minister identifying high-risk AI systems (both published in February 2026). A decision establishing priority datasets for AI development is also anticipated. Compliance obligations may also arise under sectoral regulatory regimes, including data protection, cybersecurity, banking, consumer protection, e-commerce and intellectual property, particularly where AI systems are used in automated decision-making or data-driven services. Technical standards and non-binding guidelines. Vietnam’s AI governance framework is also supported by technical standards and voluntary guidelines. A key instrument is decision No.1290/QD-BKHCN (2024), providing guidelines for responsible research and development of AI systems, and represents Vietnam’s first national AI ethics code. The Ministry of Science and Technology
Read More