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

April 30, 2025

Thailand to Strengthen Supervision of Critical Retail Payment Systems

Subscribe to Updates

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is accepting public comments until May 2, 2025, on three draft notifications that will institute an enhanced supervision scheme and impose additional requirements for systemically important retail payment system (SIRPS) operators to align with international standards and encourage open infrastructure and competition. The SIRPS operators will be determined by the BOT from the “designated payment system operators” under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017).

SIRPS Designation

The BOT will announce a list of payment system operators designated as SIRPS operators and thus subject to enhanced supervision. The BOT will evaluate whether the payment system operator should be deemed a SIRPS operator when it meets the criteria in either the BOT’s quantitative or qualitative assessments, which cover the following:

  • Quantitative assessment: The payment system’s transaction values, market share, cross-border payment network scale and value, and settlement with other financial market infrastructure.
  • Qualitative assessment: The payment system’s function as a part of the country’s payment system infrastructure, the significance of the system users’ roles in the payment services, the substitutability of the payment system, and the impact level on the public and users in the event of an emergency or system suspension.

Supervision of SIRPS Business Operations

SIRPS operators will be subject to heightened supervision in three areas, in addition to various BOT regulations on designated payment system supervision, as follows:

  • Governance: SIRPS operators will be required to have a balanced board composition with an independent director and directors with varied expertise, establish subcommittees to assist the board in supervising the operator’s compliance with its policy and strategy, and have senior executives overseeing risk and technology security separately from the executives overseeing business operations.
  • Risk management and security: SIRPS operators will be required to have comprehensive risk management to ensure system stability and security. This includes having a clear service agreement and tools for monitoring and managing legal, credit, liquidity, and fraud risks. Emergency plans must cover IT and non-IT disruptions, with annual tests and the ability to recover within two hours of a disruption.
  • User protection and competition: There must be transparent and fair criteria for accessing and exiting the system. In addition, SIRPS operators must establish business agreements (scheme rules) in accordance with guidelines to be established by a new working group called the Payment Strategy Forum (PSF). These guidelines will pertain to mechanisms for stakeholder feedback and other pertinent issues. SIRPS operators must also take any PSF and BOT comments on their scheme rules, and the BOT may require SIRPS operators to amend their rules where appropriate. The fee structures—both the fees that a SIRPS operator charges its system users and the fees that system users charge their payment service users (e.g., merchants)—must be fair, developed taking stakeholder and PSF feedback into account. SIRPS operators and system users will be required to notify the BOT of new or changed fee structures within the BOT-prescribed timeframe, and the BOT has discretion to request additional information, oppose the fee structure, or prescribe conditions for the operators and system users before implementation of the fee structure.

Compliance Timeline

When these notifications become effective, the BOT will announce the list of designated SIRPS operators. They will have 90 days to comply with this new set of compliance requirements.

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 17, 2026
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
Read More
July 16, 2026
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
Read More