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

August 29, 2024

Thailand Updates Requirements for Digital Asset Business Governance and Exchange Rules

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has revised its regulations on digital asset operators and exchanges to impose stricter governance standards on digital asset business operators and to align digital asset exchange rules with international standards. The new regulations are laid out in SEC Notification No. GorThor. 23/2567 on the Criteria, Conditions, and Procedures for Operating a Digital Asset Business (No. 24) and SEC Notification No. GorLorThor. 24/2567 on Determination of Prohibited Qualifications for Directors and Executives of Digital Asset Business Operators (No. 5). These were published in the Government Gazette on August 16, 2024, with most of the provisions taking effect on the same date.

Governance for Digital Asset Businesses

The heightened standards for digital asset business operators aim to ensure efficient business supervision and appropriate response to operational risks. The new requirements mainly address:

  • Board of directors composition. Large-sized digital asset business operators (i.e., those with at least 10,000 customers and holding customer assets of at least THB 500 million) who do not provide digital asset custodian services must have at least five directors, at least two of whom must be independent directors. In addition, the business operators must establish an audit committee, with at least two members being independent directors, to create an appropriate “check and balance” mechanism within the organizational structure. Current digital asset business operators must comply with the requirements within 180 days of the notification’s effective date.
  • Qualifications of authorized directors and managers. Authorized directors and managers are now required to (1) either have at least one year of working experience in the digital asset field or have participated in a digital asset course from an SEC-approved list, and (2) participate in a good corporate governance course recognized by the SEC. Current authorized directors and managers who have not previously completed a good corporate governance training course must complete such a course within one year of the notification’s effective date.
  • Management and operational structures. Check-and-balance mechanisms are required for every major operational system. Business operators must establish a customer asset management policy, and all customer assets in the business operator’s custody must be managed according to the security risk and by separate personnel from other operational personnel that may have a conflict of interest. Business operators must also provide a customer service system that is suitable to the risk and complexity levels of the relevant types of digital assets.

Exchange Rules

The SEC has also introduced new minimum requirements for digital asset exchange rules, which must be approved by the SEC. The key updates include:

  • Listing and delisting rules. As indicated by a new utility token supervisory scheme that was issued days earlier, group 1 utility tokens are not allowed to be listed on the exchange. (Group 1 utility tokens are those issued for consumption purposes or as a digital representation of a certificate, such as loyalty points, concert tickets, NFTs, and carbon credits.) In addition, listing rules now require adoption of the “silent period” concept, whereby tokens offered for sale below the market price cannot be listed in the six months after the offering. In terms of issuer disclosure, digital asset exchanges must now require digital token issuers to disclose information as stipulated by the SEC.
  • Trading, clearing, and settlement rules. Digital asset exchanges are now required to have a real-time trade monitoring system to detect abnormal trades, and daily monitoring reports must be submitted to the SEC. If the digital asset exchange finds suspicious action, it must promptly report this to the SEC. The digital asset exchange must also have signposting to inform investors about potential risks from investing in certain tokens.
  • Market makers. Digital asset exchanges with market makers must have rules on qualifications, scope of work, ongoing performance supervision, and noncompliance measures relating to market makers.

For more information on these new notifications, or on any aspect of digital assets and cryptocurrency in Thailand, please contact Kobkit Thienpreecha at [email protected], Pornpan Wichawut at [email protected], Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected], or Rujaporn Paritsantik at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More