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

November 29, 2017

Thailand’s Payment Systems Act 2017: Electronic Payments and Bankruptcy

Informed Counsel

In October 2017, the Thai government published the Payment Systems Act in the Government Gazette, setting out the framework for a new licensing and registration regime to regulate electronic payment business operators and putting in place several provisions for a stable and reliable e-payment ecosystem. The Act is expected to facilitate the offering of many new and innovative payment services in Thailand. Operation of the new regime will depend on forthcoming regulations, which are yet to be issued, and it is necessary to await those regulations before offering any actionable commentary on that aspect of the Act. However, some other aspects of the Act, which have drawn less attention, have a significant effect and are very worthy of attention.

Electronic payments have been governed under multiple laws and layers of regulations which, until now, have lacked statutory provisions for finality of payment. This raises a concern that if a payment system participant enters into receivership or reorganization, transactions involving that participant could be canceled or reversed, which can affect other participants in the payment system; for example, where a recorded transfer is not funded or settlement fails. If the payments are for a large amount of money, this problem could spread even more broadly to other payment systems and other participants in them. In extreme scenarios, cancellations or reversals of high-value payments could present serious risks to the entire financial system affecting both banks and non-banks.

Protecting “Important” Payment Systems

The Act sets out provisions for dealing with this issue, which are applicable to participants in “important” payment systems, the security or stability of which can have an impact on the financial institution system or the financial system of Thailand. To be regarded as an important payment system, a system must:

  1. be part of the main infrastructure of the country, trouble with or disruption of which would have a broad effect on the continuity of its participants’ business; and
  2. be a system that supports high-value transfers or that is used for clearing or settlement among its members.

Any payment systems established or operated by the Bank of Thailand (e.g., BAHTNET and the imaged check clearing system) are deemed to be important payment systems. Beyond those, the Minister of Finance has the authority, on the recommendation of the Bank of Thailand, to specify important payment systems in secondary legislation. Therefore, private-sector payment systems could also be designated as important, if specified in ministerial regulations, meaning that these provisions would also be applicable to their participants.

The Act provides that, where a court accepts a reorganization petition in respect of a participant in an important payment system, or orders the participant into receivership, any of the participant’s transfers, clearing, and settlement that were pending before the court order must continue until completion under the payment system rules, but not beyond the end of the date of the court order. The law makes it clear that such transactions cannot be reversed, modified, stopped, or suspended, and that statutory provisions for revocation of a fraudulent act or other act under the Civil and Commercial Code or the Bankruptcy Act cannot affect the validity of such a payment system’s operations. Further, any cash, securities, or instruments that such a participant maintains in the payment system, must be protected, and must not be distributed to the participant’s creditors without the Bank of Thailand’s approval. Each of these measures is important to ensure that instructed transfers are made, and that settlement successfully occurs, despite a participant’s bankruptcy. In that sense, it can help to contain what could otherwise be a contagion.

Protecting Customers of “Payment Service Providers”

For a similar purpose, the Act also sets out provisions for payment service providers that hold customer funds. “Payment service providers” under the Act will include providers of: (1) credit, debit, and ATM cards; (2) e-money; (3) electronic payment services to a seller, service provider, or creditor; (4) electronic money transfer services; and (5) other payment services that may affect the financial system or public interest, and others that may be specified by royal decree.

While current regulations already require certain categories of electronic payment business operators to establish separate bank accounts for holding customer funds, the Act  expands on them.

Specifically, the Act protects customer funds held by a payment service provider from disposal or transfer under a court order, in the following circumstances:

  1. where the service provider suspends its operations under the Payment Services Act or another law;
  2. if a petition for reorganization is filed in respect of the payment service provider;
  3. if a petition is filed in bankruptcy court in respect of the payment service provider; or
  4. if the court orders the payment service provider into receivership.

Further, if a payment service provider is a judgment debtor in a civil case or is ordered into receivership, any customer funds that it holds will not be subject to attachment or execution, and will not be distributed to the payment service provider’s creditors.

In the case of receivership, the Act provides that the Bank of Thailand will return customer funds to the customers, transfer the accounts to another payment service provider, and/or take other actions necessary to conclude business with the customer funds. Customers unrelated to the payment service provider will have priority over those that are related. Any remaining compensation due would be subject to regular bankruptcy proceedings.

The new Payment Services Act offers the possibility of many innovative services for customers in Thailand to enjoy. From a legal standpoint, however, perhaps the greatest achievement of the Act is the security and stability of payment finality and the protection of customer funds.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,