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 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded