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​ 

August 21, 2025
On August 18, 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in collaboration with the Ministry of Finance, the Anti-Money Laundering Office, and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports, announced the launch of TouristDigiPay. The initiative, implemented under the SEC’s Regulatory Sandbox, allows foreign tourists to convert digital assets into Thai baht for use in everyday transactions in Thailand. Foreign tourists who opt to participate in TouristDigiPay must open two accounts once they are in Thailand: An account with a licensed digital asset operator to sell or exchange digital assets for Thai baht; and A tourist wallet account with a licensed e-money operator regulated by the Bank of Thailand. Funds from digital asset sales will be transferred into the tourist wallet, enabling tourists to make payments at participating merchants that accept e-money. Key Regulatory Requirements The TouristDigiPay project will operate for a period of up to 18 months, with the following conditions: Only licensed digital asset brokers, dealers, and exchanges integrated with licensed e-money operators are eligible to participate. Operators must implement anti-money laundering (AML) protocols that are proportionate to the assessed risk level. These include: Conducting know-your-customer and customer-due-diligence (KYC/CDD) checks on all users. For monthly transactions exceeding THB 50,000 per person, verifying the source of the digital assets and assessing AML risk using internationally recognized blockchain forensic tools or equivalent procedures. Suspending or rejecting services if digital assets are transferred from wallets flagged for AML concerns. Ensuring that conversion between digital assets and fiat includes safeguards such as matching account names and returning digital assets only to the original wallet. The following transaction limits apply to participants in the TouristDigiPay initiative: Payments to small vendors are capped at THB 50,000 per month. Payments to vendors who have completed the know-your-merchant (KYM) process are capped at THB 500,000 per
August 15, 2025
More than a decade after the issuance of Decree No. 52/2013/ND-CP (as amended by Decree No. 85/2021/ND-CP; collectively, “Decree 52”), Vietnam’s legal framework for e-commerce is under growing pressure to keep pace with the evolving digital economy. While Decree 52 has provided a foundational framework, it has shown certain limitations in keeping up with issues such as counterfeit goods, intellectual property enforcement, unqualified products, and emerging models like livestream selling and affiliate marketing. To address these regulatory gaps, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) has released the 2025 Draft E-Commerce Law (“Draft Law”) for public consultation. The Draft Law is intended to supersede the current framework under Decree 52 and establish a more detailed and comprehensive legal foundation for the regulations of e-commerce activities in Vietnam. It is currently expected to be submitted to the National Assembly for review and potential adoption during its 10th session in October 2025. In this article, we discuss the Draft Law’s most significant updates and legal developments in comparison to existing regulations, and assess the practical challenges that businesses may face in preparing for implementation in the near future. Platform Classification: Toward a More Nuanced Framework Unlike Decree 52’s simpler structure, which broadly categorized platforms into either (i) websites selling goods and services or (ii) websites providing e-commerce services, the Draft Law introduces a more detailed framework that aims to classify platforms based on their technical functions and business models. Specifically, the Draft Law introduces a four-tier classification system for e-commerce platforms, consisting of: (i) Direct Business Platforms, (ii) Intermediary Platforms, (iii) Social Networks with E-Commerce Functions, and (iv) Multi-Service Integrated Platforms. This approach reflects an effort to more accurately capture the complexity of today’s e-commerce landscape, including hybrid platforms such as TikTok Shop. While this approach reflects the growing complexity of
August 6, 2025
Thailand’s Digital Government Development Agency (DGA) has released drafts of two pivotal documents to guide Thai government agencies in adopting cloud technology and classifying data for cloud usage. These draft guidelines, open for public hearing through August 12, 2025, are part of the national “Go Cloud First” policy, which aims to accelerate digital transformation, improve efficiency, and ensure robust data security across the public sector. The new standards will have significant implications for both government agencies and cloud service providers operating in Thailand. Highlights of the draft guidelines are presented below. Government Cloud Usage Guidelines Cloud-first transformation: All government agencies are directed to prioritize cloud solutions for new IT projects, in line with the cabinet’s “Go Cloud First” policy. Cloud model selection: Agencies must assess their needs and select the most appropriate cloud deployment model—public, private, hybrid, or community cloud—based on the sensitivity of the data and operational requirements. Service types: The guidelines provide criteria for choosing between Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS), emphasizing the importance of using standard, non-customized services where possible. Cost management: Agencies are required to plan and separate cloud-related expenses, ensuring transparency and efficient budget allocation. Cloud migration: The guidelines outline the steps for migrating to the cloud and highlight the role of cloud service providers in facilitating the process, including supporting innovation and enabling smooth exit strategies. Procurement compliance: All cloud procurement must comply with public sector procurement laws and regulations. Only providers meeting government-mandated standards can be selected. Security and shared responsibility: The guidelines clarify the division of security responsibilities between cloud providers and government agencies. While providers manage infrastructure security, agencies remain responsible for data, application, and access controls. Legal framework: Agencies must comply with the Digital Government Administration Act, Cybersecurity
August 1, 2025
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) announced to the press on August 1, 2025, that it had issued eight new administrative fines under Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) in five cases of noncompliance by public and private entities. The enforcement actions reflect a growing commitment by the PDPC to penalize noncompliance across all sectors, regardless of organizational type or size. The total amount imposed to date was approximately THB 21.5 million (approx. USD 654,690), underscoring the financial risks tied to PDPA violations. The five cases—one involving a state agency and the remainder in the private sector—are summarized below. Case 1: State Agency Providing Online Services to the Public The order in this case stemmed from a cyberattack on a state agency’s web app, resulting in personal data of 200,000 data subjects being leaked to and sold on the dark web. The software developer was also found to have implemented no privacy by design, lacked an access control system, had no data breach prevention measures, and failed to conduct risk assessments or review existing security measures. Key noncompliance identified: Lack of appropriate security measures Weak password protection No risk assessment or ongoing review of security measures No data processing agreement with software developer that acted as data processor The state agency and the developer were each fined THB 153,120 (approx. USD 4,670). Case 2: Private Hospital This case involved a hospital that engaged an individual contractor to destroy patient medical record documents. However, the contractor stored the documents at their own premises, failed to follow the required destruction protocols, and ultimately used the medical records to wrap sweets, resulting in the leak of over 1,000 records during the destruction process. The contractor also failed to notify the hospital of the data breach. Although there was a