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

July 19, 2022

Thailand’s SEC Opens Public Hearing Period on ICO Portal Regulations

Subscribe to Updates

On June 23, 2022, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) opened a public hearing period on regulatory controls for initial coin offering (ICO) portals that serve as financial advisors to digital token issuers. The proposed measures aim to prevent conflicts of interest; allow ICO portals to outsource certain functions; and establish additional notification obligations for ICO portals.

The public hearing is open for general comments until July 23, 2022, and the new legislation is expected to be issued soon after that. During the public hearing period, any interested parties can comment on the SEC’s proposed principles. The key proposed points are outlined below.

Conflicts of Interest

Similar to SEC-approved financial advisors for securities offerings, ICO portals must be clear of conflicts of interest when representing issuers in a coin offering. According to the draft regulation, the following conflicts of interest are prohibited:

  • The ICO portal (and certain individuals as specified by the SEC) directly or indirectly holds a prohibited amount of shares in the issuer, its affiliates, or its subsidiaries. If the issuer is not a listed company, any shareholding or portion thereof is prohibited. If the issuer is a listed company on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), the shares held by the ICO platform may not total more than five percent of the total voting rights.
  • The issuer (and certain individuals as specified by the SEC) directly or indirectly holds shares in the ICO portal in any amount if the ICO portal is not a listed company, or totaling more than five percent of the voting rights if the ICO portal is listed on the SET.
  • Any of the ICO portal’s directors or executives, or the head of the department responsible for screening the ICO project, is also a director in the issuer.
  • The ICO portal has a relationship with, or any interest in, the issuer in a way that could impede the independence of the ICO portal with respect to conducting its duties.

Outsourcing ICO Portal Functions

To increase efficiency, ICO portals will be allowed to outsource certain tasks, subject to the following conditions:

  • The ICO portal must adopt an outsourcing policy, measures, and procedures (approved by the board of directors), to be reviewed annually or upon any event that might have a material impact on business operations.
  • The scope of outsourced tasks must be appropriate, reasonable, and not so substantial that the ICO portal will become an entity with no business operations (an “empty box”). ICO portals may only outsource tasks relating to digital token offerings, such as contacting and providing services to investors, and supporting digital token offerings and subscription management. Core tasks, such as screening ICO projects, may not be outsourced.
  • The ICO portal must notify the SEC within 15 days when it outsources a task to a third party, when there is a significant change to the outsourcing, or when the third party subcontracts any task to another party.

Additional Notification Obligations

To facilitate additional supervisory control, ICO portals will have to notify the SEC within 15 days if there are any changes to their qualifications, personnel, and functions, or if the ICO portal is unable to maintain the necessary qualifications or comply with the requirements detailed in the relevant section of SEC Notification No. GorJor. 16/2561 Re: Criteria, Provisions, and Procedure for Approval of an ICO Portal Service Provider. In the notification, the ICO portal must identify the cause and report on any remedial measures planned or already taken.

If an ICO portal wishes to suspend operations, it must also notify the SEC and provide a list of unfinished tasks along with a plan to mitigate any potential impact on customers. When the ICO portal wishes to resume operations, it must again notify the SEC and explain how it has resolved the issues that caused the suspension of operations, along with any significant changes to the portal’s characteristics.

Tilleke & Gibbins will continue to monitor these ICO portal regulations and provide updates as needed. For more information on any aspect of digital asset business, cryptocurrency, digital tokens, or digital asset regulations in Thailand, please contact Kobkit Thienpreecha at [email protected], Onunya Chanpen at [email protected], or Sorawit Partomtanasarn at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 25, 2025
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training.
Read More
June 19, 2025
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released draft guidelines establishing principles for managing artificial intelligence (AI) risks in the financial sector. The draft guidelines provide a structured framework for the responsible adoption of AI technologies. Financial service providers will be able to use the guidelines as a reference to appropriately manage their risks in a manner that aligns with internationally recognized best practices. The BOT is accepting public comments on the draft guidelines until June 30, 2025. Scope and Application The draft guidelines apply to all financial service providers, including financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act, as well as payment providers under the Payment Systems Act. These guidelines supplement existing BOT risk management guidelines covering IT risk management, third-party risk management, data governance, and market conduct. The guidelines define AI systems as systems that mimic human intelligence, including machine learning, deep learning, generative AI (such as large language models), and agentic AI. This definition specifically excludes rule-based automation systems like robotic process automation and condition matching. Key Risk Management Principles The guidelines lay out two main principles in managing AI risk. Governance: Financial service providers should define and establish clear roles and responsibilities for their personnel and AI system supervision structures to uphold FEAT (fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency) principles as follows: Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Financial service providers should define roles and responsibilities for boards and executives on AI risk oversight. Responsibilities include establishing an AI system usage policy, designating personnel responsible for AI risk management, and building awareness of AI-related risk within the organization. AI system usage policy. The AI system usage policy should be aligned with organizational objectives, regulatory requirements, and FEAT principles. These policies should be reviewed regularly to respond to technological advancements and evolving risk profiles. Risk management
Read More
June 19, 2025
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has announced plans for increased enforcement of the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses That Are Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022). The ETDA outlined a comprehensive enforcement framework and review process during an online meeting with digital platform service operators on June 11, 2025. The ETDA’s enhanced enforcement approach includes systematic reviews of notification submissions, formal correction orders, and potential criminal penalties for noncompliance. Digital platform operators should immediately assess their current notification status and prepare for increased regulatory scrutiny. Review and Amendment of Previously Submitted Notification Data The ETDA will begin reviewing operation notification forms and annual reports submitted by digital platform service operators to assess each platform’s risk level and develop tailored regulatory obligations. In this comprehensive review process, the ETDA will: Examine the accuracy and completeness of submitted notification data; Request additional information as needed by phone or email; and Issue formal orders as needed requiring operators to correct or complete missing information. Operators who fail to comply with ETDA orders may face suspension of operations, revocation of their notification receipt, and public disclosure of their noncompliant status on the ETDA’s website. The ETDA will conduct follow-up workshops in July 2025 for operators whose data remains unclear or incomplete. Enforcement Framework and Penalties The ETDA outlined a three-tiered enforcement framework with escalating consequences for different types of violations, as follows: Failure to notify before commencing operations: Operators who begin services without proper notification may face criminal penalties under the Electronic Transactions Act, including up to one year of imprisonment, fines of up to THB 100,000 (approx. USD 3,070), or both. Additional consequences include suspension of operations and potential liability for company directors. Failure to correct or comply with official orders: Noncompliance with ETDA correction
Read More
June 13, 2025
In today’s digital age, cyberattacks have become a real threat to organizations worldwide. These attacks can range from phishing and malware to ransomware and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. As the frequency and sophistication of these attacks increase, so does the importance of cybersecurity compliance. In the corporate world, compliance refers to the process of ensuring that a company and its employees adhere to all relevant laws, regulations, standards, and ethical practices—but it should not stop there. Compliance should also encompass asset recovery and disciplinary measures, which can both help organizations address incidents effectively and promote good governance. Cyberattacks are malicious attempts to access or damage a computer system or network, often carried out for financial gain, for political activism, or simply to cause disruption. For instance, a successful attack might involve an attacker creating an email address that closely resembles a legitimate one, perhaps by changing only one or two characters. That email address is then inserted into an existing conversation thread, making it appear as if the user with this email address was already part of the discussion. This tactic can easily deceive a recipient into believing the email was sent from a trusted source, thereby leading them to click on malicious links, provide sensitive information, or even make payments in accordance with the attacker’s request or instructions. Phishing attacks like these are particularly dangerous and can have a serious impact on the ongoing business of a corporation because they exploit the trust and familiarity established in the original email chain. Effective Mitigation Approaches Mechanisms for addressing the aftermath of a crisis provide important recourse to affected organizations, but effective compliance mechanisms can minimize the risk of such crises ever occurring. Companies should therefore prioritize preventative measures and implementation of effective crisis management schemes. Various legal
Read More