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​ 

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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More