Thai authorities have escalated efforts to block unlawful cross-border digital asset business operators. On June 19, 2025, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) issued a notification empowering it to ban internet access to operations or services offered by digital asset business operators who lack licenses from the Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This ban, issued under the 2023 Royal Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crime, particularly aims to block Thai users’ access to services offered by unlicensed offshore digital asset providers via their own apps or websites or through public social media platforms. Compliance Requirements The notification requires internet service providers and social media platforms selected by MDES to immediately impose internet access restrictions on identified apps, websites, and IP addresses of illegal operators upon receiving MDES orders. Takedown Orders There are two tracks for competent officials at MDES to issue orders to operators: If the competent official is notified by the SEC of licensing noncompliance by a particular digital asset business operator, the competent official can issue a takedown order to the operator upon approval from the permanent secretary of MDES. If the competent official independently discovers, or receives a complaint from any third party other than the SEC, that a digital asset business operator may have violated licensing requirements, the competent official can ask the SEC to verify and confirm the relevant facts and noncompliance before seeking approval from the permanent secretary of MDES to issue the takedown order. Streamlined Enforcement Prior to this notification, the SEC could obtain takedown orders only from Thai courts under the 2007 Computer Crime Act to take down or block access to unlicensed digital asset platforms and apps. This was a relatively lengthy process subject to limitations and complications. Under the

Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security recently released a draft version of the 2025 Cybersecurity Law, which is intended to replace both the existing 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 Law on Network Information Security (LNIS). This consolidation reflects a broader effort by the Vietnamese government to streamline and centralize the legal framework governing cybersecurity, data protection, and information security to be under the sole authority of the Ministry of Public Security, moving away from the previous sharing of responsibility with the former Ministry of Information and Communications (which ceased operations earlier this year and merged with the Ministry of Science and Technology). This shift aims to eliminate overlaps and improve enforcement efficiency. The draft law is built upon the foundation of principles and provisions of both the 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 LNIS, while also introducing a wide range of amendments and new regulations. By merging the two laws, the government seeks to reduce legal fragmentation and ensure consistency in definitions, obligations, and enforcement mechanisms across related domains like data protection, IT system classification, and cybercrime prevention. The newly introduced amendments include enhanced obligations for service providers, stricter controls on information transmission, classification of IT systems, designation and protection of nationally important information systems, and sector-specific violations and compliance requirements. Highlights of the draft law are discussed below. Definition and Obligations of Service Providers The draft law clearly defines and significantly broadens the scope of entities considered “service providers” under its jurisdiction. This now includes businesses and individuals offering products or services in cyberspace, including both infrastructure and content online services, such as: Internet service providers (ISPs) and providers of telecommunications, hosting, servers, domain names, VPNs, proxy services, and cloud computing; Providers of social networks, websites, and online gaming; Financial institutions, banks, foreign bank branches in Vietnam, e-wallet providers, payment intermediaries, stock exchanges, and digital

In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that the decision to grant relief rests

On June 26, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Resolution No. 216/2025/QH15 to extend the duration of agricultural land use tax exemption through December 31, 2030. This policy extension reaffirms the government’s ongoing efforts to support the agricultural sector, ensure national food security, and promote rural development. Key Takeaways Tax Exemption Period Extended: The new resolution continues the full exemption from agricultural land use tax as stipulated under Resolution No. 55/2010/QH12, as amended in 2016 and 2020. The tax exemption, which was originally set to expire at the end of 2025, will now remain in effect until December 31, 2030. Scope of Exemption: The exemption applies to all types of land currently eligible under the existing legal framework for agricultural land use tax relief. This typically includes land used by households, cooperatives, and non-commercial organizations for agricultural production, aquaculture, salt-making, and reforestation. Effective Date: Resolution 216 will take effect on January 1, 2026. During the interim period, tax exemption remains valid under existing laws and resolutions until the end of 2025. Implementation Guidance to Follow: The government is tasked with issuing detailed guidance to ensure effective implementation of this extended exemption. Businesses, cooperatives, and individuals engaged in agricultural activities should monitor upcoming regulations and instructions from relevant ministries. Outlook Vietnam’s extension of agricultural land use tax exemption demonstrates a strong policy commitment to rural economic stability and environmental sustainability. For land users, the exemption represents meaningful financial relief that can be reinvested into modernizing farming techniques, improving land efficiency, or transitioning to sustainable practices. While the extension itself is automatic, it is recommended that agricultural land users and stakeholders review their land use documentation and tax profiles to ensure alignment with eligibility requirements. Future implementation regulations may also introduce new compliance obligations that should be tracked closely.

On July 4, 2025, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) issued two significant notifications that introduce new compliance requirements for ride-hailing platforms operating in the country. The notifications formally designate these platforms as high-impact digital services under section 18(3) of the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Businesses and impose a comprehensive set of additional operational obligations. These measures are designed to address regulatory gaps and enhance oversight of digital platforms providing public passenger vehicle or motorcycle ride-hailing services. First, the Notification on the Designation of Ride-Hailing Platforms under section 18(3) formally designates all ride-hailing platforms that have notified the ETDA of their operations as high-impact digital platform services under section 18(3) of the royal decree. Unlike high-risk marketplace platforms, which are named individually, any ride-hailing platform that has notified the ETDA of its operations is automatically subject to these new requirements. Next, the Notification on Additional Obligations for Ride-Hailing Platforms imposes further obligations on ride-hailing platforms, supplementing the general requirements under section 21 of the royal decree. These notifications will come into force 90 days from their publication in the Government Gazette. New Compliance Obligations The new regulatory framework introduces a range of operational, technical, and reporting requirements for ride-hailing platforms, particularly concerning the issues described below. Vehicle and Driver Compliance Operators must: Ensure that all vehicles used on the platform are registered as public vehicles in accordance with Department of Land Transport requirements Verify all drivers hold valid public driving licenses Collect service fees in compliance with applicable fare regulations under the Vehicle Law Digital Platform Features and User Verification Operators must implement robust digital platform features for both drivers and riders, including: Comprehensive identity verification and confirmation processes for drivers and riders, utilizing both face-to-face and non-face-to-face methods, including biometric and digital ID checks Real-time GPS tracking and display of vehicle location, estimated routes, travel times, and fares for both

Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff, which showed that the latter had been selling

ベトナム政府は、貿易上の立場を強化し、米国との進行中の関税交渉におけるコミットメントを強化するための断固たる措置として、国内における知的財産権のエンフォースメント強化に全力で取り組んできた。その重要なきっかけとなったのは、首相が全省における模倣品の取締り強化のため、関係機関に対し、包括的なエンフォースメント措置を開始するよう要請する決定を下したことである。 Tilleke & Gibbinsは、これらの活動に積極的に関与し、ベトナムの市場管理局（Market Surveillance Authority）、税関、国境警察と緊密に連携しながら、計画策定、情報収集、そして現場でのエンフォースメントにおいて重要な役割を果たしてきた。 主要なオペレーションは、ハノイやホーチミン・シティを含む主要な商業拠点で実施された。ハノイでは、市場監視Team1と協力し、ハンザイ（Hang Giay）の大手卸売業者を検査した。検査の結果、大量の模倣品である香水が押収され、違法取引ネットワークにおける主要な供給業者が特定された。 ホーチミン・シティでは、サイゴン・スクエアを含む著名な市場における大規模な検査キャンペーンを支援した。情報収集を行い、当局は、模倣品であるブランド品の販売で悪名高い店舗や屋台を標的とした複数回の摘発を実施した。Tilleke & Gibbinsの専門家は、迅速かつ効果的な介入を確実に行うため、ロジスティクス支援とリアルタイム分析を行った。 ベトナムの都市部だけでなく、北部のおよび中部の重要な国境地帯にも活動が広げられた。Tilleke & Gibbinsは、主要な検問所で税関・国境警備隊と協力し、模倣品が含まれている疑いが高い貨物の検査を行った。これらの活動により、複数のコンテナに積まれた禁制品を押収した。 全国規模のキャンペーンには、保管・流通拠点として知られる複数の省における重点的な活動も含まれていた。バクザン省（Bac Giang）、ダナン省（Da Nang）、ハイフォン省（Hai Phong）、キエンザン省（Kien Giang）、ドンナイ省（Dong Nai）では、Tilleke & Gibbinsは、中規模から大規模の倉庫や流通センターへの組織的な摘発を支援した。これらの検査により、模倣品在庫が多数発見され、複数の施設の一時閉鎖と主要な犯人に対する法的措置につながった。 ベトナムが米国との関税交渉を続ける中、これらの注目を集めるエンフォースメント活動は明確なメッセージを発信している。すなわち、ベトナムは知的財産権の権利行使に真剣に取り組んでおり、長年の問題に対処するために具体的な行動を起こしている。Tilleke & Gibbinsのような民間パートナーの支援を受け、ベトナムは国際舞台において責任ある貿易パートナーとしての評判を高めている。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 Vietnam Intensifies Crackdown on Counterfeits amid US Tariff Negotiations

タイ銀行（BOT: Bank of Thailand）は、金融セクターにおける人工知能（AI）リスク管理の原則を定めるガイドライン草案を公表した。このガイドライン草案は、AI技術の責任ある導入のための構造化された枠組みを提供している。金融サービス提供者は、このガイドラインを参考に、国際的に認められたベスト・プラクティスに沿ってリスクを適切に管理することができる。 BOTは2025年6月30日までガイドライン草案に対するパブリックコメントを募集している。 範囲および適用 本ガイドライン草案は、金融機関業法（Financial Institution Business Act）に基づく金融機関及び特別金融機関、並びに資金決済法（Payment Systems Act）に基づく決済事業者を含む全ての金融サービス提供者に適用される。本ガイドライン草案は、ITリスク管理、サードパーティリスク管理、データ・ガバナンス、市場行動規範を含む既存のBOTリスク管理ガイドラインを補完するものである。 ガイドライン草案では、AIシステムを、機械学習、ディープラーニング、生成AI（大規模言語モデルなど）、エージェンティックAIなど、人間の知能を模倣するシステムと定義している。この定義では、ロボティック・プロセス・オートメーション（RPA）等のルール・ベースの自動化システムは明確に除外されている。 主要なリスク管理原則 ガイドライン草案では、AI リスクを管理するための 2 つの主要な原則が示されている。 ガバナンス：金融サービス提供者は、FEAT (公平性（fairness）、倫理性（ethics）、説明責任（accountability）、透明性（transparency）) の原則を遵守するために、金融サービス提供者の職員と AI システム監督構造の明確な役割と責任を次のように定義し、確立する必要がある。 ステークホルダーの役割と責任　金融サービス提供者は、AIリスクの監視に関する取締役と経営陣の役割と責任を定義する必要がある。責任には、AIシステム利用ポリシーの策定、AIリスク管理責任者の任命、組織内におけるAI関連リスクに関する意識向上などが含まれる。 AIシステム利用ポリシー　AIシステム利用ポリシーは、組織の目標、規制要件、およびFEAT原則と整合させる必要がある。これらのポリシーは、技術の進歩とリスクプロファイルの変化に対応するために定期的に見直す必要がある。 AIライフサイクル全体にわたるリスク管理　リスク管理は、リスク許容度の確立から、継続的なリスク評価と特定の利用ケースに合わせた管理策の実施まで、AIライフサイクル全体を網羅する必要がある。AIシステムが戦略的な機能や顧客とのインタラクション（例：融資の承認、口座開設）に使用される場合、意思決定プロセスには人間による監視が組み込まれている必要がある。顧客とAIシステムのインタラクションにおいては、顧客に通知を行い、AI機能を無効化またはバイパスするオプションを提供する必要がある。 開発およびセキュリティ管理：金融サービス提供者は、次のように AI の開発と展開のライフサイクルをカバーするリスク管理を行う必要がある。 データリスク　金融サービス提供者は、AIモデルの学習に使用するデータの品質、正確性、最新性、量、多様性を評価し、確保するための対策を講じる必要がある。また、データ漏洩防止対策も実施する必要がある。 モデル開発リスク　金融サービス提供者は、(1)導入前後の継続的なテストとモニタリングを通じてモデルの精度と信頼性を評価するための明確な評価指標、および、(2)AIの結果の説明可能性を確保するための手段を備える必要がある。生成AIアプリケーションについては、AIハルネーションリスク（AI hallucination risks）を低減するための具体的な対策が必要である。 サイバーセキュリティリスク　金融サービス提供者は、OWASP機械学習セキュリティトップ10などの確立された標準に基づいて、AIシステムを標的とした新たなサイバー脅威を防止および検出するための対策を講じる必要がある。 タイのフィンテック、テクノロジー、サイバーセキュリティに関する詳細については、 Athistha Chitranukroh（[email protected]）、Nopparat Lalitkomon（[email protected]）、Pornpan Wichawut（[email protected]）、 Napassorn Lertussavavivat（[email protected]）、またはRujaporn Paritsantik（[email protected]）までお問い合わせください。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 Thailand Drafts AI Risk Management Guidelines for Financial Service Providers