On July 3, 2024, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification re: Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery (COD) Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). The notification regulates businesses “providing goods transportation services that collect cash on delivery,” which refers to business operators responsible for transporting goods from sender (i.e., the merchant of the goods) to consumer (i.e., the purchaser of the goods) and upon delivery collects payment from the consumer either in cash or via bank transfer. The obligations that the notification imposes on these business operators are described below. Receipts Business operators must prepare a receipt as evidence of payment according to the specified requirements and deliver it to the consumer immediately upon receiving payment for the goods. The receipt must include text in Thai that is clearly visible and legible, with a font size of at least two millimeters and no more than 11 characters per inch. The text must contain essential information and conditions as specified in the notification, including: The duration that the business operator will hold the money received from the consumer before releasing it to the sender; The timeframe within which the consumer must notify the business operator to return the goods and request a refund; Information about the employees who deliver the goods and collect payment from consumers; The name of the person authorized to issue the receipt; Details about the parcel specifying the nature of the goods, including the name, type, kind, characteristics, size, weight, quantity, color, volume or capacity, and price of the goods; and A statement that the consumer has the right to reject the delivered goods or receive a refund. The receipt also must not contain any statement prohibited by the notification. Examples include: Text stipulating that business operators and senders will not issue refunds; Statements prohibiting consumers from exchanging or

The landscape of intellectual property (IP) has transformed alongside advancements in technology, transitioning from traditional methods to modern online approaches. A growing number of IP infringers are moving their illegal activities to the online sphere, particularly through the sale of counterfeit goods on their websites, social media, or e-commerce platforms. In response to these shifting pressures, Thailand implemented the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (CCA) on July 18, 2007, and amended it in 2017, aiming to enhance the effectiveness of combating online infringement by empowering government officials to request that the court block computer data (called “website-blocking”) that infringes upon other parties’ intellectual property rights, as per section 20(3) of the CCA. From 2018 to May 2024, Thailand’s Criminal Court and Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court have issued 53 orders to block more than 1,779 infringing URLs. One significant recent development is the Criminal Court’s establishment of the Technology Crime Division, which has been operating since April 1, 2024. Its purpose is to address criminal offenses that occur through electronic means, which should then be handled in an effective and prompt manner by judges who have expertise on technological crimes. In addition, several current measures to combat technology crime, including section 20(3) of the CCA, require court orders for the prevention of electronic criminal offenses or online infringement. The Technology Crime Division has the jurisdiction to consider and grant these orders, which will help expedite the approval process and ensure review by specialized judges. Scope of the Technology Crime Division The announcement of the establishment of the Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court was published in the Government Gazette on March 18, 2024, with operations commencing on April 1, 2024. The Technology Crime Division is empowered to: Consider and adjudicate technology crime cases, except cases falling under the jurisdiction of the

In this chapter from Eversheds Sutherland’s Global Freezing Order Guide, attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins provide answers to common questions regarding civil freezing orders and their particulars in Thailand. 1. Are freezing orders (or their equivalent referred to below) available in civil legal proceedings in this jurisdiction and what is their effect? Yes. The effect of a freezing order is that the respondent is prohibited from transferring or disposing of the assets referred to in the freezing order until a specified time (for example, a further hearing, a judgment or payment) or a further order of the Court. The property subject to a freezing order may include the property in dispute or the respondent’s property, including money or property owed to the respondent by a third party. Thai law is silent on the issue of whether a freezing order issued by a Thai Court could potentially apply to assets located outside of Thailand. In light of this, in practice, a Thai Court is unlikely to include assets located outside of Thailand in a freezing order. It is possible that a Thai Court could order a respondent over whom it has jurisdiction not to transfer any property or other assets located abroad, however, enforceability may be difficult, with limited consequences where the respondent refused to comply with such an order. 2. Are other interim orders commonly made in conjunction with a freezing (or equivalent) order? No. The Court does not typically place obligations on the respondent to provide disclosure of the nature, value and location of his, her or its assets, with the onus being on the applicant to provide the Court with the information available. 3. Briefly what is the relevant legal test? The applicant has to prove that there is good cause for the complaint. The applicant must also prove that the respondent

In April 2024, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance published a draft circular concerning securities transactions, clearing and settlement of securities transactions, activities of securities companies, and information disclosure on the securities market (the “Draft Circular”) for public feedback. The Draft Circular, if adopted, will amend several regulations impacting public companies and the securities market. Some of the more notable amendments are discussed below. Relaxing Pre-Funding Requirement for Foreign Institutional Investors To place orders to purchase securities, investors are currently required to have sufficient cash in their securities trading accounts to pay 100% of the cost of the transaction, except in cases of: Margin trading (applicable to Vietnamese investors only); and Transactions in which there is a settlement guarantee or confirmation from the custodian bank on accepting the settlement request. The Draft Circular allows foreign institutional investors (“FIIs”) to purchase securities without 100% pre-funding their securities trading accounts, based on a signed agreement with a securities company. However, the State Securities Commission of Vietnam (“SSC”) has the right to temporarily reinstate the 100% pre-funding requirement if measures for securities market stabilization are required. The Draft Circular also specifies that securities companies must (i) assess the capacity of FIIs to determine the pre-funding requirement under relevant agreements signed between them, and (ii) be responsible to settle the shortfall of a securities purchase order through their proprietary trading account(s) if the FIIs are unable to fully pay for such securities purchase order, except in certain circumstances. Further, a securities company cannot directly exempt or authorize other entities to exempt an FII from the 100% pre-funding requirement if the FII purchases securities of (i) such securities company, (ii) a company in which such securities company is a majority shareholder, or (iii) the parent company of such securities company. The 100% pre-funding requirement for FIIs in securities trading under the prevailing laws is

On June 28, 2024, Thailand’s Ministry of Interior issued the Ministerial Regulation Re: Exemption from the Government Fee for Hotel Business Operators B.E. 2567 (2024). The ministerial regulation, which was published in the Government Gazette on June 30, 2024, lifts the annual government fee for hotel business operations from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2026. This extends the previous annual fee exemption period, which had been set to expire on June 30, 2024, in accordance with similar ministerial regulations in 2022. This measure aims to alleviate the financial burden on hotel business operators that may be affected by insufficient tourist revenue. For more information on this exemption, or on any aspect of Thailand’s legal and regulatory environment for hotel business operations, please contact Chaiwat Keratisuthisathorn at [email protected] or Chanchai Jhongsathit at [email protected].

The rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence in various industries is increasingly attracting the attention of regulators, who aim to encourage the progression of AI technologies while ensuring their responsible use. Recent regulatory developments around the world, including in the European Union and Southeast Asia, serve as evidence of this emerging trend. Here we shall discuss the effect of AI regulatory approaches in the  EU on Southeast Asian countries. Approach and Action The EU Artificial Intelligence Act has been officially adopted by EU colegislators and will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the EU Official Journal.[1] Most of its provisions will apply two years after its entry into force. The act establishes a harmonized EU legal framework, aiming at ensuring that AI systems placed on and utilized in the EU market are safe, have managed risks, and are aligned with EU fundamental rights and values. Countries in Southeast Asia, predominantly governed by civil law systems, often adopt statutory frameworks similar to those in the EU when addressing new legal matters. In the rapidly developing field of AI, Southeast Asian countries are adopting a wait-andsee approach toward global regulatory trends. This cautious stance allows them to observe and analyze international developments in AI regulation before crafting their own frameworks. Compared to the EU, countries in Southeast Asia are generally more focused on using AI for national development. Common themes include building human resource capability, developing ecosystems and building infrastructure. Some countries emphasize governance and ethics more than others. Over the past five years, governments across Southeast Asia have been focusing on promoting AI by implementing national policies to strengthen AI promotion and governance. While there may be less regional integration in the approach to AI of countries in Southeast Asia, there are some efforts to create a unified stance. In February, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations released

On May 17, 2024, Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) issued an amended Notification Concerning the Rules for Designating or Reviewing the List of High-Risk Customers Who Require Close Monitoring under the Ministerial Regulation on Customer Due Diligence B.E. 2563 (2020). This notification, which took effect the following day, updates the previous version of the notification from 2022 to cover cybercrimes listed under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023). The amended notification sets out the steps that all financial institutions in Thailand must take to manage money laundering risks and to comply with the AMLO’s mandatory Guidelines on Customer Due Diligence. Under the new notification, account holders suspected of engaging in or facilitating technological crimes, as recorded by the Anti Online Scam Operation Center (AOC), are to be classified as “high-risk persons.” The notification includes provisions for listing high-risk customers under two specific codes: HR-03-1: This code applies to individuals who are the subject of either a petition or a complaint related to a predicate offense accepted by the relevant inquiry officer and recorded as a criminal case. It also covers individuals whose bank accounts are suspected of being used to conduct transactions related to crimes under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), with victims seeking prosecution. The names of individuals in this category are received from responsible agencies according to the Criminal Procedure Code or the AOC and are documented in a publicly accessible online notification system. HR-03-2: This code is for individuals involved in the commission of a predicate offense or those whose bank accounts are suspected of being used in such offenses, but whose cases have not been accepted or numbered by the relevant inquiry officer. Names under this category

Thailand recently made history by becoming the first country in Southeast Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. This landmark decision recognizes the equality and dignity of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It also opens up new opportunities for couples who wish to start or grow their families through adoption. One of the benefits of adopting a child in Thailand is that the law does not discriminate based on the gender or sexual orientation of the adoptive parents. As long as the married couple meets the age and legal requirements, they can adopt a child and become their loving and supportive family. This means that same-sex couples who are married can also enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as any other adoptive parents and provide a caring and nurturing environment for their adopted child. One of the main reasons why same-sex couples can adopt a child in Thailand without any discrimination or prejudice is the strong and comprehensive privacy law that protects the personal data of individuals and families. Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) ensures that the personal data of people, especially children, is collected, used, and disclosed only for legitimate and lawful purposes, and with respect to their rights and dignity. The PDPA also grants the right of consent and other data subject rights to the legal representatives of children, such as their parents or guardians, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. This means that same-sex adoptive parents can decide how their adopted children’s personal data is processed and can also protect their children’s privacy and interests from any unauthorized or harmful access. The PDPA also safeguards the personal data of same-sex adoptive parents from any unlawful or discriminatory processing that may damage their reputation or violate their rights. In these ways, the Thai privacy