With a favorable crypto climate from the Trump administration in the United States, Thailand is ready for digital asset platforms and has market appetite. This article highlights the country’s regulatory initiatives supporting the growth of digital assets like crypto, stablecoins, and smart contracts, along with efforts to establish clear oversight. Bank of Thailand Sandbox Stablecoins used as a medium of payment, particularly those pegged to the Thai baht (THB) for public use, are considered as mirroring fiat currency, which violates the Currency Act B.E. 2501 (1958). These can also be classified as e-money under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017). The Bank of Thailand (BOT) urges issuers to engage in preconsultation prior to implementation, due to concerns about stablecoins being used in place of THB currency. Other FX- or asset-backed stablecoins are not recognized as legal tender under Thai law, and users must bear their own risks. The BOT recognizes the potential and benefits of these technologies in reducing operational costs for financial service providers and addressing the needs of financial service users. Consequently, the BOT issued a sandbox framework in June 2024. In particular, the enhanced regulatory sandbox allows nonlicensed entities to test financial innovations in controlled conditions. These tests must have a clearly defined duration (usually under one year) and involve a limited user group with an exit strategy. Several programmable payment projects—automated transactions with predefined conditions for the payment of goods and services—were piloted under this sandbox, which closed for applications in September 2024. Eight participants are planning to launch their test runs this year, some of which include asset tokenization or exchange global stablecoins in their programmable payment projects. Thai Securities and Exchange Commission Sandbox Given that digital asset businesses fall under the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018), supervised by Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is accepting public comments until May 2, 2025, on three draft notifications that will institute an enhanced supervision scheme and impose additional requirements for systemically important retail payment system (SIRPS) operators to align with international standards and encourage open infrastructure and competition. The SIRPS operators will be determined by the BOT from the “designated payment system operators” under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017). SIRPS Designation The BOT will announce a list of payment system operators designated as SIRPS operators and thus subject to enhanced supervision. The BOT will evaluate whether the payment system operator should be deemed a SIRPS operator when it meets the criteria in either the BOT’s quantitative or qualitative assessments, which cover the following: Quantitative assessment: The payment system’s transaction values, market share, cross-border payment network scale and value, and settlement with other financial market infrastructure. Qualitative assessment: The payment system’s function as a part of the country’s payment system infrastructure, the significance of the system users’ roles in the payment services, the substitutability of the payment system, and the impact level on the public and users in the event of an emergency or system suspension. Supervision of SIRPS Business Operations SIRPS operators will be subject to heightened supervision in three areas, in addition to various BOT regulations on designated payment system supervision, as follows: Governance: SIRPS operators will be required to have a balanced board composition with an independent director and directors with varied expertise, establish subcommittees to assist the board in supervising the operator’s compliance with its policy and strategy, and have senior executives overseeing risk and technology security separately from the executives overseeing business operations. Risk management and security: SIRPS operators will be required to have comprehensive risk management to ensure system stability and security. This includes having a clear service agreement and tools

虽然泰国《外商经营企业法》（B.E. 2542（1999年））（简称“FBA”）已施行逾二十年，但名义股东安排的问题仍然是一个备受关注的话题，尤其是在泰国当局持续打击利用泰国国民作为名义股东，以规避FBA项下外资持股限制的企业行为的背景下。 FBA 的制定旨在限制外国方（包括外国个人、海外注册的法人实体，以及由外国人控股的泰国公司）在未经许可的情况下在泰国从事特定商业活动的能力。由于该法律限制，不少企业经营者选择通过名义股东的方式来运营其在泰国的业务。 与许多其他国家类似，名义股东安排在泰国是非法的。FBA 明确禁止外国人通过泰国国民代为持股，从而实质性拥有并经营法律所保留的业务。参与此类安排（包括在未取得FBA规定的必要许可的情况下经营业务）可能会面临严厉处罚，包括监禁、罚款，甚至强制解散公司。泰国当局，特别是商务部和特别调查局（DSI），持续积极调查涉及名义股东安排的可疑案件。 FBA 将外商经营的业务活动分为三类清单，每一类均设有不同程度的外资参与和持股限制： 第一类清单（List 1）：外国人严禁从事第一类清单中列明的任何业务活动，例如媒体（包括报纸、广播和电视）、稻米种植、林业、泰国传统药草采集，以及土地交易等。 第二类清单（List 2）：外国人如欲经营第二类清单所列业务，须向商业发展厅（Department of Business Development, DBD）申请《外商经营许可证》（Foreign Business License, FBL），并获得泰国内阁批准。此外，公司泰国股东的持股比例不得低于40%（经商务部长及内阁特别批准者可降至25%），董事会成员中至少须有五分之二为泰国国籍人士。此类清单涵盖涉及国家安全的业务（如武器贸易和国内航空），对泰国艺术、文化、传统和手工艺造成影响的业务，以及可能影响自然资源或环境的业务。 第三类清单（List 3）：外国人如欲从事第三类清单所列业务，亦需向 DBD 申请 FBL，但审批程序相较第二类清单更为宽松，由外商经营委员会（Foreign Business Committee）负责审批。第三类清单涉及目前泰国人尚未具备充分竞争能力的业务，包括广泛的服务类业务。此外，该清单还包括“其他服务业务”，该项为兜底条款，实质上将各类服务性业务纳入受限范畴。 对于希望在泰国开展业务的外国企业而言，申请《外商经营许可证》（FBL）并非唯一合法且可持续的选项。外商还可通过特定法律途径取得经营资格，例如依据《泰美友好与经济关系条约》（Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations between the United States and Thailand）获得保护，或根据《投资促进法》、《泰国工业园管理局法》及其他相关法律申请许可。尽管这些途径在程序上可能较为复杂，但它们为外资企业提供了安全、合法的经营基础，有助于实现长期稳定的业务发展。 鉴于近期泰国当局对名义股东安排的监管力度日益加强，外商在泰投资设立企业时，应更加审慎地选择其商业架构，确保取得适当的许可，并严格遵守外资持股限制的相关法律规定。通过合法合规地运用现有法律框架中的各类途径，外资企业可为其在泰国的新设业务奠定坚实基础，助力业务的稳健发展与长远成功。

To foster foreign investment and attract leading international universities to establish campuses in Vietnam, the government has recently adopted several regulations, including Decree No. 124/2025 on foreign cooperation and investment in the field of education, Decree No. 125/2024 on regulatory requirements for educational investment and operation, and Decision No. 452/QD-TTg approving the Planning of the Network of University and Teaching Institutions for the Period 2021–2030, with a Vision to 2050 (the “University Network Plan”). However, foreign investors and private higher educational institutions must still navigate regulatory complexities, build strong academic reputations, and ensure financial sustainability to compete effectively in an increasingly competitive landscape. Below are highlights of recent developments in university-related regulations that may open new opportunities for foreign investment in Vietnam. Adopting the University Network Plan The University Network Plan encourages the development of private higher education institutions (“HEIs”), especially not-for-profit ones, and welcomes top foreign HEIs to open their own foreign branch campuses (“FBCs”) in Vietnam, with the following targets. Until 2030: Encouraging new establishment and expansion of the network of private HEIs (including their branch campuses) and FBCs of top foreign HEIs, especially those offering training majors of science, engineering, and technology. Developing regional HEI networks along economic corridors centered on large cities—not only the traditional economic hubs of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, but also other provinces and cities throughout the country such as Hai Phong, Nghe An (Vinh), Thanh Hoa, Hue, Da Nang, Khanh Hoa (Nha Trang), Binh Đinh (Quy Nhon), Dak Lak (Buon Ma Thuot), Lam Dong (Da Lat), Binh Duong, and Can Tho. Vision to 2050: Increasing the number and proportion of private HEIs, especially not-for-profit ones. Having private HEIs account for about 50% of learners. Requirements for Foreign Investment in Higher Education Foreign investors can engage in higher education business in Vietnam via three forms: (i) establishment of

On April 11, 2025, Thailand’s Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) released draft principles for two notifications for public comment, open until the end of April. These aim to amend the OIC Notifications on Guidelines for Customer Personal Data Protection for life and non-life insurance businesses, which were issued in 2021. Key Principles Both life and non-life insurance companies will be required to obtain consent for the following processing activities: Processing of general personal data: When requesting the OIC to disclose information related to a customer’s insurance policy for the purpose of underwriting or claims consideration. Processing of sensitive personal data: When requesting the OIC to disclose information related to a customer’s insurance policy for the purpose of underwriting or claims consideration; and When requesting the OIC to disclose information about a customer’s insurance fraud behavior for fraud monitoring, fraud risk management, and assessing and preventing insurance fraud risk for underwriting or claims payment. The consent for the above processing activities must be in accordance with the consent requirements prescribed by the OIC, and the disclosure of personal data must also comply strictly with the conditions set by the OIC. Life insurance companies may obtain consent for other purposes as long as they comply with Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019), and companies will be liable in the event of a personal data breach. Additional Principles for Non-Life Insurance Businesses Non-life insurance companies will be required to provide a privacy notice and a summary of the privacy notice for each type of insurance policy in accordance with the form prescribed by the OIC. The privacy notice and its summary must be provided prior to or at the time of offering insurance policies, or together with the consent form for data processing through any channels used for offering insurance. The privacy notice and its summary must also be published on

Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually satisfactory settlement, first by seeking voluntary deletion

In recent years, Vietnam has positioned itself among the leading countries in the world in terms of digital asset ownership and trading volume. This rapid adoption reflects the country’s growing digital economy and the increasing engagement of individuals and businesses in blockchain-based financial activities. Central to this growth are Resolution No. 57-NQ/TW of the Politburo dated December 22, 2024, on breakthroughs in science, technology, innovation, and national digital transformation with a vision to 2045 (“Resolution 57”) and Resolution No. 03/NQ-CP of the Government dated January 9, 2025, promulgating the Action Plan to Implement Resolution 57 (“Resolution 03”), which outline a flexible and innovative policy framework that embraces pilot programs for emerging technologies to lay the groundwork for Vietnam’s legislative framework concerning cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies. Regulatory clarity in terms of digital assets and blockchain technologies is now more critical than ever for businesses and investors. In light of this, Vietnam is currently in the process of introducing three key legal instruments, with drafts of the Law on Digital Technology Industry (“Draft DTI Law”), Resolution of the National Assembly on the Establishment of Regional and International Financial Centers in Vietnam (“Draft Financial Center Resolution”), and Resolution of the Government on the Pilot Implementation of Crypto Asset Markets in Vietnam (“Draft Crypto Pilot Resolution”) nearing promulgation. Current Regulatory Direction and Schedule Vietnam’s regulatory framework for crypto assets and blockchain has been in a developmental stage since 2017, focusing on directions, plans, and schedules rather than established regulations. In February 2024, under Decision No. 194/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) was assigned to draft a legal framework to either prohibit or regulate virtual assets and service providers by May 2025, signaling a clearer regulatory direction. In March 2025, Directive No. 05/CT-TTg of the Prime Minister directed the MOF and the State Bank of

While Thailand’s Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA) has been in place for over two decades, the issue of nominee arrangements remains a hot topic—especially as authorities continue to crack down on businesses that use Thai nationals to hold shares in violation of foreign ownership restrictions under the FBA. The FBA was enacted to limit foreign parties (which includes foreign individuals, offshore legal entities, and foreign majority-owned companies in Thailand) ability to conduct certain business activities in Thailand without authorization. This legal restriction has led many business operators to use nominees to operate their businesses. Similar to many other countries, nominee arrangements are illegal in Thailand. The FBA expressly prohibits foreigners from using Thai nationals to hold shares on their behalf in a way that enables them to own and operate reserved businesses under the law. Engaging in such arrangements (including conducting a business without the necessary license under the FBA) can result in severe penalties, including imprisonment, fines, and the forced dissolution of the business. The authorities, particularly the Ministry of Commerce and the Department of Special Investigation, continue to actively pursue cases involving suspected nominees. The FBA categorizes businesses into three lists, each outlining different levels of restrictions on foreign ownership and participation: List 1: Foreign business operators are strictly prohibited from engaging in any of the business activities on list 1, such as media outlets (newspapers, radio, and television), rice farming, forestry, extraction of Thai medicinal herbs, and land trading. List 2: Foreign business operators must obtain a foreign business license (FBL) from the Department of Business Development (DBD) and secure approval from the Thai cabinet to engage in a business activity on list 2. In addition, the company must be at least 40% Thai-owned (this may be reduced to 25% with special approval from the Minister of Commerce and