Category: Legal Updates

on by

Asia IP – Lesson from Taylor Swift

“Taylor Swift’s extensive trademark portfolio is a best-practice strategy and not overprotection. It complements her copyright ownership by protecting brand elements (name, lyrics, tour titles, cats’ names) for indefinite renewal in commerce.”

Said by Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

ASIA IP Magazine, Volume 18, Issue 3.

Read Full Articles

Other Articles

on by

Digital Advertising: Enhanced Regulations on False and Misleading Advertisements

Background of the Current Situation Regarding False Advertisements:

Thailand continues to face persistent challenges from deceptive online advertising, including fraudulent investment schemes, impersonation of legitimate businesses, promotion of counterfeit goods, misinformation, and inducements to participate in illegal activities such as gambling. These practices exploit the anonymity and reach of digital platforms, resulting in significant financial losses to consumers and erosion of trust in the online ecosystem.

In response, Thai authorities have introduced stricter measures. The most recent development is the Announcement of the Electronic Transactions Commission (ETC) on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), published in the Government Gazette and enforced on 1 November 2026. This announcement strengthens obligations specifically targeting social media platforms to curb technology-enabled crimes through enhanced advertiser verification.

Previous Rules:

Prior to this latest announcement, advertising regulation relied on the Consumer Protection Act, sector-specific rules, and the earlier ETDA Guidelines for Managing Advertisements on Digital Platform Services (No. 3/2567), issued on 11 June 2024. Those guidelines focused on general digital platform services (DPS), encouraging identity verification, screening, and monitoring practices but operated primarily as practical guidance under the broader DPS framework.

Enforcement was often reactive, with limited mandatory real-time verification requirements for every advertisement on social media platforms. The new announcement builds upon and intensifies these earlier efforts by imposing more prescriptive obligations under the Royal Decree on Measures to Prevent and Suppress Technological Crimes (commonly known as the “Mule Account” Decree).

New Rules:

The new announcement requires social media service providers to implement mandatory identity verification for all advertisers before any advertisement is published. Key requirements include:

Identity Verification (Screening):

•  Verify the advertiser’s identity using one of the following methods:

       •  Examination of official government-issued identification documents and confirmation that the advertiser is the genuine owner of the documents.

       •  Utilization of a Digital ID system meeting the standards prescribed by the Electronic Transactions Commission.

•  Collection and retention of advertiser information for at least 90 days after the end of the advertising service. Required data includes:

       •  Name of the individual or juristic person and authorized representative.

       •  Identification documents (e.g., national ID card, passport, or corporate registration documents).

       •  Contact details (address and telephone number).

       •  Payment information, including details of any third-party making payments on behalf of the advertiser.

Platforms must apply these measures to every advertisement, significantly reducing anonymity in paid promotions.

Who Will Be Affected and What They Have to Do:

This announcement primarily affects operators of social media platforms that allow advertising.

Obligations for Affected Platform Operators:

•  Integrate robust identity verification processes into their advertising systems prior to publication.

•  Establish secure data storage systems compliant with the 90-day retention requirement.

•  Update internal policies, terms of service, and technical infrastructure to enforce these measures consistently.

•  Ensure readiness for regulatory audits and cooperation with authorities.

Advertisers will need to provide verified identification documents or use approved Digital ID systems each time they wish to run paid advertisements. Non-compliant advertisements are expected to be rejected or removed promptly.

Consumers will benefit from greater transparency and reduced exposure to fraudulent promotions, but are still advised to exercise caution and report suspicious content.

Key Takeaways:

•  This regulation represents a significant tightening of controls on social media advertising, moving from general guidelines to mandatory, pre-publication identity verification.

•  The focus on social media platforms addresses a key vector for online scams, complementing the broader DPS framework.

•  Compliance deadlines are firm and platforms must be fully prepared by 1 November 2026.

•  Failure to comply may result in penalties under the relevant technological crime prevention laws.

•  The measure underscores Thailand’s commitment to creating a safer digital advertising environment while maintaining platform accountability.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Asia IP – Cartoons and characters on merchandise: All about character licensing and IP protection

“Character licensing has become an increasingly important component of the consumer products and entertainment industries across Asia. The region’s large consumer base and strong demand for branded merchandise have created a highly dynamic market for licensed characters.”

Said by Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Source: Cartoons and characters on merchandise: All about character licensing and IP protection | Asia IP

Other Articles

on by

Thailand Tightens Trade and Transshipment Regulations Amid Global Pressure

The Intersection of Global Trade Tensions and National Sovereignty

Thailand is currently navigating a delicate regulatory balance. As the economic and technological rivalry between the United States and China intensifies, smaller export-driven nations are increasingly caught in the crossfire. In response, Thailand has begun tightening its investment policies, customs oversight mechanisms, and regulatory frameworks to reduce the risk of its territory being used as a conduit for trade circumvention or unauthorized transshipment. Through these measures, the government seeks to safeguard its economic interests, preserve its international trade credibility, and reinforce confidence among global trading partners.

Deconstructing the Section 301 Legal Challenge

At the heart of Thailand’s immediate bilateral trade agenda is the mitigation of legal risks associated with a Section 301 investigation initiated by the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 grants the U.S. government broad authority to investigate foreign government practices or policies that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Thailand’s Minister of Commerce, leading a technical delegation to the United States, addressed key legal concerns raised by the U.S. government, focusing primarily on the following:

  • Industrial overcapacity;
  • Forced labor compliance; and
  • Thailand’s widening trade surplus with the United States.

The Truth Behind the Trade Surplus

From a legal and economic standpoint, Thailand’s defense against U.S. trade scrutiny hinges significantly on the corporate origin of its exports. Thai trade negotiators clarified to the USTR that at least 30% of the goods contributing to Thailand’s trade surplus are manufactured by U.S.-owned multinational corporations that have legally established manufacturing bases within Thailand. Under international trade law and bilateral agreements such as the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), these transactions reflect legitimate corporate supply-chain integration rather than predatory trade practices. By framing the trade surplus as a mutually beneficial outcome of American foreign direct investment, Thailand aims to legally insulate itself from the punitive tariffs or retaliatory quotas typically triggered by Section 301 findings.

Eradicating Origin-Tagging Fraud and Transshipment

Parallel to its defensive trade diplomacy, Thailand has launched a domestic enforcement campaign to combat origin-tagging fraud and the circumvention of export control regulations, amid heightened global scrutiny over technology supply chains. Following stringent U.S. restrictions on the export of high-end semiconductors and advanced processing components — including Nvidia microchips — to China and other designated jurisdictions, reports emerged suggesting that illicit actors may have attempted to utilize Thai territory as a transit hub for unauthorized transshipment. Under both international customs law and domestic statutes, transshipment fraud — whereby restricted goods are imported into a neutral third country solely to alter country-of-origin labels and be re-exported in evasion of sanctions — poses a severe threat to a nation’s regulatory credibility.

Mitigating Transshipment Risks and Origin-Tagging Fraud

In response, Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has forged a strategic enforcement alliance with the Customs Department to enhance regulatory oversight of all incoming and outgoing high-technology electronic shipments. This inter-agency directive mandates full regulatory oversight and physical inspection protocols across all such shipments. By implementing these rigorous monitoring mechanisms, the Thai government aims to secure its borders against trade non-compliance, protect international corporate partnerships, and reinforce Thailand’s standing as a transparent and legally compliant hub for global commerce.

Rewriting the Legal Framework for Investment Incentives

To institutionalize this enforcement drive, the BOI has undertaken a significant policy overhaul, revising the eligibility criteria for state-backed corporate incentives and tax privileges. Historically, Thailand’s investment promotion regime prioritized attracting rapid foreign capital inflows and export-oriented manufacturing activity. Under the revised framework, however, pass-through or simple assembly business structures are no longer eligible for promotional privileges. Projects seeking corporate tax exemptions and BOI promotional status must now demonstrate that they facilitate a substantive manufacturing process that contributes genuine innovation and local value-added benefits to the Thai economy. Labor-intensive operations that neither transform the product nor generate verifiable intellectual or technical development within Thailand’s borders are expressly excluded from the promotional framework. Through these revised standards, the government aims to strengthen the integrity of its investment promotion regime while reinforcing compliance with international trade and rules-of-origin requirements.

Enhanced Audits and Statutory Compliance Measures

The implementation of these tightened regulations introduces rigorous administrative and supply-chain auditing mechanisms. The BOI and the Customs Department have deployed an integrated verification framework centered on two distinct legal compliance metrics:

  • Traceability Regimes: A comprehensive, legally binding audit trail tracking the precise provenance of raw materials and sub-components utilized throughout the production cycle.
  • Harmonized System (HS) Code Scrutiny: Detailed algorithmic and physical verification of customs classifications to confirm that goods exported from Thailand have undergone a “substantial transformation” in accordance with international trade standards.

Under this strict regulatory regime, any corporation found to have misrepresented the origin of its exports or facilitated illicit transshipments faces the immediate revocation of all BOI investment privileges, as well as severe legal prosecution under Thai customs and trade statutes. Through the combined application of international diplomacy and rigorous domestic enforcement, Thailand is legally fortifying its trade infrastructure, preserving its partnerships with Western technology markets, and ensuring sustained compliance with global regulatory norms.

Key Takeaways

Companies involved in origin fraud or illegal transshipment face loss of BOI privileges and prosecution under Thai law.

Thailand is tightening regulations to prevent its territory from being used for the illegal transshipment of restricted goods, particularly advanced semiconductors.

The U.S. Section 301 investigation focuses on Thailand’s trade surplus, industrial overcapacity, and labor compliance issues.

The BOI and Customs Department now mandate stricter inspections, supply-chain traceability, and HS code verification for high-technology exports.

BOI incentives are now limited to businesses that demonstrate substantial manufacturing activity and local value-added contributions.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand Approves Draft Royal Decree on Inter-Agency Personal Data Sharing

On 5 May 2026, the Thai Cabinet approved in principle the Draft Royal Decree on the Disclosure of Personal Data under the Control of State Agencies to Other State Agencies (B.E. .…) (the “Draft Royal Decree”), as proposed by the Office of the Council of State.

The Draft Royal Decree represents a significant development in Thailand’s digital government agenda and is expected to substantially expand the capacity of state agencies to exchange and process personal data across the public sector.

The measure seeks to establish a centralized legal framework for inter-agency data sharing in support of more integrated and efficient public administration. It also forms part of Thailand’s broader transition toward a digital and data-driven government, with the stated aims of strengthening welfare systems, improving regulatory coordination, and streamlining public services.

Background and Policy Objectives

Historically, personal data held by Thai government agencies has remained fragmented across separate authorities and databases. This fragmentation has frequently resulted in duplicated procedures, inconsistent records, delays in public service delivery, and constraints on data-driven policymaking.

The Draft Royal Decree seeks to address these challenges by requiring state agencies to disclose relevant personal data to other government agencies upon request, where such disclosure serves public administration purposes. The stated objective is to facilitate more effective governance while reducing administrative burdens on citizens and businesses.

The Draft Royal Decree also seeks to balance greater data accessibility with robust safeguards relating to confidentiality, cybersecurity, and data protection compliance.

Key Provisions of the Draft Royal Decree

1. Mandatory Disclosure Between State Agencies

Under the Draft Royal Decree, state agencies would be required to disclose personal data under their control to other state agencies upon request. The proposed framework is intended to facilitate:

  • inter-agency data linkage;
  • integrated digital government services;
  • more efficient welfare administration; and
  • evidence-based policymaking.

This would represent a material departure from the current framework, under which data sharing between agencies is often limited, fragmented, or governed by sector-specific regulations.

2. Restrictions on Further Disclosure

The Draft Royal Decree imposes obligations on receiving agencies to safeguard any personal data disclosed to them. In particular, receiving agencies must:

  • maintain the confidentiality of the disclosed data; and
  • refrain from disclosing such data to external parties, whether public or private.

These requirements are designed to establish a controlled framework governing the circulation of personal data within the public sector.

3. Security and Cybersecurity Compliance

The handling and protection of shared data must comply with:

  • criteria prescribed by the Official Information Commission (“OIC”); and
  • applicable cybersecurity standards.

The inclusion of cybersecurity obligations reflects growing regulatory concern regarding unauthorized access, data breaches, and the risks associated with large-scale government data integration.

Interaction with Thailand’s PDPA

One of the most significant legal implications of the Draft Royal Decree lies in its interaction with the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (“PDPA”). The Draft Royal Decree appears intended to qualify as “other law” within the meaning of Section 21(2) of the PDPA. If enacted, this would permit state agencies to process personal data for purposes beyond those originally notified to data subjects, provided that such processing is authorized under the Royal Decree.

In practice, this may operate as a statutory exception to the PDPA’s purpose limitation principle in the context of inter-agency data sharing within the public sector, thereby granting state agencies broader authority to reuse, exchange, and integrate personal data where necessary for public administration and service delivery.

Expected Impact

The Draft Royal Decree is expected to advance Thailand’s transition toward a more integrated digital government by:

  • reducing duplication across government databases;
  • streamlining administrative procedures;
  • improving access to public services;
  • enhancing transparency and regulatory oversight;
  • supporting anti-corruption initiatives; and
  • enabling more effective monitoring of informal economic activity.

For businesses and individual citizens, the proposed framework may reduce the need for repetitive document submissions and administrative formalities when dealing with government authorities.

At the same time, the expanded ability of state agencies to access and process personal data is likely to attract increased scrutiny with respect to proportionality, data governance standards, inter-agency oversight mechanisms, and the adequacy of cybersecurity safeguards.

The Draft Royal Decree may accordingly prove to be a defining development in Thailand’s evolving public-sector data governance landscape, particularly as government agencies continue to expand their digital infrastructure and interconnected service delivery capabilities.

Key Takeaways

  • Thailand is advancing toward a mandatory inter-agency data sharing framework within the public sector.
  • State agencies may be legally required to disclose personal data to other government authorities upon request.
  • Receiving agencies must maintain confidentiality and comply with applicable cybersecurity and data protection standards.
  • The Draft Royal Decree may operate as an “other law” exception under the PDPA, permitting broader processing of personal data by state agencies.
  • The proposed framework forms part of Thailand’s broader digital government strategy, aimed at improving administrative efficiency, regulatory coordination, and public service delivery.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

The 2026 Special 301 Report: Modernizing Thailand’s IP Framework Amid Ongoing Challenges

Introduction

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has released its 2026 Special 301 Report (“Report”), an annual assessment of the global state of intellectual property (“IP”) protection and enforcement among United States trading partners. The Report examines systemic issues ranging from counterfeit goods and online piracy to trade secret protection and concerns regarding forced technology transfer.

For the tenth consecutive year, Thailand remains designated on the Watch List. While the USTR commends Thailand’s legislative progress and specific enforcement successes, the Report underscores persistent systemic vulnerabilities that continue to prevent Thailand’s elevation to a more favorable designation.

Legislative Modernization and Systemic Evolution

The USTR formally acknowledged Thailand’s sustained commitment to harmonizing its domestic laws with international standards. Central to this recognition are the ongoing efforts to amend the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994). These reforms represent more than mere administrative updates; they serve as the foundational infrastructure for Thailand’s planned accession to the following major international treaties:

  • The Hague Agreement — Streamlining the international registration of industrial designs.
  • The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) — Enhancing digital-era protections for performers and producers.

This Trade Plus policy, championed by the Department of Intellectual Property (“DIP”) under the Ministry of Commerce, signals a strategic intent to foster a transparent, innovation-friendly environment aimed at attracting high-value foreign investment.

Enforcement Successes and the Deterrence Gap

Operational coordination among Thai law enforcement agencies, including the Royal Thai Police and Customs authorities, has yielded notable enforcement successes. The USTR highlighted the successful dismantling of major Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) piracy networks, as well as targeted interventions in notorious physical markets.

A landmark development was recorded at the MBK Center, where authorities moved beyond mere seizures to enforce the termination of lease agreements with tenants found to be engaged in IP violations. This approach signals a meaningful shift in enforcement strategy.

Notwithstanding these achievements, the Report identifies a significant deterrence gap. U.S. stakeholders have expressed concern that enforcement actions continue to focus disproportionately on end-of-line retail operators rather than on upstream manufacturers and large-scale distribution networks. This reactive approach is considered insufficient to permanently disrupt the supply chains of counterfeit goods.

Persistent Challenges

Despite Thailand’s legislative progress, the 2026 assessment identifies several areas of continued concern:

·       The Digital Frontier

Online platforms and illicit streaming applications remain the primary vectors for IP infringement. The USTR noted that, while physical markets in tourist areas have become comparatively cleaner, the volume of pirated content available through digital channels has returned to pre-enforcement levels. Further concerns relate to the protracted length of criminal proceedings and the relative inadequacy of penalties imposed by the judiciary.

·       Pharmaceutical Patent Backlogs

A significant point of friction is the substantial backlog in patent examinations, particularly in the agricultural and pharmaceutical sectors. The United States continues to urge Thailand to provide effective protection against the unfair commercial use and unauthorized disclosure of undisclosed test data for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.

·       Judicial and Regulatory Frameworks

Stakeholders have identified low civil damages as a primary impediment to effective deterrence. In addition, the USTR remains cautious regarding Thailand’s geographical indication (GI) framework, particularly in the context of ongoing trade negotiations with the European Union, which could affect United States market access.

Conclusion

Thailand’s continued designation on the Watch List reflects consistent, if incremental, progress rather than a failure to engage. The transition to the Clear List will require Thailand to move decisively from legislative drafting to deterrent-level enforcement.

For the legal community and rights holders, attention now turns to two critical questions: first, how the Thai judiciary will manage the rising volume of digital piracy cases; and second, whether the DIP can successfully clear the pharmaceutical patent backlog to meet the rigorous expectations of Thailand’s primary trading partners.

The path forward demands a coordinated and sustained response targeting the upstream sources of infringement, strengthening judicial deterrence, and delivering on the legislative commitments that Thailand has already undertaken.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

OCPB Issues New Guidelines on Fair Advertising and Use of AI-Generated Content

Background: What is Happening in Thailand Now:

Thailand has taken a significant step toward regulating the use of artificial intelligence in commercial advertising. The Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has issued a formal notification under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) establishing specific guidelines for AI-generated advertising content.

The notification addresses emerging advertising practices where marketers increasingly use AI and image-editing software to create or enhance visuals—often to an idealized standard—to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB observed that such practices may cause consumers to misunderstand the essential characteristics, condition, quantity, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage.

Key trigger for regulation: The OCPB determined that when advertisements use images, videos, or other visual materials that have been created, enhanced, or modified through AI or computer programs, consumers may be misled about the actual product they will receive. The notification is already in effect with no grace period.

Why the Regulator Needs to Regulate:

The OCPB identified several risks justifying regulatory intervention:

· Consumer deception: AI can create flawless, exaggerated depictions that mislead consumers about the true characteristics, quality, quantity, or composition of products.

· Unfair competition: Advertisers using deceptive AI enhancements gain an unfair advantage over those that accurately portray their products.

· Vulnerable group protection: Children and adolescents are especially susceptible to unrealistic AI-generated images, which may encourage unsafe behavior—particularly for non-edible products resembling food items.

· Lack of transparency: Without mandatory disclosure, consumers cannot distinguish between real and AI-generated content, eroding trust in advertising.

The notification was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), which has long prohibited advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services.

What the Regulation Is:

The OCPB notification applies to advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold, which may cause misunderstanding regarding condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects.

Three Key Requirements:

A. Prior Authorization

Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. This applies where existing laws already mandate pre-approval for certain advertising categories (e.g., health products, financial services).

B. Accurate Representation

Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos.

C. Mandatory AI Disclosure Labels

Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images. The OCPB has specified approved wording for these labels :

Approved Disclosure Label When to Use

“Real image or simulation edited using AI” Content showing real product/location with AI editing

“Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” Location-based content

“Photo from actual product or edited simulation” Product-focused content with AI enhancement

“Image created by AI” Fully AI-generated images

“Video created by AI” Fully AI-generated videos

Disclosure clarity requirement: Disclosures must be clearly visible, audible, or readable according to the type of advertising medium. A label buried in fine print or shown for only a fraction of a second does not meet this standard.

Separate Rule – Non-Edible Products Resembling Food Items

For non-edible products advertised in a manner that may cause them to resemble food items, businesses must additionally:

· Obtain prior authorization from the relevant regulatory authority when required by law

· Include clear, prominent Thai-language disclaimers that are easily visible, audible, or legible

· Exercise particular caution for communications targeting vulnerable groups (children, adolescents), avoiding portrayals that could encourage imitation, ingestion, or unsafe behavior

What Businesses Need to Do Now:

The notification is already in force. Businesses operating in Thailand must take immediate action :

Step 1: Audit Current Advertising Content

Review all active campaigns and identify any materials that use AI-generated or AI-edited images or videos. Determine which disclosure label applies to each piece of content.

Step 2: Verify Accuracy of Depictions

Ensure that every visual depiction of size, quantity, volume, composition, or characteristics matches the actual product. If discrepancies exist, correct the content or add appropriate disclosures.

Step 3: Add Mandatory Disclosures

For all AI-generated or AI-edited visual content, add one of the OCPB’s approved disclosure labels in a clearly visible position. The label must be readable on screen or in print, and audible if the medium is audio/video.

Step 4: Update Internal Workflows

Make AI disclosure a mandatory step in the creative approval process. Every piece of advertising content that uses AI should be reviewed for compliance before publication.

Step 5: Review Contracts with Agencies and Suppliers

If working with external marketing agencies, graphic designers, or content creators, ensure contracts require them to flag AI-generated content and apply appropriate disclosures. Establish clear compliance responsibility.

Step 6: Train Marketing Teams

Educate all personnel involved in creating or approving advertising materials on what counts as AI-generated or AI-edited content and what disclosures are required.

Step 7: Establish Ongoing Monitoring

Thailand’s AI regulatory landscape is evolving rapidly. Monitor updates from the OCPB and other relevant bodies—including the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES)—for new guidance.

Key Takeaways:

· Thailand’s OCPB notification on AI-generated advertising content is already in effect under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979).

· Mandatory disclosure labels with specific approved wording must appear on all AI-generated or AI-edited advertising images and videos.

· Accuracy requirement: Depictions of size, quantity, volume, composition, and characteristics must match the actual product.

· Prior authorization remains required for advertising categories already subject to pre-approval (health products, financial services, etc.).

· Separate rules apply to non-edible products resembling food items, requiring Thai-language disclaimers and special care for vulnerable groups.

· Businesses should immediately audit, correct, disclose, and train to ensure compliance and avoid enforcement risks including fines and removal orders .

· Thailand’s broader AI regulatory framework is still developing—companies should treat this as the beginning of an ongoing compliance journey .

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Proposed Amendments to Anti-Corruption Legislation to Align with OECD Standards

The Thai Government is advancing amendments to the Organic Act on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, B.E. 2561 (2018) (OAAC), with the objective of strengthening the country’s framework for combating foreign bribery and aligning it more closely with the standards of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The proposed revisions primarily target Section 176 of the OAAC, which establishes the offense of bribing foreign public officials or officials of international organizations, along with associated corporate liability provisions.

These changes form part of Thailand’s broader strategy to meet OECD expectations in preparation for potential accession to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and formal membership assessment by 2030.

Key Proposed Amendments to the Foreign Bribery Offense:

The revisions seek to address gaps identified in the current regime and to achieve functional equivalence with OECD Anti-Bribery Convention requirements. Principal elements include:

•  Broadening the scope of prohibited conduct: The offense will explicitly cover bribery through intermediaries, advantages conferred on third parties, and inducements intended to cause or refrain from any official action, irrespective of whether such action falls within the official’s authorized duties. Limiting language, such as the requirement of intent “to delay” official action, will be removed.

•  Clarification of definitions: Key terms including “person”, “property or other benefit”, “foreign country”, “foreign public official”, and “international organization” will be refined or expanded for greater legal certainty.

•  Introduction of new offense: Conspiracy to commit foreign bribery will be established as a standalone criminal offense.

•  Penalties: Sanctions for natural persons will be aligned in severity with those applicable to the bribery of Thai public officials. Corporate fines will be recalibrated to reflect the gravity of the offense, with consideration given to supplementary administrative measures, such as license suspension or revocation.

Enhancements to Corporate Liability Regime

Significant attention is being paid to the liability of juristic persons:

•  Associated persons: Revised definitions will clarify the categories of individuals and entities whose actions may trigger corporate liability.

•  Defense: An additional compliance defense will require not only the existence of adequate internal controls but also their effective implementation, supervision, and enforcement.

•  Independent corporate liability: The amendments will confirm that a juristic person’s liability persists independently of any prosecution or conviction of the individual perpetrator and remains unaffected by corporate restructuring, mergers, acquisitions, or changes in legal form.

•  Statutes of limitation: Appropriate limitation periods for corporate offenses will be reviewed to ensure effective enforcement.

Practical Implications for Businesses:

These amendments, once enacted, will have material consequences for Thai and foreign companies operating in or through Thailand:

•  Heightened compliance expectations: Companies will need to review and, where necessary, strengthen anti-bribery policies, due diligence procedures, and internal controls, particularly in relation to intermediaries, third-party payments, and cross-border transactions.

•  Increased enforcement risk: A clearer and broader offense, combined with robust corporate liability provisions, will facilitate more effective investigations and prosecutions, elevating reputational and financial risks associated with foreign bribery.

•  Investment and trade benefits: Alignment with OECD standards is expected to enhance international credibility, improve access to foreign investment, and support smoother cross-border business dealings. It will also position Thai companies more favorably in jurisdictions that apply strict anti-bribery due diligence requirements.

Key Takeaways:

•  The proposed amendments to the OAAC aim to bring Thailand’s foreign bribery laws into closer alignment with OECD standards, supporting potential accession to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

•  Key changes include a significantly expanded foreign bribery offense, new conspiracy provisions, clarified definitions, and strengthened corporate liability rules.

•  Businesses should expect higher compliance standards, with particular focus on adequate and effectively enforced anti-bribery controls.

•  Successful implementation will enhance Thailand’s international reputation, reduce cross-border corruption risks, and support long-term economic competitiveness and foreign investment inflows.

Businesses are advised to monitor the legislative process closely and begin assessing their existing compliance programs in anticipation of these important reforms.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Notification of the Competent Officer on Exchange Control (No. 38) — Draft Amendment

Introduction

On 25 March 2026, the Competent Officer on Exchange Control issued the Draft Notification on the Criteria and Procedures for Foreign Exchange Transactions (No. 38) (the “Draft Notification”). The Draft Notification proposes amendments to the existing notification dated 31 March 2004 (as amended), with the principal objective of enhancing regulatory clarity and easing documentary requirements for certain foreign exchange (“FX”) transactions.

The proposed amendments primarily concern documentary requirements, the timing for submission of supporting documents, and the specific treatment of certain transaction categories, including FX purchases for foreign currency deposit (“FCD”) accounts, gold import payments, and hedging transactions. The Draft Notification is expected to have material practical implications for authorized juristic persons, financial institutions, and business operators engaged in cross-border FX transactions.

Key Amendments

1. FX Purchases for Own Foreign Currency Deposit (FCD) Accounts

Under the Draft Notification, where a customer purchases foreign currency solely for deposit into its own FCD account, authorized juristic persons are no longer required to request supporting documents, irrespective of the transaction amount.

This amendment represents a significant relaxation of administrative requirements and reflects a regulatory policy direction toward facilitating liquidity management and FX flexibility for market participants. Supervisory oversight will continue to be exercised under the existing FCD regulatory framework.

2. FX Purchases for Gold Import Payments

In contrast to the relaxation described above, the Draft Notification expressly tightens documentary requirements for FX purchases made for the purpose of settling payments for imported gold.

For such transactions, authorized juristic persons must request supporting documents in all cases, without regard to transaction value. No monetary threshold or exemption applies.

This differentiated treatment reflects the regulator’s continued emphasis on monitoring transactions considered to carry heightened financial, market, or systemic risk.

3. Timing for Submission of Supporting Documents

The Draft Notification clarifies and differentiates timing requirements for the submission of supporting documents as follows:

General Rule Supporting documents must be submitted on the transaction date (the “Trade Date”).

Relaxation for Certain Spot Transactions For spot FX transactions not related to gold import payments, authorized juristic persons may, where justified by necessity and reasonableness, permit the submission of supporting documents on the settlement date (the “Settlement Date”) in lieu of the Trade Date.

Mandatory Submission on the Settlement Date Submission of supporting documents on the Settlement Date is required for:

  • forward FX transactions with a value of USD 200,000 or equivalent or more; and
  • FX purchases for gold import payments, regardless of amount.

4. FX Transactions for Hedging Based on Forecast Exposure

For FX transactions entered into for the purpose of hedging or managing exchange rate risk arising from forecast exposure, the Draft Notification introduces greater flexibility in the categories of acceptable documentation.

In addition to forecast-based documents, customers may now submit:

  • evidence of underlying obligations; or
  • documents demonstrating exposure to exchange rate risk, such as billing notices or contractual indicators.

This change more closely aligns regulatory practice with commercial reality, particularly in the context of treasury and risk management operations.

5. Sale of Foreign Currency by Residents

The Draft Notification amends the existing provisions governing the sale of foreign currency by persons resident in Thailand, applicable to both spot and forward transactions.

Authorized juristic persons are permitted to facilitate such transactions on a broader basis, in particular where the seller:

  • will receive foreign currency income in the future; or
  • maintains funds in its own FCD account.

This amendment provides additional operational flexibility while preserving applicable reporting and disclosure obligations.

Key Takeaways

  • FCD Transactions: FX purchases for deposit into a customer’s own FCD account no longer require supporting documents, regardless of amount.
  • Gold Imports: FX purchases for gold import payments remain strictly regulated, with mandatory documentation required in all cases.
  • Document Timing: While the Trade Date remains the default submission deadline, limited flexibility has been introduced for non-gold spot FX transactions.
  • Large Forward FX Transactions: Forward contracts valued at USD 200,000 or more require documentation to be submitted on the Settlement Date.
  • Hedging Transactions: A broader range of documentary evidence is now acceptable for forecast-based hedging arrangements.
  • Operational Impact: Financial institutions and business operators are advised to review and update their internal policies, compliance checklists, and transaction workflows to ensure alignment with the Draft Notification.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Proposed Updates to the Non-Preferential Certificate of Origin Framework for Exports to the United States and the European Union

The Department of Foreign Trade (DFT) is conducting a public hearing from 1 April to 15 April 2026 on a draft notification concerning the verification of product origin for the issuance of Non-Preferential Certificates of Origin (“C/O“) for exports to the United States and the European Union (the “Draft Notification“).

The Draft Notification seeks to strengthen the criteria, procedures, and verification mechanisms governing origin certification for surveillance goods in relation to C/O issuance, in alignment with prevailing international trade measures. Key objectives include reinforcing monitoring systems, enhancing inter-agency coordination, and improving the verification of high-risk goods. These measures are intended to address risks of transshipment, origin misrepresentation, and evasion of anti-dumping duties and elevated tariffs, as well as to prevent circumvention of trade measures through the misuse of C/Os in customs declarations.

Key Principles and Implementation Framework

The Draft Notification introduces a mandatory origin verification mechanism for exporters seeking to obtain C/Os for surveillance goods destined for the United States and the European Union. Under this framework, exporters intending to declare Thai origin to foreign customs authorities via a C/O are required to undergo prior origin verification of the goods with the DFT. This requirement applies to goods listed in the annex as surveillance products, comprising 9 product groups for exports to the EU and 67 product groups for exports to the United States, all of which are subject to trade measures due to risks of origin misrepresentation.

1. Verification Procedure

Exporters must submit an application for origin verification through the DFT’s electronic system, together with relevant information and supporting evidence pertaining to the production process. The DFT will assess the origin qualifications of the goods and communicate the verification results through the same system. The results will serve as supporting evidence for subsequent C/O applications and will remain valid for a period of two years.

2. Enforcement

To monitor and enforce compliance with the mechanism, the DFT is empowered to conduct on-site inspections of business premises, production facilities, and storage locations where doubt arises regarding the production process — whether before or after the issuance of a verification result — in order to verify adherence to the applicable rules of origin.

3. Revocation

The DFT is further empowered to revoke a verification result where it is established that goods have been falsely declared as originating from Thailand through the use of a C/O, or where changes in production or export information result in non-compliance with the relevant rules of origin. In such cases, the revoked verification result may no longer be relied upon for future C/O applications.

Conclusion

The Draft Notification represents a significant tightening of Thailand’s non-preferential certificate of origin regime, particularly with respect to high-risk export categories. By introducing a mandatory pre-verification mechanism supported by electronic processing, enhanced inspection powers, and revocation authority, the DFT aims to strengthen the integrity of origin certification and ensure greater compliance with international trade rules. If implemented, the measure is expected to increase regulatory scrutiny for exporters while simultaneously enhancing the credibility and transparency of Thai export documentation in key markets, namely the United States and the European Union.

Key Takeaways

The primary objective is to prevent origin misrepresentation and circumvention of trade measures.

Mandatory origin verification is required prior to the issuance of non-preferential C/Os for exports to the United States and the European Union.

The requirement applies to surveillance goods across 9 EU product groups and 67 US product groups.

Applications are submitted and processed through an electronic system, with verification results valid for two years.

The DFT retains authority to conduct on-site inspections and revoke verification results where warranted.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles