Tag: Business

on by

Thai Cabinet Acknowledges Delay in Issuing Integrated Ticketing Regulations

On 20 October 2026, the Thai Cabinet acknowledged the explanation of the Ministry of Transport (the “MOT”) for its delay in issuing subordinate legislation under the Integrated Ticketing System Management Act B.E. 2568 (2025) (the “Act”). The MOT attributed the delay to extended public consultation requirements and additional discussions with transport operators, which prevented it from meeting the statutory deadline of 25 June 2026. Although the subordinate legislation has not yet been issued, the MOT has completed drafting all 20 instruments of subordinate legislation and expects to issue them by the end of 2026.

Background

The Act came into force on 28 December 2025. It establishes a legal framework for an integrated ticketing system that allows passengers to use a single ticket or payment method across different modes of public transportation, including electric trains, buses, conventional trains and boats. By simplifying travel and supporting more affordable fares, the Act aims to encourage greater use of public transportation, reduce traffic congestion and lessen environmental impact.

The Act establishes a regulatory framework covering the following key matters:

  • Integrated ticketing and fares: The Act provides for an integrated ticketing system and authorizes the MOT to prescribe integrated fare rates, which government agencies must use as the basis for future public transport concession agreements.
  • Regulatory oversight: The Act creates the Integrated Ticketing System Policy Committee, which determines policies, technological standards and principles for calculating integrated fares.
  • Licensing requirements: Operators of central revenue management centers, fare card issuance services and integrated ticketing services must obtain licenses from the Minister of Transport.
  • Financial support: The Act creates the Integrated Ticketing System Promotion Fund to support the development and operation of the system, including through loans to eligible private operators. Operators seeking financial support must hold the licenses required under the Act.
  • Mandatory participation: Certain public transport services may be designated by Royal Decree as required to participate in the integrated ticketing system and to comply with the applicable licensing requirements.
  • Enforcement and penalties: The Act imposes monetary penalties for certain violations by licensed operators and criminal penalties for unauthorized operations and other offenses.

While the Act sets out the overall regulatory framework, detailed requirements on fare structures, licensing procedures and operational standards must be prescribed through subordinate legislations. To ensure timely implementation, Section 53 of the Act requires that such legislation be issued within 180 days from the effective date of the Act, or by 25 June 2026. If the MOT cannot meet this deadline, it must report the reasons for the delay to the Cabinet for acknowledgment.

Reasons for the Delay

As the statutory deadline was not met, the MOT reported the following two reasons for the delay to the Cabinet in accordance with Section 53 of the Act.

1. Extended public consultation requirements

Under the revised public consultation guidelines issued in 2026 pursuant to the Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Law B.E. 2562 (2019), the minimum online public consultation period was extended from 15 to 30 days. The guidelines also require consultation at two stages: (i) when the key principles of the legislation are proposed and (ii) after the draft legislation has been prepared. These additional requirements extended the drafting process beyond the original schedule.

2. Additional consultations with transport operators

The proposed subordinate legislation directly affects fare collection and revenue allocation among different public transport operators. The MOT therefore needed additional time to consult relevant operators and stakeholders on technical and operational matters, to ensure that the proposed requirements are practical and can be implemented effectively.

Current Status and Next Steps

The MOT also reported that it has completed drafting all 20 instruments of subordinate legislation, although none have yet been issued. The drafts cover licensing, operational and technological standards, integrated fares, revenue management, fund administration, reporting obligations, license transfers, service suspension or termination, and enforcement measures. The MOT expects to issue all 20 instruments by the end of 2026.

Key Takeaways

  • Although the Act is already in force, its full implementation depends on the issuance of subordinate legislation governing integrated fares, licensing and system operations.
  • The missed statutory deadline does not affect the legal validity of the Act, and the MOT remains responsible for issuing the required subordinate legislation.
  • With all 20 drafts completed and issuance expected by the end of 2026, public transport operators and related businesses should monitor regulatory developments and prepare for potential operational and compliance requirements.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Nene Royal: First-to-File Priority and the Risk of Waiting

Filing Priority Matters

Thailand generally follows a first-to-file trademark system. Under Section 20 of the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991), as amended by the Trademark Act (No. 2) B.E. 2543 (2000) and (No. 3) B.E. 2559 (2016) (the “Act”), an earlier application takes priority in examination over later conflicting applications, subject to statutory exceptions and challenges. Celebrities should therefore not assume that public recognition alone will prevent another person from registering their name as a trademark. Early filing remains essential, even where the celebrity’s reputation predates the competing application.

The recent “NENE ROYAL” case (application no. 260138519, the “Third-Party Application”) illustrates this risk. The mark is associated with the Thai artist known professionally as “NENE” or “NENE ROYAL” (the “Artist”). A third party filed its application with the Department of Intellectual Property (the “DIP”) before applications for “NENE” and “NENE ROYAL” were filed on behalf of the Artist’s rights holder. Because it was filed first, the Third-Party Application had the potential to affect the examination of the later applications filed on behalf of the Artist’s rights holder under Section 20 of the Act.

On 17 October 2026, however, the DIP issued a statement on the Third-Party Application, demonstrating how trademark examination can identify potential misuse of an artist’s reputation. The DIP required the applicant of the Third-Party Application to clarify the origin of the mark, its relationship with the Artist and whether it had obtained authorization to use the mark. The DIP also explained that unauthorized adoption of a name, combined with circumstances indicating dishonest exploitation of another person’s reputation, may justify refusal of registration.

Following this examination, the applicant filed a request on 19 October 2026 to withdraw the Third-Party Application. The Trademark Registrar approved the withdrawal and issued an order refusing registration of the mark.

Examination May Not Reveal the Connection

The outcome may be different where the examiner does not recognize the name or lacks evidence linking it to a celebrity. This is particularly relevant for foreign artists, emerging personalities and names whose significance is apparent mainly within a particular audience. In such cases, an application may proceed unless the relevant facts are brought to the examiner’s attention.

Rights holders should therefore monitor published applications and support any objection with dated evidence of:

  • the name’s recognition;
  • commercial activity under the name;
  • the applicant’s knowledge of the name; and
  • the absence of authorization.

Section 35 of the Act provides a 60-day opposition period from the date of publication.

Registration Makes the Dispute Harder

If an application proceeds to registration, cancellation may become necessary. Section 67 of the Act allows an interested person claiming better rights in the mark to seek cancellation before the court within five years of the Registrar’s registration order under Section 40 of the Act. Discovering the registration late does not restart this period. Failure to act within the statutory window may bar this route, even where the claimant has an earlier entitlement to the name.

The five-year rule does not, however, make every registration immune from later challenge. Sections 61 and 62 of the Act provide separate grounds for cancellation, including lack of distinctiveness, prohibited characteristics and conflict with public order, morality or public policy. These grounds may be pursued by filing a petition with the Trademark Board and are not subject to the same five-year limit. Whether they apply, however, requires a separate legal and evidentiary assessment. An allegation of better ownership rights or unauthorized use of a name does not, in itself, establish grounds for cancellation under these provisions.

Key Takeaways

Celebrities, management agencies and commercial partners should prioritize three measures: early filing, clear contractual ownership and continuous trademark monitoring. They should also preserve evidence showing how the name acquired its recognition and who authorized its commercial use. Once a conflicting application or registration appears, they should identify the available remedy under the law and act promptly.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Proposed Super License System for Hotel Businesses in Thailand

1. Background

The Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) has made further progress on the proposed “Super License” system, as confirmed in a recent update by the Deputy Government Spokesperson. This article builds on our earlier coverage (Accommodation Reform: Proposed Super License and Stronger Guest Protections) regarding the proposed Accommodation Act B.E. …. (“the Accommodation Act”) and on our analysis of the Draft Act on Facilitation in the Consideration of Licenses and Provision of Services to the Public B.E. …. It examines the proposed licensing framework, the application procedures, the legislative status, and the implications for hotel operators and investors in Thailand.

2. Licensing Framework

2.1 Primary License (the “Super License”)

It is proposed that hotel business licenses for Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 and Type 4, as classified under the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Types and Criteria for Hotel Business Operations B.E. 2551 (2008) issued by the virtue of the Hotel Act B.E. 2547 (2004), be designated as the primary license under the Super License system. An operator applying for the primary license may also apply for secondary licenses covering other activities associated with hotel operations, as specified in the Royal Decree that will be issued by the virtue of the Accommodation Act.

2.2 Secondary Licenses

Licenses and authorizations required under specific legislation for activities associated with hotel operations are proposed to be designated as secondary licenses. Operators may consider applying for one or more of them together with their Super License application. The proposed categories are:

  • Businesses that may be hazardous to health (public health law): hotels and other temporary accommodation, fitness centers, swimming pools, theaters, entertainment activities, amusement parks, bowling alleys, game arcades, beauty salons, golf courses, laundry services and EV charging stations.
  • Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) storage facilities: licenses or notifications for consumer facilities under fuel control law.
  • Entertainment establishments: licenses under entertainment establishment law.
  • Karaoke businesses: licenses under film and video law.
  • Liquor sales: licenses under excise tax law.
  • Tobacco sales: licenses under excise tax law.
  • Zoos: licenses to establish and operate a zoo under wildlife conservation law.
  • Structures encroaching on rivers or waterways: licenses for construction activities not subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report.

Whether each activity is ultimately included as a secondary license will depend on its relevance to hotel operations, the authority granted under the applicable legislation, and the relevant licensing requirements.

3. Application and Licensing Procedures

To improve licensing efficiency, eliminate procedural duplication and reduce the administrative burden on operators, it is proposed that all applications be submitted and processed through an electronic system.

3.1 Submission of Applications

The Department of Provincial Administration is proposed to act as the receiving authority for Super License applications and for any accompanying secondary license applications.

3.2 Verification of Applications and Supporting Documents

Once the Department of Provincial Administration has verified that the applications and supporting documents are accurate and complete, it will forward them to the agencies responsible for the respective secondary licenses. Each agency will then review the application within its statutory powers and duties.

3.3 Integrated On-Site Inspections

Where an on-site inspection is required before a license can be granted, the relevant licensing authorities are expected to coordinate their inspections and, where practicable, conduct them jointly in a single visit. The Department of Provincial Administration will coordinate the process, set the inspection date and time, and notify the relevant agencies in advance.

3.4 Issuance of the License

Upon approval, a single Super License is proposed to be issued, specifying the activities for which the license holder has obtained the relevant secondary licenses and is authorized to operate.

3.5 Refusal of the Super License

If the Department of Provincial Administration refuses to grant the Super License, all secondary license applications submitted in the same application will be deemed refused. An applicant wishing to appeal must submit the appeal electronically to the relevant licensing authority. The criteria, procedures and time limits for filing and considering appeals will be governed by the applicable legislation.

Where the refusal concerns only a secondary license, the applicant may proceed with the remaining secondary license applications without appealing the refusal.

3.6 Validity Period

A secondary license may be granted the same five-year validity period as the primary license. To obtain this, the applicant must notify the Department of Provincial Administration at the time of application and pay the fees for the full five-year validity period of each relevant secondary license.

4. Legislative Status

The OPDC is currently drafting the proposed Accommodation Act. A public consultation on the principles of the Super License system for hotel businesses is open from 19 October to 17 November 2026.

No timeline for enactment of the Accommodation Act has been announced. The Deputy Government Spokesperson has, however, recently given an update on the initiative as can be found here.

5. Recommended Actions for Operators and Investors

  • Participate in the public consultation: Hotel operators and other interested stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments on the principles and details of the proposed Royal Decree through the official consultation portal.
  • Review existing licenses and business plans: Existing operators should monitor how their current licenses and approvals will be treated under the new framework. Investors should assess their business plans against the licensing classifications and requirements that are ultimately adopted.

6. Key Takeaways

  • Single and coordinated process: Type 1–4 hotel licenses are proposed to serve as the primary license, allowing operators to apply for related secondary licenses in one process.
  • Broad secondary scope: Secondary licenses would cover hotel-related activities such as health-hazardous businesses, entertainment establishments, karaoke, liquor and tobacco sales, zoos and certain structures encroaching on rivers or waterways.
  • Centralized administration: The Department of Provincial Administration would be the single point for receiving applications and coordinating with the licensing authorities.
  • Expected benefits: The initiative aims to simplify licensing procedures, shorten processing times and reduce costs for hotel operators.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Accommodation Reform: Proposed Super License and Stronger Guest Protections

Background

Thailand’s tourism sector has changed considerably, with rising numbers of international visitors and the emergence of new forms of accommodation. The legal framework, however, has struggled to keep pace. Homestays, hostels, boutique hotels, tents, rafts, and tree houses do not always fit requirements designed for conventional hotels and permanent buildings, and operators of these businesses often find compliance difficult. Meanwhile, traditional hotels that also run restaurants, spas, and other facilities must navigate multiple separate licensing processes.

In response, the proposed Accommodation Act B.E. …. (the “Accommodation Act”) aims to replace the Hotel Act B.E. 2547 (2004) with a modern framework that better reflects the current accommodation landscape. The Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979) (the “Immigration Act”), which has been in force since 1979, is also the subject of proposed amendments.

This article updates our previous article on Thailand’s hotel and accommodation regulations, available here.

Current Status

  • Immigration Act: The House of Representatives approved the draft amendment on 30 September 2026. The draft regulates the residence notification of foreigners and converts certain administrative fines into criminal penalties. The House also endorsed committee observations that the law should be aligned with the hotel law (which the proposed Accommodation Act is intended to replace) and that persons who accommodate foreigners should be supervised.
  • Accommodation Act: The Cabinet approved the draft in principle on 29 September 2026.

A Tiered Approach Based on Size and Risk

The proposed Accommodation Act would divide accommodation establishments into three categories, each requiring notification, registration, or licensing according to size, characteristics, and risk:

  • Category 1 – Notification (operate after notifying the registrar): hotels with up to 8 rooms and up to 30 guests; temporary residential accommodation (houses or rooms) with up to 8 units.
  • Category 2 – Registration (register with the registrar before operating): hotels with more than 8 but not more than 40 rooms, or more than 30 but not more than 150 guests; temporary residential accommodation with more than 8 but not more than 40 units.
  • Category 3 – Licensing (license required before operating): hotels with more than 40 rooms or more than 150 guests; temporary residential accommodation with more than 40 units.

The Minister of Interior may prescribe further types, kinds, or formats of accommodation by ministerial regulation.

This structure gives operators good reason to examine their planned room capacity and operating model before investing in a new property or expanding an existing one. A business’s marketing label, whether “homestay,” “boutique hotel,” or otherwise, should not be assumed to determine its legal classification.

For smaller operators, the proposed Accommodation Act could offer a more practical route into the regulated market, although this will depend on the requirements attached to each category and how they are administered. Property owners should also distinguish between the prospect of reform and permission to operate today. In particular, anyone considering short-term residential rentals should review the final legislation and other applicable requirements before proceeding.

What Would the Super License Cover?

The “Super License” would serve as the principal business license for Category 3 establishments, reducing the number of separate licenses an operator must obtain. Applicants who state their intention at the time of application could seek associated approvals covering up to ten activities. Examples identified by the government include premises selling or storing food; health establishments such as spas; swimming pools; fitness facilities; entertainment venues; premises using liquefied petroleum gas; and the sale of alcohol and tobacco. The mechanism would still need to be aligned with the laws governing each activity.

Hotels and resorts offering several of these services could benefit from a more coordinated application process. For an operator planning a restaurant, spa, gym, and pool within one property, the key questions would be which approvals can be handled together and what supporting documents each authority requires.

However, the term “Super License” should not lead business operators to assume that every activity is automatically authorized. Construction schedules, hotel management agreements, and acquisition documents should continue to identify the approvals required for each service and who will be responsible for obtaining them.

Advertising Would Carry Greater Contractual Weight

Under the proposed Accommodation Act, the information an operator presents to prospective guests, including accommodation rates, booking terms, advertising, and promotional statements, would form part of the contract with the guest. As international arrivals continue to grow, the Act would strengthen consumer protection by giving guests rights to cancel and to receive a proportionate refund where the accommodation or related services do not match what was advertised. Specified unfair booking conditions would also be prohibited.

This warrants attention beyond a routine review of standard terms and conditions. A room advertised with a sea view, a pool that is closed, or a package promising unavailable services could each become a source of dispute. Operators should therefore:

  • ensure that their own websites and booking-platform listings describe the same offering;
  • communicate any changes to guests before arrival;
  • establish a workable process for handling complaints and deciding when a refund is appropriate; and
  • where bookings are made through intermediaries, set out in the commercial agreement who updates listings, informs guests, and processes refunds.

Introduction of an Electronic System

The proposed Accommodation Act also introduces an electronic system to oversee and regulate accommodation businesses. The system would facilitate guest registration and reporting, license applications, and other regulatory procedures, and would serve as the primary channel of communication between operators and the relevant authorities, making administrative processes more accessible and efficient.

What Operators Should Do Now

The final text and implementing rules will determine how far the reform changes day-to-day operations. Existing businesses should monitor how their current approvals would be treated, while investors should test their plans against the eventual classification and approval requirements.

In the meantime, operators may find it useful to review:

  • property descriptions and booking conditions;
  • readiness to adopt the electronic system;
  • associated business licenses; and
  • allocation of responsibilities under management contracts.

Overall, the proposed reform seeks to move away from a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach toward a framework that reflects the size, nature, and risk level of each accommodation business.

Key Takeaways

  • The proposal seeks to make accommodation regulation better suited to businesses of different sizes and formats.
  • The Super License could simplify associated approvals for Category 3 establishments, but its scope and conditions will be important.
  • Operators should monitor and ensure that advertising, booking terms, and services actually provided are consistent. They also need to monitor on its obligation regarding notifying of the foreigner who are under their supervision under the new legislations to be enacted.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Agreement on Reciprocal Trade Negotiations Enter Final Drafting, with Signature Possible in November 2026

Introduction

Negotiations on the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade between Thailand and the U.S. (the “ART”) have moved from agreement in substance to the preparation of the final legal text. On 7 October 2026, the Prime Minister stated publicly that the parties were working on the concluding paragraph of the instrument and that signature was anticipated during the U.S. President’s visit to Asia in November 2026.

The Prime Minister further disclosed that Thailand had received a letter from the U.S. President indicating that officials of both countries would settle the final text, with the expectation that the ART could be signed during that visit. Responsibility for the remaining negotiations has been assigned to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce.

Signature could take place at either of two events in November:

  • the ASEAN Summit, to be held in the Philippines from 16 to 18 November 2026; and
  • the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) meetings, to be held in China on 18 and 19 November 2026.

The Scope of What Has Been Agreed

The Ministry of Commerce has confirmed that Thailand and the U.S. have reached agreement on the substance and governing principles of the ART, and that the outstanding work consists of technical details and legal drafting.

This characterization requires careful reading. The framework announced by Thailand and the U.S. in October 2025 (the “October 2025 Framework”) is a separate instrument from the ART, and neither determines the tariff rate applicable to Thai goods.

Under the October 2025 Framework, Thailand undertook to eliminate tariffs on approximately 99% of U.S. goods, while the U.S. proposed to maintain a reciprocal tariff of 19% on originating Thai goods, subject to a zero rate for selected products. U.S. tariff policy has since been reconstituted on a different statutory basis. Thai goods are currently subject to a Section 301 tariff of 12.5% arising from the forced labor case, and a separate investigation into structural excess capacity remains undetermined.

Thailand’s stated objective is that the aggregate tariff burden should approximate the former benchmark of 19% and should in no event exceed the burden borne by regional competitors.

Final Drafting Is Not Concluded

Three matters remain unresolved despite the advanced stage of the negotiations:

  • The legal text is not settled. Final drafting determines the scope of commitments, exceptions and reservations, transitional periods, and the dispute settlement mechanism. These provisions ordinarily determine the commercial value of an agreement and are not ancillary to the principles already agreed.
  • The Section 301 determination in the excess capacity case has not been issued. Section 301 proceeds by discrete cases, and the resulting rates are cumulative. Any rate arising from that case will therefore be added to the rate applicable under the forced labor case, not substituted for it.
  • Signature is not entry into force. An instrument of this scope will require the completion of domestic approval procedures in Thailand before it takes effect, and parliamentary approval should be assumed to be required. Preferential treatment should not be anticipated from the date of signature.

The Commercial Context

Bilateral trade has expanded throughout the period of tariff uncertainty, and Thailand’s trade surplus with the U.S. has grown faster than trade itself.

  • 2024: The surplus was USD 35.616 billion, an increase of 23%. Bilateral trade totaled USD 74.272 billion, up 10%. Thai exports reached USD 54.944 billion, up 14%, while imports were almost unchanged at USD 19.328 billion.
  • 2025: The surplus reached USD 51.629 billion, up 45%. Bilateral trade rose 26% to USD 93.409 billion. Thai exports increased 32% to USD 72.519 billion, and imports increased 8% to USD 20.890 billion.
  • First eight months of 2026: The surplus stood at USD 45.304 billion, up 44%. Bilateral trade reached USD 84.164 billion (approximately THB 2.701 trillion), up 42% on the same period in 2025. Thai exports rose 43% to USD 64.734 billion, and imports rose 40% to USD 19.430 billion.

The composition of that growth has changed. In 2024 and 2025, Thai exports grew far faster than imports from the U.S. In the first eight months of 2026, exports and imports have grown at almost the same rate: 43% for exports and 40% for imports.

The surplus is both the reason for the tariff measures applied by the U.S. and the principal matter the ART is intended to address.

The Composition of the Trade

Thai exports to the U.S. in the first eight months of 2026 were led by technology and industrial goods:

  • computers, equipment and components: USD 20.525 billion, up 72%;
  • telephones, facsimile equipment and related components: USD 7.637 billion, up 146%;
  • rubber products: USD 2.788 billion, down 11%;
  • transformers and components: USD 2.431 billion, up 38%; and
  • machinery and mechanical parts: USD 2.335 billion, up 40%.

Imports from the U.S. were led by energy and capital goods:

  • crude oil: USD 5.230 billion, up 80%;
  • natural gas: USD 1.959 billion, up 140%;
  • aircraft, gliders and aviation equipment: USD 1.602 billion, up 229%;
  • machinery and components: USD 1.269 billion, down 10%; and
  • chemicals: USD 997 million, up 21%.

Two observations arise from these figures. First, the growth in energy imports is consistent with the October 2025 Framework, which contemplated Thai purchases of U.S. liquefied natural gas, crude oil and ethane. It suggests that commitments of that kind are being implemented ahead of signature.

Second, export growth is concentrated in electronics and communications equipment, a category particularly exposed to scrutiny of declared origin, given current U.S. attention to transshipment and to goods incorporating third-country inputs.

Conclusion

The negotiations are at an advanced stage, but the outstanding matters are not merely formal. The final text will determine the scope and durability of the commitments assumed on both sides. The Section 301 excess capacity determination, which lies entirely outside the bilateral process, will determine a component of the tariff burden that is additional to the rate currently in force. The completion of domestic approval procedures will determine when any preferential treatment becomes available.

The prospect of signature in November is therefore a significant development in the negotiations, not a resolution of the tariff position. Until the text is published and the Section 301 case is concluded, the applicable rate remains indeterminate, and businesses are best advised to plan against a range rather than a single figure.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

IMF–World Bank Annual Meetings: Thailand Outlines Future-Ready Economic Priorities and Launches the Bangkok Blueprint to Combat Digital Financial Fraud

Introduction

Thailand hosted the 2026 Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (the “IMF”) and the World Bank Group (the “Annual Meetings”) from 12 to 18 October 2026, the first time in 35 years that the country has hosted the event. During the Annual Meetings, the Thai government set out its economic priorities. The IMF and the World Bank Group, together with the Bank of Thailand (the “BOT”), also launched a new international framework to combat digital financial fraud.

Future-Ready Thailand

During the Annual Meetings, Prime Minister presented the “Future-Ready Thailand” vision, which calls for a shift from volume-driven growth to value creation and higher productivity. Its principal priorities are to:

  • upgrade the food industry towards health foods and high-value agricultural products;
  • move manufacturing up global value chains, particularly in AI, advanced manufacturing and future mobility, while promoting technology transfer to Thai suppliers;
  • leverage data centre investment to expand the digital economy;
  • develop high-value services, including medical and wellness, tourism and the creative economy; and
  • reduce regulatory barriers under the “Reinvent Thailand” initiative and pursue membership of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”).

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance identified five frontier industries, selected by a joint public–private committee:

  • smart agriculture and food processing;
  • smart electronics;
  • future mobility;
  • medical and wellness services; and
  • the creative economy.

He also indicated that foreign participation in the services sector should be expanded.

Under the government’s AI strategy, a “Skill Bridge” programme will link investors with educational institutions to develop the required workforce. The government also intends to reduce computing and AI costs for start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”).

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance further positioned Thailand as a “Trusted Connector” between major economies and smaller states. He noted that foreign applications for investment promotion rose by 47% in the first half of 2026, and he said that the yield of approximately 2.4% on Thailand’s 10-year government bonds reflects continued fiscal discipline.

The Bangkok Blueprint

On 14 October 2026, the IMF and the World Bank Group, working with the BOT, launched the Bangkok Blueprint for Fraud-Resilient Financial Services (the “Bangkok Blueprint”). The framework responds to digital financial fraud, which the IMF estimates causes global losses of USD 0.5 trillion to USD 1 trillion each year. It sets out 12 considerations under five pillars:

  1. Strategic and legal foundations: a national strategy, clearly assigned responsibilities, and powers to share information and freeze assets promptly;
  2. Measures across the fraud cycle: protection built into products by design, real-time detection and redress for victims;
  3. Use of existing frameworks: cybersecurity standards, anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) measures, and criminal enforcement;
  4. Domestic and international cooperation: coordination among financial institutions, telecommunications providers, digital platforms and authorities, including the cross-border freezing of funds; and
  5. Consumer protection and resilience: public awareness, accessible reporting channels and compensation mechanisms.

The Bangkok Blueprint is not legally binding, and countries may adapt it to their own legal systems. Thailand’s “Connect the Dots” initiative, which centralises fraud data across agencies, was cited as a practical example.

At the launch, the World Bank Group called for a shift from customer identification (Know Your Customer) to the analysis of transaction behavior (Know Your Transaction). The Financial Stability Board urged technology platforms to take responsibility for fraudulent content on their services.

Implications for Investors

  • Projects in the frontier industries, digital infrastructure and high-value services are likely to receive stronger policy support, including BOI investment promotion, particularly where they offer technology transfer and local workforce development.
  • The Reinvent Thailand initiative and OECD accession may improve regulatory predictability, but may also raise governance and compliance expectations.
  • Any liberalization of the services sector would likely require amendments to existing foreign business restrictions and should be monitored.
  • Financial institutions, payment providers, fintech companies and digital platforms should anticipate heightened expectations regarding fraud prevention, transaction monitoring and information sharing.

Key Takeaways

  • Thailand is prioritizing value creation, productivity and quality investment.
  • Five frontier industries and digital infrastructure are the focus of investment promotion.
  • The Bangkok Blueprint, while non-binding, signals stricter anti-fraud expectations for financial and digital service providers.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand Advances U.S. Trade Negotiations and Tightens Controls on False Origin Declarations

On 28 September 2026, Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce, announced that Thailand and the United States (the “U.S.”) had reached an agreement in principle on the key terms of the proposed Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (the “ART”). Thailand aims to finalize the remaining details before the U.S. announces the outcome of its investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

In parallel, Thailand is strengthening measures to prevent foreign goods from being falsely declared as Thai-origin. These measures are intended to address U.S. concerns over possible transshipment and to support the ART negotiations.

Status of the ART Negotiations

According to the Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce’s discussion with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”), there were no major obstacles identified.

The two countries have agreed on the principal terms of the ART. Technical details and final wording remain under review. The ART is therefore not yet final, and its terms remain subject to further coordination.

Measures Against False Origin Declarations

To build U.S. confidence in Thai exports, the Thai Customs Department (“CD”) is working with the Department of Foreign Trade (“DFT”) to tighten controls on false origin declarations.

The Director-General of the CD, noted that Thailand’s Manufacturing Production Index (“MPI”) understates actual manufacturing output. The index has remained comparatively low even as exports to the U.S. have grown, partly because several large exporters are not captured in it. This gap has fed U.S. concerns over transshipment, where foreign goods are falsely declared as Thai-origin, and over structural excess production capacity.

In response, the CD is improving the accuracy of MPI data, working with the DFT to strengthen origin verification, and tightening enforcement. The key measures are:

  • Stronger origin verification. In fiscal year 2027, the CD and DFT plan to enhance origin checks through the Paperless Rules of Origin Verification System (“ROVERs Plus”). This online platform reviews raw materials, production costs and manufacturing processes to determine whether goods satisfy the applicable rules of origin. Exporters of designated goods to the U.S. who apply for a Certificate of Origin (“C/O”) must complete this verification. The measure targets goods that are merely repackaged or relabeled.
  • Stricter customs enforcement. The CD is placing greater emphasis on legal penalties, in addition to seizing goods. Depending on the circumstances, the following provisions of the Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017) may apply:
    • Section 202 (incorrect declarations): Submitting incorrect or incomplete declarations or information that may mislead customs officers is punishable by a fine of up to THB 500,000.
    • Section 244 (evasion of import or export restrictions): Violations are punishable by a fine of up to THB 500,000, imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both.

Key Takeaways

  • Thailand and the U.S. have agreed on the ART’s principal terms, but technical details remain under review.
  • The CD is improving MPI data and, with the DFT, strengthening origin verification to address U.S. transshipment concerns.
  • Together with stricter enforcement, these steps are expected to build U.S. confidence in Thai exports and support the conclusion of the ART.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Cabinet Approves Negotiation Framework and Acknowledges Composition of Delegation for CBD COP 17

Introduction

On 14 October 2026, the Thai Cabinet, as proposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (the “MNRE”), approved Thailand’s negotiation framework and acknowledged the composition of the Thai delegation for the following meetings (collectively, the “Meetings”):

  1. the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD COP 17”);
  2. the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (“CP-MOP 12”); and
  3. the 6th meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol (“NP-MOP 6”).

The Meetings commenced on 19 October 2026 and are scheduled to conclude on 30 October 2026 in Yerevan, Armenia.

Thailand’s participation aims to contribute to international decision-making on biodiversity and to apply the outcomes in developing national policies and measures suited to Thailand’s circumstances. It is also expected to strengthen Thailand’s role in international discussions and promote cooperation on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

Background and Global Biodiversity Goals

On 29 January 2004, Thailand became a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (the “CBD”), which aims to conserve biodiversity, promote its sustainable use, and ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources.

To advance these objectives, the Parties to the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (the “KM-GBF”) at the second part of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (“CBD COP 15 Part 2”) in December 2022. The KM-GBF serves as a global framework for biodiversity action. It establishes a 2030 Mission and targets to guide efforts towards its long-term goals for 2050:

  • 2030 Mission and Targets: To halt and reverse biodiversity loss and put nature on a path to recovery by 2030, supported by 23 targets (the “2030 Targets”) covering ecosystem conservation and restoration, species protection, pollution reduction, the sustainable use of biodiversity, fair and equitable benefit-sharing, and financial support.
  • 2050 Goals: Four long-term goals addressing (i) the conservation and restoration of biodiversity; (ii) the sustainable use of biodiversity; (iii) the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources; and (iv) the financial and other resources needed to implement the KM-GBF.

Key Focus of the Meetings

A key focus of the Meetings, particularly CBD COP 17, will be to review the implementation of the KM-GBF, assess collective progress towards the 2030 Targets and 2050 Goals, identify achievements and implementation challenges, and determine where further action is needed.

The Meetings will also consider measures to accelerate implementation, particularly through increased financial support, stronger international cooperation and enhanced national efforts to achieve global biodiversity goals.

Thailand’s Position and Participation

1. Thailand’s Negotiation Framework

The negotiation framework, prepared by the MNRE through the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (“ONEP”), is based on two key principles:

  • Multilateral cooperation: Support international cooperation and consensus-based decision-making to advance the objectives of the CBD, its related protocols and the KM-GBF, while safeguarding Thailand’s national interests.
  • Equity and national sovereignty: Promote sustainable development, respect countries’ sovereign rights over biological and genetic resources, and take into account the needs, priorities and circumstances of developing countries.

Thailand will also seek to advance key issues, namely biodiversity financing, nature restoration, fair and equitable benefit-sharing from digital sequence information on genetic resources, local community participation, and the integration of biodiversity conservation into relevant sectors.

2. Composition of the Thai Delegation

The Thai delegation will be led by the Permanent Secretary of the MNRE and will comprise representatives of the following 10 government agencies:

  • Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning;
  • Department of Marine and Coastal Resources;
  • Department of Water Resources;
  • Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation;
  • Department of International Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
  • Department of Fisheries;
  • Office of the National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council;
  • Thailand Science Research and Innovation;
  • National Science and Technology Development Agency; and
  • Biodiversity-Based Economy Development Office (Public Organization).

Key Takeaways

  • A key focus of the Meetings, particularly CBD COP 17, will be to review the implementation of the KM-GBF and assess collective progress towards the 2030 Targets and 2050 Goals.
  • Thailand will emphasize multilateral cooperation, sustainable development, equity, and national sovereignty over biological and genetic resources, while advancing key issues such as biodiversity financing and fair and equitable benefit-sharing.
  • Decisions adopted at the Meetings may influence Thailand’s future biodiversity policies and measures and may, in some cases, require amendments to domestic laws. Further developments should therefore be monitored.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

BOT Proposes New Digital Channel Security Requirements to Strengthen Fraud Prevention

The Bank of Thailand (the “BOT”) is conducting a public consultation (the “Consultation”) from 7 October to 6 November 2026 on the draft BOT Notification on Digital Channel Security (the “Draft Notification”). The Consultation seeks feedback from relevant stakeholders.

The Draft Notification aims to strengthen the security of financial and payment services delivered through digital channels, in response to evolving cybersecurity threats and unauthorized payment fraud.

Background and Objectives

In 2025, the BOT introduced mobile banking security requirements to protect users against cybersecurity threats and unauthorized payment fraud. Although these requirements share similar objectives and principles, they were issued under three separate notifications, each applicable to a different category of service provider:

  • BOT Notification No. 4/2568: financial institutions;
  • BOT Notification No. 17/2568: specialized financial institutions; and
  • BOT Notification No. 18/2568: regulated e-money service providers offering services through mobile applications.

Fraudsters have since expanded their activities beyond mobile banking applications to other digital channels, in particular internet banking and the mobile applications of non-bank financial service providers.

To address these risks, the BOT proposes to extend the security requirements to internet banking and additional categories of service providers, and to consolidate the three existing notifications into a single regulatory framework. These changes are intended to strengthen fraud prevention, ensure consistent security standards and enhance public confidence in Thailand’s financial and payment systems.

Key Principles and Changes

The Draft Notification proposes a unified security framework covering a broader range of digital financial services and service providers. Its key requirements, and the changes from the existing framework, are summarized below.

(1) Repeal of Existing Notifications

The Draft Notification would repeal and replace the three existing notifications with a single notification establishing consistent security requirements for all covered service providers.

(2) Definitions and Scope of Application

The Draft Notification would expand the existing scope in three key respects:

  • Digital Channels: The scope would extend from mobile banking applications to both mobile banking and internet banking.
  • Service Providers: The number of covered categories would increase from three to six, comprising financial institutions, specialized financial institutions, regulated e-money service providers, credit card business operators, regulated personal loan business operators and regulated nano-finance business operators (collectively, the “Service Providers”). The last three categories would be newly covered.
  • Covered Services: The framework would apply only to services that enable individual customers to (i) transfer money to an account held with a different bank or service provider (for example, an interbank transfer); or (ii) withdraw cash from ATMs or other electronic machines (for example, a cardless withdrawal initiated through a mobile banking application).

Accordingly, the Draft Notification would not cover all financial services offered through mobile banking applications or internet banking, but only the services specified above.

(3) Security Requirements

The Draft Notification would incorporate the existing mobile banking security measures into the expanded framework and require Service Providers to implement security measures in three key areas:

  • Prevention of Unauthorized Payment Fraud: Service Providers would be required to implement secure customer identification and authentication, including Know Your Customer (“KYC”) procedures or reliable multi-factor authentication (“MFA”) for service registration and for installation on new devices. Additional measures include account and device restrictions, MFA for specified high-risk transactions, restrictions on the use of SMS and email one-time passwords (OTPs) for certain transactions, and transaction alerts.
  • Prevention of Service Provider Impersonation: Service Providers would be required to restrict links sent via SMS and email, as well as links requesting sensitive information through social media, subject to specified exceptions. They would also be required to monitor and respond to fraudulent websites and applications that impersonate their services.
  • Mobile Application Security: Service Providers offering covered services through mobile applications would be subject to additional requirements, including customer data protection, encryption, secure communications, and safeguards against unauthorized access, malware and application tampering. Facial verification would also be required, subject to specified exceptions, for the following transactions:
    • a single transfer of THB 50,000 or more;
    • cumulative transfers reaching THB 200,000 per day; and
    • an increase of THB 50,000 or more in the daily transfer limit.

(4) Exemptions

Service Providers that are unable to comply with certain requirements due to necessary or exceptional circumstances may request an exemption from the BOT, supported by reasons and an implementation plan.

For circumstances existing before the Draft Notification takes effect, exemption requests must be submitted within seven days after its effective date, in accordance with the transitional provisions. The BOT would consider each request within 30 business days of receiving all required documents.

(5) Effective Date

The Draft Notification would generally take effect 30 days after its publication in the Government Gazette. However, certain MFA requirements relating to cash withdrawals and credit drawdowns through ATMs would take effect 90 days after publication.

Current Status and Next Steps

Following the Consultation, the BOT is expected to review the feedback received and consider any necessary revisions before issuing the final notification.

The Draft Notification carries a proposed signing date in January 2027, which suggests that issuance is anticipated around that time. However, the BOT has not confirmed the final issuance date, which remains subject to the outcome of the Consultation and the subsequent regulatory process.

Key Takeaways

  • The BOT proposes to replace three existing notifications with a single notification covering both mobile banking and internet banking, and to expand regulatory coverage from three to six categories of service providers.
  • Covered Service Providers would be required to implement measures against unauthorized payment fraud and impersonation, including customer authentication, transaction alerts and additional mobile application safeguards.
  • The Consultation remains open until 6 November 2026. Once issued, the Draft Notification would generally take effect 30 days after publication in the Government Gazette, with certain requirements taking effect after 90 days. Relevant Service Providers should review their existing security measures and prepare for compliance.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP: WIPO GRATK Study Puts Genetic Resource Records in Focus

No new filing duty yet:

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has published WIPO GRATK, a study of the possible effects and benefits of Thailand joining the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. The publication signals that accession is under study; it does not mean Thailand has joined the treaty or that patent applicants must now make new disclosures.

The treaty would require a patent applicant whose invention is based on genetic resources to disclose their country of origin or, if that is unknown, their source. If the invention is based on associated traditional knowledge, the application would identify the Indigenous Peoples or local community that provided it, or the source of that knowledge. The treaty will enter into force after 15 eligible parties have ratified or acceded. It has not yet been done so.

The business issue is the paper trail:

For companies working with biological materials, the information needed for a patent application may be spread across research partners, suppliers, universities and other organizations. A company may know what material was used in an invention but lack a reliable record of where it came from or how it was obtained. That gap could complicate patent preparation if the treaty’s disclosure rules later apply.

Biotechnology, agriculture, pharmaceutical and food businesses should look at how they record the source of samples and related traditional knowledge. Research and material transfer agreements can help by requiring partners to provide provenance information and pass it along when materials change hands. The same records may help teams address permissions and benefit-sharing arrangements under applicable rules.

Thai companies seeking patents overseas should also check the requirements in each filing country. Foreign disclosure rules may affect an application even if Thailand has not joined WIPO GRATK. The DIP study is a timely reason to examine these practices, but businesses should read its recommendations before making changes to filing procedures or contract templates. Study itself creates no new obligation. DIP’s earlier consultation identified potential benefits in protecting genetic resources and associated local knowledge, improving patent transparency and supporting fair benefit sharing.

Key takeaways:

• DIP’s study concerns possible accession; it does not establish that Thailand has acceded.

• WIPO GRATK’s disclosure requirement will apply when Thailand joins WIPO GRATK.

• Businesses should check whether their research and supply arrangements preserve reliable records of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.

• Thai applicants filing abroad should check the disclosure rules in each relevant jurisdiction.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles