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

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

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

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