On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].

Aircraft lease agreements are commonly governed by the law of England and Wales, New York, or another common-law jurisdiction. This article examines the challenges of applying these and other foreign laws to an aircraft lease dispute in Thailand. The applicability of foreign law in Thailand is subject to the Conflict of Laws Act B.E. 2481 (1938). Section 8 of the Conflict of Laws Act states, “Whenever the law of a foreign country which is to govern is not proved to the satisfaction of the court, the internal law of Thailand shall apply.” According to this section, the burden of proof is on the party that claims the foreign law. The claiming party must prove to the court the existence of the foreign law and how the law applies. However, in aircraft lease disputes, especially those that involve seizing or repossessing aircraft, generally only Thai law will apply. Seizing or repossessing an aircraft involves Thai government authorities such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) and the Airports of Thailand (AOT), among others, and these authorities will only comply with Thai law. Moreover, foreign court judgments are not enforceable in Thailand. This means that any action to seize or repossess an aircraft in Thailand must be initiated in Thailand and using Thai law. Foreign court judgments, however, can be used as evidence and may be helpful in convincing the CAAT or court that the lessor is entitled to repossess an aircraft, and in proving damages. The Thai laws relevant in a hostile repossession or seizure action include the Air Navigation Act, the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), and the Civil Proceedings Code (CPC). The CCC provides guidelines on contract termination and the rights of parties in lease agreements. Specifically, it outlines the conditions under which a lessor can terminate

Thailand’s Cybersecurity Regulating Committee (CRC) released a notification under the Cybersecurity Act on February 22, 2024, setting key operational obligations for critical information infrastructure (CII) organizations. The notification takes effect on June 20, 2024. CII organizations are state or private entities that carry out services related to national security, public services, banking and finance, information technology and telecommunications, transportation and logistics, energy and public utilities, or public health. CII organizations will be identified by the National Cyber Security Committee (NCSC) and notified of their status. The key obligations of CII organizations are laid out below. Reporting to the National Cyber Security Agency (NCSA) CII organizations must provide the following to the NCSA: A list of executive and operational staff, along with emergency contacts who can be reached within 60 minutes in the event of a cyber threat. The NCSA must be notified of any updates to this list within 15 days following any changes. A list of internal departments or individuals who are the responsible persons, owners, and holders of the computer systems, along with emergency contacts who can be reached within 60 minutes in the event of a cyber threat. The NCSA must be notified of any updates to this list at least 7 days prior to any changes (or within 15 days after the change if there is a necessary reason). Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures As specified in the National Cyber Security Committee (NCSC) guidelines, CII organizations must prepare the following internal documents by June 20, 2025: Cybersecurity practice guidelines, consisting of an inspection plan, risk assessment, and incident response plan. Cybersecurity standards framework, consisting of measures for risk identification, risk prevention, threat detection and monitoring, incident responses, and resilience and recovery. CII organizations must also prepare the following: Mechanisms, procedures, and steps for monitoring and detecting

Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS) is drafting two reports to present to the government in May 2024 to advocate for the development and adoption of a Law on Personal Data Protection. These reports include an assessment of the policy impact of the proposal to develop a personal data protection law, and an assessment of the current state of social relations related to personal data protection. Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on Personal Data Protection (PDPD), adopted in April 2023, became the first comprehensive legal instrument on data protection in Vietnam. When the National Assembly was debating its text and adoption in 2022 and 2023, questions were raised as to the status of this new regulation and the legality to adopt a decree before a law. In accordance with the public announcements made throughout the development of the PDPD assuring that a law would be developed at a later stage, the MPS is now advocating for the development of a Personal Data Protection Law and has drafted the two reports pursuant to the Law on the Promulgation of Legal Documents. The main arguments advanced by the MPS in the two reports are as follows: As the right to privacy is enshrined in the Constitution, any restrictions thereof must be made through a law and not a decree. The MPS is notably referring to the lawful basis for processing and limited exceptions to consent under the PDPD. This may be a sign that the MPS intends to widen the exceptions to consent under the new law. The definitions of “personal data” and “personal data protection” need to be harmonized to consolidate the regulatory framework. The MPS indicates that there are 69 legal documents directly related to “personal data protection” in Vietnam with more than 10 different definitions, while “personal information” appears in