On October 16, 2024, Thailand’s Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee (ACCC) issued a notification to enhance anticorruption standards in public procurement. The new notification (officially “Notification of the Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee on the Procurement Budget and Minimum Standards of the Policy and Directions for Anticorruption in Relation to Procurement according to Section 19 of the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560”) supersedes previous guidelines and imposes stricter compliance requirements on business entities involved in the government procurement processes. The updates not only align with the goals of Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560 (2017) but also reflect the government’s resolution to mitigate corruption, particularly in high-value public contracts. The ACCC’s new notification introduces additional definitions, lowers budget thresholds for compliance, and strengthens business obligations. Key Components The new notification continues the previous guidelines’ requirement that businesses seeking to bid on government procurement projects meet the specified minimum standards—such as communicating and implementing anticorruption policies at all organizational levels, establishing a code of conduct, and providing related training programs to employees. The notification also introduces a number of changes, the most notable of which are detailed below. “Entrepreneur” definition. The definition of this term is narrowed to entities involved in the public procurement bidding process. Previously, the definition broadly applied to all business entities engaged in selling goods or services. Threshold for mandatory compliance. The project budget threshold that necessitates compliance with the minimum standards is  THB 300 million—a reduction from the previous threshold of THB 500 million. Minimum standards to prevent unfair competition. The new notification introduces a specific definition for “disturbing fair competition,” establishing clear parameters around actions that disrupt competitive fairness within public procurement. Continued compliance requirements. Businesses’ compliance with the minimum standards must now extend from the date of bid submission to the

Thailand traditionally has had a reputation as a “crossroads” for numerous illegal activities and of the laundering of significant sums of tainted money. Member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)? No. Any Egmont members? Yes. Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) is a member of the Egmont Group. Regulation The relevant law, known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act (the Act), was passed in March 1999 with the aim of combating not only the drug trade but also other illicit activities, such as corruption, criminal fraud and prostitution. There have been a number of changes and updates to the Act, the most recent one in late 2015, in which the Act was amended to include: Additional predicate offences such as offences relating to human trafficking, online gambling and offences relating to unfair practices relating to derivatives and agricultural commodity futures. Broader scope of money laundering offence. Non-disclosure obligations to applicable financial institutions and reporting entities. Compulsory training to financial institutions and reporting entities’ employees responsible to monitor and ensure compliance with the Act. Retention period. Enhanced penalties Additionally, discussions did take place mooting further changes to the Act, set out in 2020 and 2021 drafts. Proposed changes included suggestions to expand the definitions of financial institutes, predicate offences and professions, as well as to impose greater reporting and due diligence responsibilities on companies subject to the Act. However, recent amendments to the Act in 2022 only included minor procedural and substantive changes that did not materially alter or expand the Act. The most notable amendments were changes to an injured party’s rights to claim damages caused by a predicate offence and the rights of beneficiaries claiming assets seized by the government in connection with a predicate offence. Financial intelligence unit Of the total number of transactions reported to AMLO annually,

On May 17, 2024, Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) issued an amended Notification Concerning the Rules for Designating or Reviewing the List of High-Risk Customers Who Require Close Monitoring under the Ministerial Regulation on Customer Due Diligence B.E. 2563 (2020). This notification, which took effect the following day, updates the previous version of the notification from 2022 to cover cybercrimes listed under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023). The amended notification sets out the steps that all financial institutions in Thailand must take to manage money laundering risks and to comply with the AMLO’s mandatory Guidelines on Customer Due Diligence. Under the new notification, account holders suspected of engaging in or facilitating technological crimes, as recorded by the Anti Online Scam Operation Center (AOC), are to be classified as “high-risk persons.” The notification includes provisions for listing high-risk customers under two specific codes: HR-03-1: This code applies to individuals who are the subject of either a petition or a complaint related to a predicate offense accepted by the relevant inquiry officer and recorded as a criminal case. It also covers individuals whose bank accounts are suspected of being used to conduct transactions related to crimes under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), with victims seeking prosecution. The names of individuals in this category are received from responsible agencies according to the Criminal Procedure Code or the AOC and are documented in a publicly accessible online notification system. HR-03-2: This code is for individuals involved in the commission of a predicate offense or those whose bank accounts are suspected of being used in such offenses, but whose cases have not been accepted or numbered by the relevant inquiry officer. Names