Thailand’s Minister of Public Health recently promulgated the Ministerial Notification Re: Category 5 Narcotics Which Are Not Cannabis or Hemp Extract and Whose Consumption is Permitted for Treatment of Disease or for Research Purposes (2024). The notification took effect on April 23, 2024. The substances whose regulatory controls are affected by this new notification are psilocybin mushroom (Psilocybe cubensis (Earle) Singer), opium poppy (Papaver somniferum L. and Papaver bracteatum Lindl.), and other plants in these genera from which opium, opium alkaloids, psilocybin, or psilocin may be derived. As a result of this notification, these substances are now classified as category 5 narcotics that can be applied in medical treatment. Without the implementation of this notification, patients could not access newly developed medicines containing these substances, as Thailand’s Narcotic Code prohibits the possession and use of category 5 narcotics. Nonetheless, this does not mean that psilocybin mushrooms and opium can be used without any conditions. There is still a long process to go through before these substances can be used in medical treatment or clinical studies. Under the new notification, the FDA must first approve any medicinal drug formulation containing any of the above substances, and subsequently, the production must be approved for medical use or research purposes. The importation of medicinal drug formulations containing psilocybin mushrooms or opium is not allowed. This seemingly small regulatory change addresses the previous legal obstacle to the research and development of such medicines. According to the previous regulation, a physician or researcher could apply to the Thai FDA for a license to produce or possess medicines containing the aforementioned narcotics. However, production and consumption are considered different activities, and consuming a narcotic-containing medicine, even if it was produced under a valid license, is prohibited by the Narcotics Code and is punishable by imprisonment, a fine, or

In March 2024, a Thai court of first instance handed down a decision in a personal data protection case against an insurance company in Thailand. The landmark ruling has important implications for the disclosure of special categories of personal data. The case concerned an individual, acting as the plaintiff, who filed a claim against an insurance company, as a data controller, and its representatives, for collecting, using, and disclosing the results of the plaintiff’s blood alcohol level test, along with a photo of the plaintiff taking the test, without explicit consent, resulting in his insurance claim being rejected. The company also disclosed the data to the insured party, who is the plaintiff’s family member, causing the plaintiff to suffer reputational damage, discrimination, humiliation, and ill treatment. Since results of a blood alcohol level test are considered a special category of personal data pursuant to section 26 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the plaintiff filed the claim with the criminal court, requesting that the criminal penalties under the PDPA and the Penal Code be imposed on the defendants, and that the defendants delete or destroy the plaintiff’s personal data. The insurance company argued that it had disclosed the test results and the photograph to the plaintiff’s family member—as the insured under the insurance agreement—for the purpose of informing the insured of the rejection of the insurance claim. Considering these facts and reasons, the criminal court ruled that the processing of this special category of personal data was necessary for the defense of the insurance company’s legal claims pursuant to section 26(4) of the PDPA, and therefore, explicit consent was not required. As a result, the criminal court dismissed the case. Key Takeaways While this case was dismissed, it indicates that explicit consent is not the only legal basis for processing

On June 4, Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued a new notification on e-commerce business registration pursuant to the Commercial Registration Act B.E. 2499 (1956) (CRA), replacing a similar notification from 2010. The new notification (officially titled “Notification Re: Business Regulations that Commercial Operators Must Register and Businesses that Are Not Subject to the Commercial Registration Act, B.E. 2549 B.E. 2567”) took effect on June 5, 2024. While the previous notification required all individuals and legal entities engaged in regulated activities, such as selling goods or services online, to register their businesses with the local district office, the new notification effectively lifts this requirement for certain legal entities. The new notification clearly states that the CRA does not apply to regulated activities conducted by: Private limited companies, registered ordinary partnerships, and limited partnerships (i.e., legal entities under the Civil and Commercial Code); and Public limited companies (i.e., legal entities under the Public Limited Companies Act). Now that the new notification is in effect, limited companies and other specified legal entities are no longer required to register their e-commerce activities and obtain an e-commerce certificate from the MOC. E-commerce certificates previously issued to these legal entities are also voided by the new notification. Nevertheless, the requirement to register for direct marketing and obtain a direct marketing certificate under the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act B.E. 2545 (2002) remains in effect for any online sales or e-marketplace platforms administered by legal entities. Given the recent proactive enforcement of penalties for noncompliance with direct marketing registration requirements, we strongly advise business operators to assess whether their operations fall within the scope of direct marketing regulations and require a direct marketing certificate. For more information on e-commerce and direct marketing registration in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], or Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected].

“Forced labor” has many incarnations. Some forms are shocking, such as a case in 2021 where Vietnamese guest workers were brought to a Chinese-owned factory in Serbia that manufactured tires sold to European car companies. The guest workers allegedly had their passports taken away and were subjected to horrible living conditions, including a lack of food, forcing them to resort to hunting small animals in the nearby forest to survive. However, forced labor more often takes subtler forms, so that most people do not even recognize it as such. For example, a factory may receive an order with an extremely short production deadline, and the workers are instructed to work overtime hours. If the employees refuse to do so and stop working when their regular shift ends, they receive warning letters the next day. While less shocking than the situation of the guest workers forced to hunt squirrels to survive, it is also forced labor. ILO Convention No. 29 on Forced Labor defines forced labor as “all work or service…extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered…[them]self voluntarily.” The ILO names 11 indicators of forced labor: abuse of vulnerability, deception; restriction of movement, isolation, physical/sexual violence, intimidation and threats, retention of identity documents, withholding of wages, debt bondage, abusive working or living conditions, and excessive overtime. Excessive overtime in particular is common in the manufacturing sector in Southeast Asia, and debt bondage is also prevalent. Some companies demand employees provide a “training deposit” when they commence their employment, which they will have repaid provided they continue working for a minimum period. However, these common practices may soon be eradicated due to new supply chain due diligence legislation. Two such examples demonstrating this greater focus on forced labor within supply chains

Vietnam’s financial landscape is set to further transform on July 1, 2024, when the government’s long-awaited Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024 (“Decree 52”), will officially replace Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Decree 101”). Decree 52 marks an important milestone by introducing the country’s first-ever legal definition of e-money. In addition, the decree brings forth new updates to regulations governing payment and intermediary payment services, laying the groundwork for more comprehensive guidance that will be provided in draft circulars now being developed by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV). Non-Cash Payment Instruments The new definition of non-cash payment instruments under Decree 52 expands upon the previous definition in Decree 101. Notably, it clearly specifies the issuing entities as payment service providers, financial companies licensed to issue credit cards, and e-wallet service providers. Additionally, the new definition further clarifies that bank cards include debit, credit, and prepaid cards, and adds e-wallets to the list of non-cash payment instruments. Unlawful non-cash payment instruments are still defined as those that are not otherwise specified. E-Money Prior to Decree 52, the concept of e-money lacked a precise legal definition, despite its growing prevalence in forms like prepaid cards and e-wallets. The absence of a clear framework for e-money led to confusion with terms like “cryptpcurrency” and “virtual currency” and left significant ambiguity on whether e-money includes certain instruments, such as online game cards and mobile money. Decree 52 addresses this issue by clearly defining e-money as value in Vietnamese dong (VND) stored electronically and prepaid by customers to banks, foreign bank branches, and e-wallet service providers. It also specifically designates e-wallets and prepaid cards as types of storage mechanisms for e-money. Non-Cash Payment Services Decree 52 categorizes non-cash payment services into services with and without client payment accounts. Payment services with client accounts

On June 14, 2024, the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released a draft notification under the Personal Data Protection Act 2019 (PDPA), setting out criteria for how data controllers must delete, destroy, and de-identify personal data. According to the PDPA, a data subject can request that a data controller delete, destroy, or de-identify their personal data in any of the following circumstances: The personal data is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, used, or disclosed. The data subject has withdrawn their consent for the processing of the personal data, and no other lawful basis for processing remains. The data subject has objected to the processing of their personal data on grounds of legitimate interests or official tasks, the data controller has no other compelling grounds to refuse the request, and the data is not needed for legal claims. The data subject objects to the processing of their personal data for direct marketing purposes. The processing of personal data is unlawful. The draft stipulates that data controllers respond to a data subject’s request to delete, destroy, or de-identify personal data immediately, and within 60 days of receiving the request. If the data controller cannot fulfill the request immediately, they must take interim measures to ensure that the personal data is made difficult to collect, use, or disclose. This includes implementing measures such as preventing access to the data and applying appropriate security measures to protect the data from unauthorized use or disclosure. De-identification or Anonymization of Personal Data In certain circumstances, a data controller may opt to de-identify or anonymize personal data, rather than delete or destroy it. If doing so, the data controller must satisfy the following criteria: There must be a structured process to remove or eliminate all direct identifiers linked to the data subject, such as names, identification numbers, personal email addresses,

On June 1, 2024, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued four notifications amending existing regulations to recognize sustainability-related tokens and institute specific measures for regulating them. These tokens are intended to offer diverse sustainability-related products to ESG funds in Thailand and drive the growth of a sustainable digital economy in the country. The key points in the notifications are summarized below. Definitions Under the notifications, sustainability-related tokens are classified into four types: Green tokens: Digital tokens specifically intended to incentivize or fund projects that promote environmental sustainability. Social tokens: Digital tokens specifically intended to support and fund initiatives that contribute to social welfare. Sustainability tokens: Digital tokens intended to support projects that enhance both environmental and social welfare through funding and incentives. Sustainability-linked tokens: Digital tokens intended to fund activities that promote sustainability. This includes tokens that have adjustable returns based on the performance of the issuing entity or its affiliates in meeting specified sustainability-related goals or outcomes. The offering of sustainability-related tokens is subject to Thailand’s general requirements for token offerings: (1) approval from the SEC and (2) filing the registration statements and the draft prospectus with the SEC before marketing and offering the sustainability-related tokens to public investors in Thailand, unless exempted. The sustainability-related tokens must be offered through an SEC-approved ICO portal, which will assume a role similar to that of a financial adviser and an underwriter in a public offering of securities. Sustainability-Related Token Offerings In addition to complying with the general requirements for token offerings, sustainability-related token offerings must comply with the following measures: Issuer disclosure: The issuer must disclose certain sustainability information, both before and after the offering, according to standards comparable to those of nationally or internationally recognized green, social, and sustainable bonds (GSSBs) and sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs)—such as the principles of the International Capital Market Association. This includes arranging for a

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has announced its new Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox, which provides an opportunity to experiment with currently restricted financial innovations under a controlled environment. The BOT is employing a thematic approach to determine the scope of technology or innovations that may participate in the Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox and will only accept applications in each theme for a limited period. The first announced theme is “programmable payments,” which refers to payment and payment-related transactions with automatic execution upon the fulfillment of a predefined condition utilizing distributed ledger technology (DLT) and a smart contract or comparable technology in which electronic data units are issued on an electronic system or network. The application period for programmable payment testing in the Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox runs from June 13 to September 13, 2024. A summary of the programmable payment testing framework under the Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox is provided below. Scope The Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox accepts applications for the following programmable payment activities: Automated payment and settlement upon fulfillment of predefined conditions. Escrow services with predefined delivery or transactional conditions. Asset tokenization through issuance of digital tokens representing rights in an asset, with payment for tokens or payment of benefits or returns to holders of digital tokens occurring automatically when conditions are met. Other testing related to the items mentioned above. Requirements and Conditions Programmable payment testing activities in the Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox must comply with the following requirements and conditions: Electronic data units issued for programmable payment testing must be pegged to the Thai baht (THB) on a one-for-one basis (i.e., 1 unit = THB 1), with the float account storing THB equal to the value of the electronic data units issued. Participants must define the redemption rights of the unitholders and proceed with the THB redemption according to the participants’ service level agreements. Participants must have risk management, IT support, business continuity, and