On 5 November 2026, Thailand's Securities and Exchange Commission said it had filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against BG Limited, the operator of the Bitget exchange. It alleges that Bitget ran an unlicensed digital asset exchange for Thai users between 2022 and 2025. The SEC also asked the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) to block Bitget's website, related domains and app from 5 December 2026. A criminal complaint is an allegation, not a finding. Prosecutors and courts decide liability, and Bitget's response was not reported in the sources reviewed.
The case for the regulator
The strongest argument for the SEC is simple. Thai law requires anyone who runs a digital asset exchange to be licensed, and the licence is what gives retail users a regulated counterparty. According to the SEC's own release, Bitget offered a Thai-language site with prices shown in baht. That is hard to describe as incidental access by a foreign platform. It looks like a service aimed at the Thai market. The SEC cites the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). A regulator that tolerated this would reward firms that skip the licensing queue and penalise the exchanges that complied. Money-laundering risk is also real. Announcing the 2025 blocks, the SEC said it wanted to stop unauthorised platforms being used as a money laundering channel.
That case is serious, and it explains why Thailand is not an outlier. But it justifies enforcement against unlicensed operation. It does not justify any particular enforcement tool, and the tool matters.
What the SEC actually did
The complaint has two tracks. One is criminal. It names BG Limited and a local promoter, Kritsana Kritsananuwat, who is accused of promoting Bitget through a Facebook page and a YouTube channel. Blockhead reports that the charges rest on Sections 26 and 66 of the 2018 Decree. The other track is administrative. It asks MDES to cut off access under the 2025 technology-crime decree, which took effect on 13 April 2025. Cointelegraph reported that this decree gave MDES the power to block unauthorised digital asset platforms.
There is a sequencing problem. The block is requested one month after the complaint, so users lose access before any prosecutor or court has tested the allegation. The SEC tells users to deal with their assets before the cut-off. That is sensible consumer guidance, but it means the practical penalty arrives well ahead of the legal finding. A fair process would pair the block with a short, public route for the platform to contest the facts, such as whether it actually targeted Thai residents.
A pattern, not an exception
This is not the first use of the tool. In May 2025 the SEC announced that Bybit, 1000X, CoinEx, OKX and XT.COM would be blocked from 28 June 2025. In February 2026 it filed another complaint against a licensed broker's overseas platform, with blocking expected from 22 March 2026, according to law firm Tilleke & Gibbins. Bitget now joins the list. Each step is defensible alone. Together they show that Thailand has moved from warnings to routine blocking of platforms that do not hold a Thai licence.
Why blocking is a weak substitute for licensing
Blocking at the network level is easy to evade and costly to over-apply. Users can reach a blocked exchange through a VPN or a mirror domain, and the risk of loss falls hardest on the least sophisticated users, who do not take the withdrawal warning seriously. The people who are protected are those who were never going to use an unlicensed venue. An evasion-prone block also pushes activity toward offshore venues with less oversight than a Thai licensee would have.
There is also a pro-innovation concern. Thailand wants a competitive digital asset sector, and the way to build one is a licensing regime that is fast, predictable and open to foreign operators willing to set up locally. The Bitget case adds a wrinkle: the platform is reported to be trying to acquire GMO-Z, a licensed Thai exchange, and the SEC has not said publicly how the complaint will affect that review. Whatever the outcome, regulators should state the reasoning. A visible, reasoned licensing decision builds more investor trust than a blocklist.
What would improve the model
Three changes would keep the enforcement and reduce the costs.
- Publish the legal test. Say what makes a foreign exchange "targeting" Thai users, such as Thai-language sites, baht pricing and local promoters. Operators could then self-assess and either license or geo-fence.
- Separate the block from the allegation. A block that precedes any judicial step should be time-limited and reviewable. Blocks can be lifted as soon as the operator applies for a licence or the complaint fails.
- Prioritise the promoters and the money. The complaint rightly includes a local promoter. Going after domestic marketing and payment rails reaches harmful conduct more precisely than blocking an entire domain.
Thailand's regulators have a legitimate mandate and a consistent record. The next step is to make the process as clear as the enforcement. That would protect investors, and it would also tell legitimate foreign operators what they have to do to join Thailand's digital economy.