You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 3, 2025

Thailand Seeks Comments on Draft Controls to Prevent Nominee Shareholders

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has proposed amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) as the country steps up its efforts to combat economic crimes and corruption. One of the primary objectives of the amendments is to enhance the effectiveness of measures curbing the use of nominees to help foreign nationals operate restricted or prohibited businesses in violation of the law.

If these proposed updates are implemented, they will substantially strengthen existing legislation related to the use of nominees and bribing government officials, including officials of foreign governments and international organizations. These offenses would be treated as predicate violations under the amended legislation.

The draft amendments are currently open for a public comment period, which is set to conclude on April 25, 2025.

Highlights of the proposed amendments are detailed below.

Predicate Offenses

The draft amendments propose adding the concept of a “predicate offense” covering the following:

  • Bribery: Giving, offering, or promising to give assets or benefits to Thai or foreign public officials, or officials of international organizations.
  • Acting as a nominee: Assisting, supporting, or engaging in the business operations of a foreign national who is not permitted to operate that business; jointly operating a business with a foreign national under the guise that it is solely owned by the Thai national; or holding shares on behalf of a foreign national in a partnership, limited company, or any other legal entity to help the foreign national conduct business without the permits required under the Foreign Business Act.

Under the draft amendments, Thai individuals or juristic persons who have agreed to take any of these actions, as well as foreign nationals who allow such assistance in their business operations, will be liable for committing a predicate offense under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

The draft proposes a prescription period of 15 years from the date the predicate offense was committed.

Beneficial Owners and Arrangements

The draft amendments clarify the definition of “beneficial owner” to include individuals who directly or indirectly own, control, or dominate a business of an entity or any “arrangements” as defined in the draft amendments. Here, “arrangements” means the designation of individuals or juristic persons by other individuals or juristic persons to possess, use, distribute, or manage assets on their behalf. This definition also extends to trusts and other entities established to manage the assets of other parties in Thailand.

To ensure transparency regarding the beneficial owners of legal entities and trusts, the draft amendments require financial institutions and persons engaging in professions identified under the Anti-Money Laundering Act to report information about the beneficial owner of the juristic person, entity, or other person to the Anti-Money Laundering Office. It also requires the beneficial owners themselves to provide this information, with certain exceptions permitted with respect to the reporting requirements.

Outlook

The latest proposed changes aim to strengthen measures addressing the use of nominees to circumvent foreign business restrictions and provide safeguards against unauthorized foreign direct investment activities. By reinforcing the transparency and accountability requirements for beneficial ownership, the draft also aims to ensure that businesses operate in compliance with local laws, including in relation to foreign ownership and control.

As the amendments are currently in draft form, they will be subject to further revisions during the legislative process.

Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
Read More