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

August 21, 2017

Foreign Business Act: Relaxation of Restrictions on Representative Offices and Regional Offices in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In 2016, Thailand was listed as the 46th most favorable country in which to do business by the World Bank in its Ease of Doing Business  report. Thailand’s ranking—an improvement of three spots over its 2015 position—places the country third in Southeast Asia, indicating that Thailand has a strong competitive position vis-à-vis its neighbors.

Despite the strong ranking, the Thai government has publicly expressed its intention to do more to improve a variety of business mechanisms and legislation in a bid to further boost the Kingdom’s attractiveness to potential investors, as well as to stimulate both domestic and inbound investments.

Restrictions on Investment

The first barriers usually faced by potential foreign investors are the restrictions imposed under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (FBA). Enacted in 1999, the FBA plays a significant role in influencing inbound movements of foreign funds into Thailand, as it determines which activities are permissible for foreigners or majority foreign-owned companies that are registered in Thailand, whereby half, or more than half, of the shares are held by foreigners.

List 3 of the FBA identifies a number of businesses restricted to foreigners, including wholesale, retail, and engineering services, etc. List 3 (21) concludes with a broad catchall provision that restricts “other service businesses” as being an area in which Thai businesses are not yet ready to compete with foreign investors whether in terms of finance or technology.

Since the enactment of the FBA, the services undertaken by a representative office (REP) or a regional office (RO) have long been categorized as a “service business” under the catchall provision of List 3 (21). Along with other service businesses that are foreign or foreign majority-owned companies registered in Thailand, REPs and ROs were required to apply for and obtain a Foreign Business License (FBL) or a Foreign Business Certificate (FBC) prior to commencing any restricted activity under List 3 of the FBA.

Foreign investors have long questioned the reasoning behind these FBA requirements for REPs and ROs. Foreign investors often ask why the non-income-generating activities undertaken by REPs and ROs require a license application and compliance with certain license conditions (e.g., the requirement to bring minimum capital and transfer technology into Thailand). This requirement would seem to run counter to the very limited scope of activities undertaken by REPs and ROs, investors have argued.

Ministerial Regulations Lifting Restrictions

In recent years, the Thai government has taken steps to further liberalize the investment environment set out under the FBA. This has been accomplished through the issuance of Ministerial Regulations (MR) that exclude certain service businesses from List 3 (21) of the FBA, thus exempting them from the list’s restrictions.

A first wave of regulations, enacted in 2013, excluded businesses under Thailand’s securities and exchange law from the FBA list. In 2016, MR No. 2 excluded businesses under the financial institution business law, as well as life insurance and casualty insurance businesses, from the list.

Most recently, in June 2017, MR No. 3 amended MR No. 1 and No. 2 by removing REPs and ROs, as well as service businesses that have a government agency or a state enterprise as a counterparty under the budgetary law, from List 3 (21), exempting these businesses from foreign business licensing requirements. This addresses the long-held concern among foreign investors about why REPs and ROs were being included in the restricted business under List 3 (21).

As part of MR No. 3, the table below lists the scope of REP and RO activities that are exempt from FBL:

 

Activities Exempt from Foreign Business Act Requirements

 

Representative Office

Regional Office
  • Finding sources for the purchase of goods or services in Thailand for the head office and/or affiliates/subsidiaries of the head office.
  • Checking and controlling the quality and quantity of goods purchased or ordered to be manufactured in Thailand by the head office and/or affiliates/subsidiaries of the head office.
  • Providing advice and assistance related to goods of the head office and/or affiliates/subsidiaries of the head office which are sold to agents or consumers in Thailand.
  • Disseminating information concerning new goods or services of the head office and/or affiliates/subsidiaries of the head office.
  • Reporting on movements of businesses in Thailand to the head office and/or affiliates/subsidiaries of the head office.
  • Coordinating and supervising the operations of branches, and/or subsidiary companies in the same region, on behalf of the  head office.
  • Providing services to the head office’s branches and subsidiary companies, with such services including:
    • Consultation and management services;
    • Personnel training and development;
    • Financial management;
    • Control of marketing and sales promotion planning;
    • Product development; and
    • Research and development services.

 

It should be noted, however, that although REPs and ROS are no longer subject to an FBL, they must still prepare and maintain their books and accounts, and file audited financial statements with competent authorities within the prescribed period set by laws. REPs and ROs must also notify the Department of Business Development (DBD), Ministry of Commerce, to obtain a registration number for a juristic person before they commence activities in Thailand. This process is not complicated, and it takes only a few business days to obtain a certified document from the DBD. 

This relief for REPs and ROs could further encourage foreign investment in Thailand, because the proceedings required to be undertaken by foreign companies will become more streamlined and convenient. Despite these promising changes, however, foreign investors must still be aware of their continued obligation to obtain other required licenses from specific authorities before they are permitted to operate a service business in Thailand.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
Read More
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
Read More
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education
Read More