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

June 21, 2018

Liberalization Planned for Five Businesses under List 3 of the Foreign Business Act

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD) is currently reviewing the possibility of liberalizing five businesses under List 3 of the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), which currently restricts  foreigners from having ownership of more than 49%.

It has been widely reported in the media on June 17, 2018, that the five businesses to be liberalized are: (1) accounting services; (2) legal services; (3) money lending services; (4) space leasing and facility services; and (5) consultancy services. According to government sources, it should be noted that the services of the to-be-liberalized five businesses may only be provided by an entity to an affiliated company or within the entity’s group of companies. If the entity wishes to provide any of these services to a party that is not an affiliated company or outside the entity’s group of companies, the entity has to apply for a foreign business license from the DBD.  

The DBD is collecting opinions from relevant authorities, such as the Board of Investment, the Bank of Thailand, the Federation of Accounting Professions, the Lawyers Council, and the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand, and the opinions on liberalization of these services will be submitted to the Foreign Business Committee later in July 2018 for consideration. If approved by the Foreign Business Committee, the opinions will be submitted to the Cabinet for endorsement, and if approved by the Cabinet, a new ministerial regulation shall be issued by the Minister of Commerce and become effective thereafter.

Current Restrictions under FBA

Currently, the FBA categorizes restricted businesses into three lists, as follows:

  • List 1 covers businesses that are strictly prohibited to foreigners;
  • List 2 covers businesses that are prohibited to foreigners, unless they obtain permission from the Minister of Commerce with the approval of the Cabinet; and 
  • List 3 covers businesses that are prohibited to foreigners, unless permission is granted by the Director-General of the DBD with the approval of the Foreign Business Committee. 

At present, List 3 of the FBA includes accounting, legal, consultancy, and any kind of service activities.

Liberalization of List 3 of the FBA

After the FBA was promulgated in 1999, the DBD has liberalized the following businesses under List 3 of the FBA over the years:

  • 2013. Services related to securities business and other businesses under the law on securities and securities exchange, derivatives business, and serving as a trustee under the law of trust for transactions in capital markets.
  • 2016. Commercial bank business, and life and non-life insurance businesses. 
  • 2017. Banking and financial institution businesses, businesses which are connected to or necessary for the operation of financial institutions as listed in Ministerial Regulation (No. 3) B.E. 2560 (2017), provision of services as a foreign entity’s representative office or regional office, and service businesses that have a government authority or a state enterprise as a party to the contract.
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