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 28, 2025

Nominee Trap: Legal Risks and Licensing under Thailand’s Foreign Business Act

Subscribe to Updates

While Thailand’s Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA) has been in place for over two decades, the issue of nominee arrangements remains a hot topic—especially as authorities continue to crack down on businesses that use Thai nationals to hold shares in violation of foreign ownership restrictions under the FBA.

The FBA was enacted to limit foreign parties (which includes foreign individuals, offshore legal entities, and foreign majority-owned companies in Thailand) ability to conduct certain business activities in Thailand without authorization. This legal restriction has led many business operators to use nominees to operate their businesses.

Similar to many other countries, nominee arrangements are illegal in Thailand. The FBA expressly prohibits foreigners from using Thai nationals to hold shares on their behalf in a way that enables them to own and operate reserved businesses under the law. Engaging in such arrangements (including conducting a business without the necessary license under the FBA) can result in severe penalties, including imprisonment, fines, and the forced dissolution of the business. The authorities, particularly the Ministry of Commerce and the Department of Special Investigation, continue to actively pursue cases involving suspected nominees.

The FBA categorizes businesses into three lists, each outlining different levels of restrictions on foreign ownership and participation:

  • List 1: Foreign business operators are strictly prohibited from engaging in any of the business activities on list 1, such as media outlets (newspapers, radio, and television), rice farming, forestry, extraction of Thai medicinal herbs, and land trading.
  • List 2: Foreign business operators must obtain a foreign business license (FBL) from the Department of Business Development (DBD) and secure approval from the Thai cabinet to engage in a business activity on list 2. In addition, the company must be at least 40% Thai-owned (this may be reduced to 25% with special approval from the Minister of Commerce and the Cabinet), and at least two-fifths of the board of directors must be Thai nationals. This list covers business activities related to national security, such as arms trading and domestic aviation; businesses impacting arts, culture, traditions, and handicrafts; and businesses affecting natural resources or the environment.
  • List 3: Foreign business operators wishing to engage in business activities on list 3 must obtain an FBL (albeit with lower approval requirements than for businesses under list 2) from the DBD, with approval from the interagency Foreign Business Committee. List 3 covers business activities in which Thai nationals are deemed not yet ready to compete with foreign businesses. The list also includes “other service businesses”—effectively a catch-all provision that extends the scope of restricted activities and captures a wide range of service operations.

An FBL is not the only lawful and sustainable option for foreign businesses to pursue business operations in Thailand. The available options also include obtaining protection under specific treaties, such as the Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations between the United States and Thailand, or permission under the Investment Promotion Act, the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand Act, or other laws. While these routes may seem complex at first, they offer a secure option that can underpin long-term growth in business operations.

Given the recent increased focus on nominee arrangements, it is important for foreign business operators to carefully consider the business structures and ensure proper licensing and compliance with foreign ownership restrictions. By complying with the law and taking proper advantage of the various legal pathways available, foreign businesses can help give newly established Thailand operations a firm grounding for success.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
Read More
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