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

September 25, 2019

Updated Minimum Capital Provisions for Foreign Companies in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce, to fulfill various treaty and agreement obligations and for ease of enforcement, has abolished the previous three ministerial regulations on minimum capital for foreign companies, and issued a single new Ministerial Regulation re: Minimum Capital and the Period to Bring or Remit the Minimum Capital to Thailand B.E. 2562 (2019).

The new regulation took effect on August 28, 2019, and sets the timeline for bringing in, or remitting, the minimum capital to Thailand for foreign businesses using privileges under treaties and trade agreements. These currently include the following:

  1. U.S.-Thailand Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations
  2. Australia-Thailand Free Trade Agreement
  3. Japan-Thailand Economic Partnership Agreement
  4. ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services
  5. ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement

Foreign-owned companies established under privileges granted by any of the above treaties or trade agreements must bring or remit the required minimum capital to Thailand by no later than August 29, 2029. This remittance period requirement also applies to those companies established before August 28, 2019, that have not yet brought or remitted the minimum capital to Thailand.

The minimum capital and payment schedules for foreign-owned companies not established under one of the treaties or trade agreements above remain unchanged. A foreign-owned company not subject to a foreign business license requirement must have minimum capital of THB 2 million, and the minimum capital must be fully paid up before the company commences business in Thailand. For foreign-owned companies that are subject to a foreign business license requirement, the necessary minimum capital is 25% of the average estimated expenses for three years of operation or THB 3 million, whichever is higher. Again, the minimum capital must be paid in full before the companies are allowed to commence business in Thailand.

Foreign individuals and branch offices of overseas companies are not required to make the full capital payment at once, and instead can bring in or remit their minimum capital in tranches: at least 25% of the minimum capital within three months, at least 50% of the minimum within one year, and thereafter at least 25% of the minimum capital per annum.

Foreigners are still required to submit evidence detailing the minimum capital remittance to the Department of Business Development, Ministry of Commerce, within 15 days of it being brought into or remitted to Thailand.

Any foreigner who operates a business in violation of these minimum capital requirements will be subject to a fine of THB 100,000–1 million, plus an additional fine at the daily rate of THB 10,000–50,000 throughout the period of the violation.

For more information on these developments, or on any aspect of doing business in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected] or +66 2056 5555.

Related Professionals
Piyanuj (Lui) Ratprasatporn
Partner and Director, Corporate & Commercial
Thailand
+66 2056 5555
Email

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

November 13, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Franchise 2026, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This annual guide offers comparative analysis of franchise laws and regulations across jurisdictions worldwide, providing practical insights for businesses and legal practitioners operating in the global franchise sector. Each country chapter in the 12th edition follows a Q&A format covering key aspects of franchise law and operations, including: Relevant legislation and rules governing franchise transactions Business organization options for franchised operations Competition law considerations Protection of intellectual property and brands Liability issues and risk mitigation Governing law and dispute resolution Real estate matters Online trading regulations Termination requirements Joint employer risks and vicarious liability Currency controls and taxation Commercial agency considerations Good faith obligations and fair dealing requirements Ongoing relationship management Franchise renewal processes Franchise migration procedures Sustainability commitments Electronic signatures and document retention Current developments in the franchise sector The Thailand chapter, authored by Alan Adcock and Kasama Sriwatanakul, provides an in-depth overview of the legal landscape for franchising and franchising-related activities in Thailand. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Franchise 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
Read More
November 7, 2025
Thailand and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) titled “Cooperation to Diversify Global Critical Minerals Supply Chains and Promote Investments” on October 26, 2025, signaling a new strategic alignment aimed at developing Thailand’s mineral sector, particularly in rare earth elements (REEs). The MOU has implications for investments in technology, manufacturing, and other related sectors. This update outlines the key provisions of the MOU and the potential opportunities and legal navigating points for businesses. Objectives The primary driver of this agreement is the US initiative to diversify global supply chains for critical minerals and reduce reliance on current market leaders, particularly China. For Thailand, it represents a major opportunity to attract high-tech investment and develop its downstream processing industries. The cooperation is set to focus on five main areas: Technical knowledge: Exchange of technical expertise and international best practices to strengthen Thailand’s mining and processing sector. Joint cooperation: Establishing workshops, seminars, and scientific collaboration to boost innovation. Regulatory practice: Promoting good governance and streamlining regulatory and licensing procedures. Information sharing: Sharing data on potential projects and global market prices. Full-value chain: The MOU covers the entire mineral lifecycle, from exploration and extraction to processing, refining, and recycling. “First Opportunity to Invest” Clause The most debated provision within the MOU states that “participants expect to have the first opportunity to invest . . . in critical minerals assets that may be sold in Thailand.” Business implications: This clause is widely interpreted as granting US companies a first look or preferential access to investment opportunities in Thailand’s critical minerals sector. This could be a significant advantage for US-based or affiliated companies in mining, technology, and energy seeking to secure a foothold in a developing REE supply chain. Thai government position: Thai officials, including the prime minister, have publicly clarified
Read More
October 31, 2025
On September 29, 2025, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC Office) published its Regulations on the Review and Certification of Binding Corporate Rules B.E. 2568 (2025) (the Regulations). The Regulations provide clarity on the PDPC Office’s approach to reviewing and certifying binding corporate rules (BCRs) under Section 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), and aim to facilitate international data transfers within a group of undertakings or enterprises (a “corporate group”). In conjunction with this development, the PDPC Office also approved BCRs for two companies operating in Thailand on September 30, 2025. This milestone represents the first concrete progress since the PDPC’s Notification on Criteria for the Protection of Personal Data Sent or Transferred to a Foreign Country pursuant to Section 29 of the PDPA B.E. 2566 (2023) came into effect in March 2024. Some key features of the Regulations are set out below. Categorization of BCRs BCRs are classified into two types: (1) BCRs for Controllers (BCR-C) and (2) BCRs for Processors (BCR-P). The category must be clearly specified when submitting the BCRs to the PDPC Office. Documentation Requirement The applicant must prepare and submit the application (a standard template may be provided by the PDPC Office in the future) along with supporting documents for review and certification in the Thai language. If the supporting documents are in a foreign language, a certified Thai translation should be provided. The translation must be notarized by a notary public or qualified person. Supporting documents may include, among others, a binding instrument such as an intra-group agreement, or a list of entities subject to the BCRs. Expedited Process Requirement Organizations with existing BCR approvals under the EU or UK GDPR, or from countries announced by the PDPC under Section 28, may apply through an
Read More
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