Get all the data you need about the real estate market in Thailand
SUMMARY
Yes. Thailand is cracking down on foreign-controlled property structures, especially nominee landholding and company-held villas, while legal foreign condo ownership and properly registered leases remain intact.
The biggest change is not the basic law. Foreigners were already restricted from owning Thai land directly; what has changed is the government’s ability and willingness to look behind company share registers and test who really funded and controls the property.
The 36,277 foreign-linked landholding entities now identified for screening show how much more scalable enforcement has become. Thailand no longer has to rely mainly on tips, local complaints or one-off raids to find questionable structures.
The most revealing number is that 31,516 of those entities have foreign ownership at or below 49%. That puts the old “49% foreign, 51% Thai” property-company formula directly inside the area authorities are examining rather than outside it.
That does not make every foreign-linked company illegal. The screening pool includes legitimate Thai-majority businesses, BOI-promoted companies and other lawful landholders, so the real issue is beneficial control and genuine Thai capital, not nationality alone.
Villas carry more structural risk than condos because foreigners generally cannot own the underlying land directly. A clean foreign-quota condo can be held in the buyer’s own name; a detached villa often depends on a lease, a company or another arrangement that deserves much deeper due diligence.
Tourist markets are clearly receiving more attention. Samui, Phangan, Phuket, Krabi, Pattaya, Hua Hin and other foreign-heavy areas keep appearing in nominee investigations because that is where company-held villas and foreign-controlled businesses are most concentrated.
The crackdown is already producing real consequences. Investigations have moved beyond warnings into frozen land, prosecutor referrals and compulsory-disposal procedures, which makes weak ownership structures much harder to dismiss as a technical paperwork issue.
Older company-held villas may actually be more exposed than buyers assume. The new enforcement model can cross-check old land records, shareholder funding and current company activity, so a structure that passed registration years ago is not automatically insulated today.
Short-term rental enforcement adds a separate layer of risk. A foreigner can legally own a condo and still run into trouble by using it for nightly rentals without the required hotel authorisation.
For buyers now, the practical split is straightforward: a compliant foreign-freehold condo or clean registered lease remains relatively easy to defend, while a villa company that depends on inactive Thai shareholders or foreign-funded Thai share capital has become much harder to justify.
The market consequence is likely to be selective rather than a broad retreat from foreign ownership. Thailand still welcomes legal foreign property investment, but company structures sold as a casual substitute for foreign land ownership are becoming less liquid, less comfortable and more expensive to defend.
Thinking of buying real estate in Thailand?
Acquiring property in a different country is a complex task. Don't fall into common traps – grab our guide and make better decisions.
Is Thailand really cracking down on foreign property owners now?
Yes, Thailand is clearly cracking down on foreign-controlled property structures now, but legal foreign property ownership itself remains intact.
The distinction matters because several enforcement campaigns are happening at the same time. Thai authorities are pursuing nominee shareholders used to control land, suspicious Thai companies that hold villas for foreigners, unlicensed short-term rentals and foreign-controlled businesses operating outside the rules.
The latest evidence makes this much bigger than a few raids in Phuket. The Department of Business Development, or DBD, recently matched company records against Department of Lands data and identified 36,277 landholding entities with some foreign participation for nominee-risk screening. Earlier in 2026, the Department of Special Investigation, or DSI, also began analysing 11,426 foreign-linked companies in Koh Samui and Koh Phangan before announcing that the same approach would expand to other tourist areas.
At the same time, foreigners can still legally own qualifying condominium units, use properly registered leases and invest through legitimate businesses.
So yes, the crackdown is real. Its main target is foreign control that authorities believe has been disguised as Thai ownership.
| Property situation | What Thailand is doing now | Current risk |
|---|---|---|
| Foreign-owned condo within the legal quota | Still permitted | Low |
| Genuine Thai company with foreign investors | May face additional checks | Moderate |
| Thai company mainly holding villa land for a foreigner | Major enforcement focus | High |
| Thai nominee holding land for a foreigner | Major enforcement focus | Very high |
| Condo used for illegal daily rentals | Active enforcement | High |
Why is Thailand getting much tougher about foreign-owned villas?
Thailand is getting tougher because foreign-controlled villas and businesses have become highly visible in tourist areas, while authorities now have better data to investigate how those properties are actually owned.
Koh Samui gives us a good idea of the scale. DBD data showed 8,213 companies with foreign participation among 12,050 limited companies on the island, roughly 68%. Across Koh Samui and Koh Phangan, authorities gathered 11,426 companies for risk analysis.
That 68% figure does not mean most Samui companies are illegal. Many have perfectly legitimate foreign investors. What caught the government's attention was the combination of a very high foreign presence, rapidly developing villa markets, local complaints about nominee businesses and repeated cases where one address or professional intermediary appeared across many companies.
During a DSI operation in July 2026, investigators searching five locations in Samui and Phangan found that more than 100 companies had been registered at a single address. In a separate investigation, DSI sent the full group of 31 suspects in the Villa Andaman case to prosecutors after alleging that a network used Thai nominees for foreign-linked property businesses in Phuket and Samui.
These days, the political mood is plainly less tolerant of structures that once survived because nobody looked too closely at them.
Don't buy the wrong property, in the wrong area of Thailand
Buying real estate is a significant investment. Don't rely solely on your intuition. Gather the right information to make the best decision.
Did Thailand actually change the law on foreign property ownership?
Mostly no. Thailand is enforcing long-standing foreign property restrictions much harder rather than rewriting the basic ownership rules.
Foreigners were already generally prohibited from directly owning Thai land. Thai nominees were already illegal. Foreigners could already own condominium units within the statutory foreign quota. Running hotel-style accommodation without the required licence was already an offence.
The bigger change is enforcement.
In 2026, authorities moved toward deeper checks on company shareholders, investment capital and beneficial control. DSI and DBD also agreed on joint nominee investigations, while 23 public and private bodies joined a broader cooperation framework aimed at nominee businesses.
The latest DBD exercise goes further because officials are now matching property records against corporate ownership data nationwide. That lets investigators identify suspicious structures after land has already been registered.
A structure that looked safe because it passed registration ten years ago therefore deserves more scrutiny today.
Are legal foreign-owned condos in Thailand at risk?
For ordinary compliant owners, no. Legal foreign-owned condos remain one of the safest ways for foreigners to hold Thai property directly.
Thailand still allows foreigners to own condominium units provided the building stays within the legal foreign ownership ceiling, generally 49% of the aggregate unit area, and the buyer meets the required transfer and funding conditions.
There is currently no broad government programme cancelling valid foreign condo titles or forcing compliant foreign owners to sell.
The government has discussed changing the foreign quota several times, including proposals to raise it to 75%, but those proposals have not replaced the existing framework.
The current investigations involving condos concern something narrower. DBD's latest property-data exercise separated 2,120 company-linked condominium records for further examination. Authorities want to know whether corporate or nominee structures are being used to get around condominium or foreign-business restrictions.
Someone owning a normal foreign-quota condo in their own name sits in a very different risk category from someone using Thai nominees to acquire property indirectly.
Get to know the market before buying a property in Thailand
Better information leads to better decisions. Get all the data you need before investing a large amount of money.
How big is Thailand's nominee property investigation today?
Thailand's nominee investigation is now national in scale, with 36,277 foreign-linked landholding entities identified for risk screening.
The latest DBD data came from a much larger property database. The Department of Lands supplied records covering 144,706 juristic persons connected with real estate. DBD matched those records against companies under its supervision and found 123,542 entities holding land-title deeds.
Among those landholders, 87,265 were recorded as fully Thai-owned and 36,277 had some foreign participation.
The most interesting part is the ownership split. About 31,516 of the 36,277 foreign-linked entities have foreign shareholdings at or below 49%, while 4,761 sit in the higher foreign-ownership group.
That means roughly 87% of the current screening pool sits at or below the threshold people often associate with a conventional “Thai company” property structure.
Officials have been careful to say that inclusion in this pool does not prove wrongdoing. BOI-promoted businesses, industrial-estate companies and genuine Thai businesses with foreign investors can legally own land.
Still, the scale tells us how much the enforcement environment has changed. Thailand can now screen tens of thousands of existing landholding companies instead of waiting for individual complaints.
| Latest DBD property screening | Entities | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Foreign-linked landholding entities | 36,277 | 100% |
| Foreign ownership at or below 49% | 31,516 | ~86.9% |
| Higher foreign-ownership group | 4,761 | ~13.1% |
| Located in 16 priority provinces | 35,154 | ~96.9% |
| Located elsewhere | 1,123 | ~3.1% |
Does keeping foreign ownership below 49% make a Thai property company safe?
No. Keeping the foreign shareholder at 49% or below does very little if the Thai shareholders are only there on paper.
This is probably the biggest misconception exposed by the current crackdown.
Suppose a foreign buyer owns 49% of a company and several Thai shareholders own the remaining 51%. The company may look Thai when we read the shareholder register. But authorities can now ask who supplied the Thai shareholders' money, whether they genuinely invested, whether they participate in company decisions and who ultimately receives the economic benefit of the property.
If the foreigner provided essentially all the money while the Thai shareholders merely lent their names to the structure, the percentage split will not rescue it.
The latest DBD figures make this especially relevant. As seen above, 31,516 of the 36,277 foreign-linked landholding entities being screened have foreign holdings at or below 49%.
For years, some villa buyers were effectively sold the idea that “49% foreign, 51% Thai” was the answer. Thailand's current enforcement approach is forcing a much less comfortable question: is that 51% genuinely Thai?
Buying real estate in Thailand can be risky
An increasing number of foreign investors are showing interest. However, 90% of them will make mistakes. Avoid the pitfalls with our comprehensive guide.
What exactly makes a Thai property company a nominee structure?
A Thai property company becomes dangerous when its Thai shareholders lack genuine economic ownership and are effectively holding shares for the foreigner who really funded or controls the asset.
There is no single percentage or document that proves a nominee arrangement by itself. Investigators look at the full structure.
They can examine where shareholders obtained their investment money, who paid for the property, who controls bank accounts and voting decisions, whether Thai shareholders receive real economic benefits and whether several supposedly independent companies are linked through artificial shareholding arrangements.
A recent Krabi investigation shows how deep that analysis can go. Authorities examined three companies in which the foreign investor's direct holdings were reported at 39%, 30% and 49%. According to the Ministry of Interior, investigators then traced cross-shareholdings between the companies and alleged that the foreign investor's effective economic interest reached approximately 99.87% in the company controlling the property.
Authorities froze more than 126 rai of land valued at about 2.146 billion baht while the case moved toward the legal disposal process.
That case is unusually large, but the method is important for ordinary villa owners too. Authorities are increasingly interested in who really paid for and controls the property.
Are Phuket, Samui and other tourist areas being targeted harder?
Yes, Phuket, Koh Samui, Koh Phangan, Krabi, Pattaya and other foreign-heavy property markets are receiving much more attention than a typical Thai province.
DBD and DSI started their systematic nominee-company risk analysis with 11,426 companies in Samui and Phangan. Officials then explicitly named Phuket, Krabi, Phang Nga, Pattaya and Hua Hin among the areas where the model would expand.
The newer nationwide numbers show the same geographic concentration. Of the 36,277 foreign-linked landholding companies identified in the latest DBD screening pool, 35,154 are concentrated in just 16 provinces. That works out to almost 97%.
Those provinces include Bangkok and its surrounding economic area, together with major property and tourism markets such as Chonburi, Surat Thani, Phuket, Rayong, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Prachuap Khiri Khan, Krabi, Phang Nga and Mae Hong Son.
Nationality alone does not determine whether a case is illegal. Samui's foreign-company data includes French, British, Russian, Chinese, Israeli, German, American and other shareholders. What repeatedly brings companies into the risk zone is the ownership structure, funding and actual business activity.
If we own a company-held villa in one of Thailand's main resort markets, the chance of scrutiny is plainly higher today than it was a few years ago.
Don't lose money on your property in Thailand
100% of people who have lost money there have spent less than 1 hour researching the market. We have reviewed everything there is to know. Grab our guide now.
Is Thailand actually seizing land, or is this mostly political theatre?
Thailand is already freezing and recovering valuable land, so the crackdown has moved well beyond speeches and warnings.
The Krabi case is the clearest recent example. The Ministry of Interior said authorities had frozen more than 126 rai valued at approximately 2.146 billion baht in an alleged foreign-nominee structure and were preparing the property for compulsory disposal if the legal findings were confirmed.
Other operations have also involved substantial assets. Authorities previously reported action involving roughly 49 rai across Phuket, Krabi and Phang Nga worth more than one billion baht. Another Phuket-Krabi operation identified dozens of companies tied to property worth over one billion baht.
DSI's Villa Andaman investigation went through a different enforcement channel. The department completed the transfer of all 31 suspects to prosecutors after alleging that Thai nominees had been supplied for foreign-linked property and land-development businesses.
These cases sit at different stages of investigation and prosecution, so allegations should not be confused with final court judgments.
Even with that qualification, the pattern is clear enough: raids, frozen assets, prosecutors and forced-sale procedures are now part of the enforcement toolkit.
| Enforcement example | Approximate scale | What authorities are pursuing |
|---|---|---|
| Krabi nominee investigation | >126 rai, THB 2.146bn | Alleged effective foreign control through connected companies |
| Phuket/Krabi/Phang Nga operation | ~49 rai, >THB 1bn | Suspected nominee landholding |
| Phuket-Krabi company operation | 66 companies | Suspected nominee property structures |
| Villa Andaman case | 31 suspects | Alleged nominee property and business network |
Can Thailand force a foreign-linked property to be sold?
Yes. If Thai authorities establish that land was acquired unlawfully through a nominee structure, compulsory disposal can put the property itself at risk.
The recent Krabi operation makes that consequence much easier to take seriously. The Ministry of Interior publicly said the frozen plots could proceed into compulsory-sale procedures following the required legal findings.
DBD has also warned that land held unlawfully can ultimately have to be sold.
The consequences can extend beyond the asset. Nominee offences under the Foreign Business Act can bring criminal penalties for both the foreign beneficiary and people assisting the arrangement. DBD has cited possible imprisonment of up to three years and fines between 100,000 and one million baht for relevant nominee offences.
For someone who bought a villa believing that a Thai company effectively gave them foreign freehold, the downside is therefore much bigger than having to amend a company document.
Get the full checklist for your due diligence in Thailand
Don't repeat the same mistakes others have made before you. Make sure everything is in order before signing your sales contract.
Are old Thai-company villa structures more dangerous now?
Yes. Old Thai-company villa structures are more exposed today because authorities are increasingly checking existing ownership rather than concentrating only on new registrations.
That creates a problem for buyers who were told years ago that a Thai company was the “standard way” for a foreigner to own a villa.
Some of those companies may be perfectly legitimate. Others were created mainly to put land into a Thai legal entity while giving the foreign buyer almost all practical control over it.
The government's latest approach makes age a weak defence. DBD can cross-reference old company registrations with current land records, while investigators can examine shareholder funding and company activity long after the original purchase.
This also creates extra risk in villa resales. A buyer acquiring an existing company may inherit old shareholder arrangements, accounting records and funding histories that they did not create.
Buying the company together with the villa can mean buying the company's legal history as well. That part is easy to underestimate.
Are 30-year leases getting caught in Thailand's foreign property crackdown?
Properly registered leases remain a normal legal route for foreigners, and the current nominee crackdown does not make a genuine 30-year lease inherently suspicious.
Foreigners can lease land in Thailand, with registered leases generally available for terms of up to 30 years under the existing framework.
The danger appears when a lease is only one piece of a more elaborate arrangement meant to recreate land ownership indirectly. Side agreements, automatic-renewal promises, unusual corporate structures or documents that give the foreign lessee near-total ownership-like control can make the arrangement harder to defend.
A straightforward registered lease starts from the fact that the foreigner does not own the land. Legally, that is much cleaner than pretending a company is genuinely Thai while one foreign individual supplied the money and exercises almost complete control.
The current crackdown makes that clarity more valuable.
Don't sign a document you don't understand in Thailand
Buying a property over there? We have reviewed all the documents you need to know. Stay out of trouble - grab our comprehensive guide.
Is Thailand cracking down on foreign Airbnb and short-term rental owners too?
Yes, Thailand is also enforcing short-term rental rules more aggressively, although this is a separate legal issue from foreign land ownership.
A foreigner can own a perfectly legal condominium and still get into trouble over how it is rented.
Thailand's Hotel Act can apply when owners offer accommodation on a daily or very short-term basis without the necessary hotel authorisation. Individual condominium rules can impose additional restrictions.
Authorities have recently carried out visible enforcement in Bangkok condominiums, including areas around Sukhumvit and Asoke, after complaints about daily rentals. Provincial authorities have also been told to pay closer attention to unlicensed accommodation.
The government has cited penalties for operating an unlicensed hotel of up to one year in prison, a fine of up to 20,000 baht, or both, with continuing fines that can reach 10,000 baht per day while the offence continues.
So someone can have a clean foreign-freehold condo title and still face a serious rental-business problem.
| Foreign property situation | Ownership status | Rental/business issue | Risk today |
|---|---|---|---|
| Owner lives in legal foreign-freehold condo | Normally fine | None | Low |
| Condo rented on a normal long-term tenancy | Normally fine | Usually limited | Low |
| Condo offered nightly without proper authorisation | Title may be fine | Potential Hotel Act breach | High |
| Villa land held through sham Thai shareholders | Potential land violation | May involve other offences | Very high |
| Genuine operating Thai company with foreign investors | Potentially lawful | Depends on actual business | Case-specific |
Does being in Thailand's 36,277-company screening pool mean a company is illegal?
No. The 36,277 companies are a risk-screening population, and many will have legitimate reasons for owning Thai land.
This distinction is important because the headline number is large enough to sound like Thailand has discovered 36,277 illegal foreign landowners. It has not.
Some foreign-linked companies hold land under Board of Investment privileges or industrial-estate legislation. Others are genuine Thai-majority businesses whose foreign shareholders have real minority investments.
DBD has specifically acknowledged those legitimate categories.
The group that deserves much closer attention is the 31,516 companies where foreign participation sits at or below 49%, especially in tourist provinces. Authorities want to establish whether the Thai capital behind those companies is genuine.
The latest screening therefore tells us more about enforcement capacity than proven illegality. Thailand can now identify a large universe of companies worth checking and rank them by risk instead of investigating almost entirely through tips and isolated cases.
Get fresh and reliable information about the market in Thailand
Don't base significant investment decisions on outdated data. Get updated and accurate information.
Has Thailand's foreign property crackdown become nationwide?
Yes. Thailand has moved from local nominee raids toward a reusable nationwide enforcement system.
The progression has happened quite quickly.
DSI and DBD first focused heavily on obvious tourist hotspots such as Samui and Phangan. They created high-, medium- and low-risk categories for the 11,426 companies there and said high-risk cases would be investigated first.
Operations then appeared in places including Phuket, Krabi and Pattaya. In parallel, 23 agencies formalised cooperation on nominee enforcement.
The latest step is much broader. DBD has now matched national corporate and landholding datasets and isolated 36,277 foreign-linked landholding entities for further screening.
That database approach makes enforcement scalable. Investigators no longer need to stumble onto each suspicious villa company individually.
The crackdown can now follow the records.
Is the crackdown already changing Thailand's villa market?
Yes, the crackdown is making company-held villas harder to sell to cautious foreign buyers, especially where the ownership pitch depends on treating a Thai company as de facto freehold.
Property professionals in Phuket and Samui have reported buyers becoming more cautious about corporate ownership structures as nominee enforcement intensifies.
That hesitation makes sense because the crackdown affects villas and condos very differently.
A qualifying foreigner can own a legal freehold condominium directly. A foreign buyer generally cannot own the underlying land beneath a detached villa directly. The villa market therefore relies much more heavily on leases, companies and other legal structures.
When authorities increase scrutiny of one of those structures, buyers have to price the legal uncertainty into the property.
Over time, we should expect more buyers to ask for properly registered leases, clearer building ownership, genuinely funded Thai joint ventures or another structure that can survive due diligence without relying on inactive Thai shareholders.
This probably will not kill Thailand's foreign villa market. It does make the weakest ownership structures materially less attractive.
Get to know the market before buying a property in Thailand
Better information leads to better decisions. Get all the data you need before investing a large amount of money.
Should foreigners who already own property in Thailand be worried now?
Foreign owners with clean condominium titles or straightforward leases have relatively little reason to panic, while anyone relying on nominee shareholders should treat the current crackdown seriously.
The easiest way to judge the risk is to ask what actually gives us rights over the property.
For a foreign-owned condo, we should be able to show that the unit sits within the permitted foreign quota and that the original transfer and foreign-funding documentation was handled correctly.
For a lease, the registered agreement, payments and real relationship between the parties should match.
A property-holding company needs a deeper review. Who funded each shareholder? Can the Thai shareholders document their investment? Do they really participate in the company? Who controls company decisions and bank accounts? Does the company run a genuine business, or does its entire existence revolve around one foreigner's home?
Those questions matter much more now because investigators are explicitly looking beyond shareholder percentages.
The best structures today are generally the ones that are easy to explain without a long story about why someone who supplied almost none of the capital legally owns 51% of a company.
So, is Thailand cracking down on foreign property owners?
Yes, but the strongest version of that claim is misleading. Thailand is currently cracking down on illegal foreign control of Thai property, especially nominee landholding and company-held villas, while compliant foreign ownership remains legal.
The enforcement escalation is real and unusually broad. Authorities have moved from isolated nominee cases to joint DSI-DBD investigations, a 23-agency cooperation framework, prosecutions, frozen land, compulsory-sale procedures and nationwide corporate-property data matching.
The latest figure captures that shift better than any single raid: 36,277 foreign-linked landholding entities have been identified for nominee-risk screening, and nearly 87% of them have foreign ownership at or below 49%. That directly challenges the old assumption that keeping the foreigner's name below 50% makes a property company safe.
At the same time, Thailand still permits qualifying foreign condominium ownership, registered leases and legitimate foreign investment. We see no broad policy aimed at removing compliant foreigners from legally held homes.
The risk therefore depends heavily on how the property is held.
A foreigner with a clean condo title is unlikely to experience today's campaign as an ownership crisis. A foreigner whose villa depends on Thai shareholders who contributed little or no genuine capital is facing a very different environment.
Thailand remains open to foreign property buyers, but the era when a nominee company could be treated casually as a substitute for foreign land ownership is becoming much harder to defend.
Buying real estate in Thailand can be risky
An increasing number of foreign investors are showing interest. However, 90% of them will make mistakes. Avoid the pitfalls with our comprehensive guide.
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis tests whether Thailand is actually cracking down on foreign property owners by separating legal foreign ownership from nominee landholding, company-held villas, beneficial-control investigations and short-term rental enforcement. The main question is not whether every foreign-linked property is suddenly unsafe, but which ownership structures are attracting materially more scrutiny now.
We started with the legal baseline. Foreign land-ownership restrictions, the condominium foreign quota, registered lease rules, nominee prohibitions and hotel-licensing requirements were already part of Thailand's framework, so we did not treat long-standing rules as new policy.
We then looked for evidence that enforcement itself had changed. The strongest indicators were nationwide property-company screening, tighter company-registration checks, DSI-DBD risk analysis, cross-agency cooperation, prosecutor referrals, land freezes and compulsory-disposal procedures.
We treated the 36,277 foreign-linked landholding entities as a screening population, not as 36,277 illegal companies. That distinction is essential because some companies can lawfully own land through genuine Thai-majority ownership, BOI privileges, industrial-estate rules or other permitted structures.
We gave special weight to beneficial-control evidence rather than simple shareholder percentages. The current investigations increasingly examine funding sources, cross-shareholdings, bank control, voting power and the economic role of Thai shareholders, which is why the 31,516 companies at or below 49% foreign ownership are particularly relevant to the old villa-company model.
We also separated scale from severity. A nationwide database tells us how broad the enforcement system has become, while individual cases in Krabi, Phuket, Samui and Phangan show what authorities are prepared to do when they believe a nominee structure exists. One does not substitute for the other.
Freshness mattered because the article is about what Thailand is doing now. We therefore prioritized 2026 government releases, enforcement operations and current screening measures, while using older legal guidance mainly to establish what was already allowed or prohibited before the current enforcement push.
Key sources used include the Department of Business Development's nationwide landholding review, the Ministry of Commerce material on expanded registration and shareholder-funding checks, the Thai Government explanation of the new risk-analysis approach, the 23-agency nominee-enforcement cooperation framework, and the DSI-DBD analysis of 11,426 companies in Koh Samui and Koh Phangan.
For enforcement in practice, we used the DSI Samui-Phangan operation involving more than 100 companies at one address, the Villa Andaman referral of 31 suspects to prosecutors, the Krabi case involving more than 126 rai and over THB 2 billion of property, and the Krabi Commerce Office account of a cross-province nominee-company network.
For the legal ownership routes and the short-term rental distinction, we relied on BOI guidance on lawful land ownership by promoted businesses, Department of Lands guidance for foreigners, Department of Lands condominium registration guidance, Department of Lands lease guidance, the official Hotel Act text, and Bangkok Metropolitan Administration material on daily condo rentals.
Don't lose money on your property in Thailand
100% of people who have lost money there have spent less than 1 hour researching the market. We have reviewed everything there is to know. Grab our guide now.
Related blog posts
- Are foreign-owned Thai companies still safe for property?
- Will foreigners soon be able to own 75% of Thai condos?
- Is buying a villa in Thailand riskier for foreigners now?
- Could Thailand force foreigners to sell their villas?
Fact-checked and reviewed by our local expert
Attaya Suriyawonghae 🇹🇭
Real Estate Broker, Zest Real Estate
