Get all the data you need about the real estate market in Thailand
SUMMARY
Yes, Thailand can force foreigners to dispose of villa land when authorities prove that it was acquired unlawfully by or on behalf of a foreigner. It cannot force someone to sell a legally structured villa simply because the owner is foreign.
The real dividing line is not nationality but ownership structure. A clean registered lease, genuine Thai ownership or another lawful property right sits in a very different position from a Thai company whose shareholders exist mainly to hold land for a foreign beneficiary.
The risk has become more concrete because enforcement is moving from isolated cases toward large-scale screening. On Koh Samui, authorities went from 12,906 registered companies to 8,254 with foreign shareholders, then flagged 875 for further scrutiny before narrowing the operation to specific companies, suspects and properties.
A 51/49 shareholder split is no longer much of a defence on its own. Investigators are increasingly asking who paid for the Thai shares, whether those shareholders could afford them, where the purchase money came from and who actually controls the company.
This makes old villa companies surprisingly exposed. A company may have held land for ten or fifteen years without a challenge, but registration history does not fix an arrangement that was nominee-based from the start.
The biggest weakness in many nominee structures is the money trail. Bank transfers, shareholder loans, unexplained deposits and recurring Thai shareholders can make the economic owner much easier to identify than the company paperwork suggests.
A forced disposal should not automatically be described as confiscation. The bigger financial danger is losing control of the exit: an owner may have to sell within a statutory period, accept a weaker negotiating position and deal with taxes, legal costs and disputes around the structure.
Leasehold is not being treated in the same way as nominee ownership. A genuine registered 30-year lease leaves the land in Thai ownership and does not need to disguise a foreign freehold, although elaborate lease structures designed to mimic permanent ownership deserve more caution.
The crackdown can also reach beyond the land itself. Foreign and Thai participants in nominee arrangements may face Foreign Business Act proceedings, and villa owners running rental or development businesses can create additional exposure beyond the property structure.
The most likely market effect is not a general Phuket or Samui villa crash. It is a widening discount between properties with clean, easily explained legal structures and villas sold through old companies whose funding and shareholder history are difficult to defend.
So the practical question for an existing owner is straightforward: if investigators followed every baht used for the purchase, interviewed the Thai shareholders and checked who really controls the property, would the legal structure still make sense? For a genuine arrangement, probably yes. For a nominee company, that has become a much worse bet.
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.
Why are foreign villa owners in Thailand worried right now?
Foreign villa owners in Thailand have more reason to check their ownership structure today because the nominee crackdown has moved well beyond warnings and paperwork checks.
The clearest change is the scale of the investigations. On Koh Samui, authorities screened 12,906 registered companies and found 8,254 with foreign shareholders. Of those, 875 showed characteristics that officials considered potentially consistent with nominee arrangements. Further investigation led to 60 cases involving 59 companies, 88 suspects and 37 plots of land and buildings worth around 1.2 billion baht.
That is much larger than an occasional Land Office dispute over one villa.
The Department of Special Investigation has also been working through company networks. During a Samui and Koh Phangan investigation, DSI said one law office was connected to more than 150 companies. More than 100 of those companies held property or other assets purchased for roughly 795 million baht, and investigators said the financial trail suggested that the real funding came from foreigners.
So the anxiety around foreign villas is understandable. Authorities are currently trying to work out who really owns and funds property-holding companies, rather than simply accepting the names shown on registration forms.
| Recent enforcement example | What authorities found | Scale | What it tells us |
|---|---|---|---|
| Koh Samui company screening | Foreign-linked companies with nominee warning signs | 875 companies flagged from 8,254 with foreign shareholders | Screening is happening at portfolio scale |
| Koh Samui cases | Suspected nominee companies tied to land and buildings | 60 cases, 88 suspects, about ฿1.2bn of property | Property ownership is directly in scope |
| Samui/Phangan law-office investigation | One professional network linked to many companies | 150+ companies | One intermediary can expose many structures |
| Villa Andaman investigation | Foreign-linked real-estate nominee network | 31 suspects sent to prosecutors | Cases are reaching prosecution |
| Pattaya operation | Suspected nominee land and business structures | Multiple search locations | Enforcement has spread beyond southern islands |
Can Thailand force a foreigner to sell a villa just because they are foreign?
No. Thailand currently has no general rule allowing authorities to make a foreigner sell a legally held villa simply because of the owner's nationality.
The confusion starts because people often say they “own a villa in Thailand” when several completely different legal arrangements can sit behind that sentence.
A foreign buyer may own the building while leasing the land. Another buyer may hold a long registered lease. Someone else may be a minority shareholder in a genuine Thai company that owns the property. A Thai spouse may own the land. There are also narrow statutory routes under which qualifying foreigners can acquire residential land directly.
All of those situations need to be judged separately.
Thailand's Land Code heavily restricts direct foreign ownership of land, but the law does not ban foreigners from having property rights in Thailand. Foreigners can legally own condominium units within the foreign quota, lease land, own buildings separately from the underlying land and, in limited circumstances, acquire land under specific investment rules.
The current crackdown therefore does not give authorities a free-standing power to clear foreigners out of Thai villas. Authorities need a legal problem with the ownership arrangement itself.
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.
Does Thai law really allow authorities to force the sale of foreign-linked land?
Yes. Thai law already gives authorities a way to force the disposal of land when it was acquired unlawfully by a foreigner or on a foreigner's behalf.
Section 94 of Thailand's Land Code deals with land acquired by a foreigner without complying with the law. The Director-General of the Department of Lands can require the owner to dispose of that land within a specified period. The period must be at least 180 days and cannot exceed one year.
If the land is still held after that deadline, the Director-General can arrange its disposal.
Section 96 is particularly relevant to foreign villa structures because it covers land acquired by another person as owner on behalf of a foreigner. That wording goes directly to the problem authorities are currently investigating: land registered to a Thai person or Thai company when the foreigner is allegedly the real economic owner.
The power has existed for years. What has changed lately is the amount of investigative effort being put into finding structures that may fall within it.
The “forced sale” concern is therefore legally real, but only for property caught by the relevant restrictions.
Would Thailand confiscate the villa without paying the foreign owner?
Usually, describing the process as outright confiscation goes too far. The Land Code primarily provides for compulsory disposal of an unlawful landholding.
That still leaves plenty of financial risk.
An owner ordered to unwind a structure can lose control over when the property is sold. A rushed transaction can produce a worse price. Legal fees, taxes, disputes between shareholders, financing problems and complications over the building itself can add further losses.
The Director-General also has statutory powers over how a disposal is carried out, including provisions dealing with sale or hire-purchase and an administrative charge that can reach 5% of the disposal price.
For someone who paid 25 million or 50 million baht for a villa, the practical problem is fairly simple: even if the government does not simply take the entire asset for nothing, losing control over the ownership structure can be extremely expensive.
| Stage | What can happen | Typical consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Authorities establish unlawful landholding | Owner is told to dispose of land | Property can no longer be held indefinitely |
| Disposal period begins | Owner has 180 days to one year under the Section 94 framework | Sale may happen under time pressure |
| Owner fails to dispose | Director-General can step in | Owner loses control over the exit |
| Property is disposed of | Statutory process applies | Sale price may differ from owner's preferred price |
| Related nominee case continues | Corporate or criminal proceedings may proceed separately | Additional fines, legal costs or penalties |
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.
What actually makes a Thai villa company an illegal nominee company?
A Thai villa company becomes seriously exposed when its Thai shareholders exist mainly on paper while the foreign buyer supplies the money and gets the real economic control.
This is where many old villa structures become difficult to defend.
Imagine a company with 51% of its shares registered to Thai nationals and 49% to a foreigner. That percentage split looks conventional. It tells us almost nothing about whether the company is lawful.
Investigators can ask who paid for the Thai shares. They can check whether those shareholders had enough money to make the investment. They can see whether the foreign buyer transferred funds shortly before the shares were issued. They can examine dividends, loans, voting arrangements, side agreements and bank transfers.
Recent DSI investigations show exactly this approach. In the Samui and Phangan cases, investigators described checking shareholder identities, company records, land documents and financial trails. One network drew attention partly because the same Thai people appeared across multiple foreign-linked companies.
That pattern is much harder to explain as genuine Thai investment.
A Thai shareholder who invests personal money, shares in the profits and participates in the company's decisions has a real economic role. Someone paid a small fee to lend their name to twenty companies is in a very different position.
| What investigators ask | More defensible structure | Higher-risk structure |
|---|---|---|
| Who funded the Thai shares? | Thai investors used their own money | Foreign buyer supplied the money |
| Could the Thai shareholders afford the investment? | Financial capacity is credible | Investment makes little sense relative to their finances |
| Do Thai shareholders receive real returns? | They receive dividends and bear risk | They receive a fixed nominee fee |
| Who controls major decisions? | Governance matches shareholding | Foreigner controls everything |
| Why does the company exist? | Genuine operating business | Mainly holds one foreigner's property |
| Do the same Thai names appear repeatedly? | Ordinary independent investors | Same people appear across many foreign-linked firms |
| Where did the property money come from? | Company or genuine Thai shareholders | Traceable back to foreign beneficiary |
Does owning only 49% of a Thai villa company make the foreign buyer safe?
No. A 49% foreign shareholding does not make a villa company automatically safe in Thailand.
This is probably one of the most persistent misunderstandings in the foreign villa market.
The shareholder register may show that Thai nationals own the majority. Authorities can still investigate whether those Thai shareholders are genuine investors. Thailand's Foreign Business Act specifically prohibits Thai people from assisting foreigners through nominee arrangements designed to get around legal restrictions.
The recent direction of enforcement makes the 49% argument even weaker. Authorities are increasingly combining company-registration information with financial evidence.
DBD has also tightened scrutiny at the registration stage. New checks introduced this year require additional financial evidence in higher-risk foreign-linked incorporations, including bank statements from Thai investors in circumstances that raise nominee concerns.
That is revealing. The regulator increasingly wants evidence showing that Thai capital is real before accepting the economic story presented on the company documents.
Two companies can therefore have an identical 51/49 shareholder split and completely different risk.
The percentage is only the beginning of the investigation.
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.
Can Thailand investigate villa companies that were created years ago?
Yes. An old foreign-linked villa company can still be investigated today, even if the company and land transfers were registered without objection many years ago.
Existing investigations already show authorities going backwards through corporate histories.
The Villa Andaman case involved an established network of companies operating in Phuket and Samui. DSI eventually sent files involving 31 suspects to prosecutors after expanding an earlier investigation into the use of Thai nominee shareholders in real-estate businesses.
The Samui investigations have followed a similar pattern. Authorities have looked at companies already holding land, shareholder histories, professional intermediaries and past funding flows.
Registration at the time of purchase therefore gives limited comfort if the underlying arrangement was unlawful.
This is especially relevant to villas bought during periods when “Thai company ownership” was routinely marketed to foreigners as a normal workaround. Some structures that received little attention ten or fifteen years ago can now be examined using bank records and corporate data that reveal much more about who actually funded them.
Time does not turn a nominee into a genuine shareholder.
How much tougher is Thailand's nominee crackdown getting?
Thailand's nominee crackdown is clearly getting tougher because authorities are moving from small investigations toward systematic screening of entire pools of foreign-linked companies.
The Koh Samui numbers show the change well.
Officials looked at 12,906 companies on the island, isolated the 8,254 with foreign shareholders and identified 875 with characteristics worth further scrutiny. The process then narrowed to 59 suspected companies linked to 37 plots and buildings worth around 1.2 billion baht.
That is a screening funnel, not a collection of random raids.
The Department of Business Development has used a similar approach nationally for years, but the scale and coordination are growing. Its previous annual programmes often focused on hundreds of higher-risk entities. Authorities are now discussing examinations involving tens of thousands of foreign-linked landholding entities.
DSI and DBD have also formalized closer cooperation. Their current operations combine corporate data, shareholder information, financial investigation and physical searches.
The Pattaya operation adds another important clue. DSI described the government's policy as an urgent campaign against foreign capital being used to acquire real estate or run restricted businesses unlawfully in major cities and tourist areas.
The direction is pretty clear. Enforcement is broader today, and weak nominee arrangements have a higher chance of actually being examined.
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.
Can Thai authorities really trace who paid for a foreigner's villa?
Yes. Thai investigators can follow the money behind a villa company, and recent nominee cases show that they are doing exactly that.
This is one of the biggest practical weaknesses in nominee arrangements.
A shareholder register records names and percentages. Bank accounts show who supplied the capital.
In one recent Samui investigation, DSI said the financial trail led officials to believe that the genuine source of funding behind companies connected to a law office came from foreigners. More than 100 companies in that network reportedly held property or other assets worth around 795 million baht at acquisition value.
A simple nominee structure can therefore unravel quickly. If a foreign buyer transfers money to Thai shareholders, those shareholders subscribe for the majority stake and the company then buys the villa land, the sequence can be reconstructed.
More complicated arrangements also leave evidence. Authorities can look at shareholder loans, simultaneous transfers, unexplained deposits, repayments shortly after incorporation and repeated transactions involving the same intermediaries.
This is why checking whether a Thai name appears beside “51%” on a company form does not settle much anymore. Financial records can reveal whether that shareholder ever behaved like a real investor.
Could Thailand force the sale of the villa building as well as the land?
The land is usually the central legal problem, but losing the land can still put the whole villa investment at risk even when the foreigner separately owns the building.
Thai law can recognize separate ownership of a building and the land underneath it. Foreigners can therefore own a house or villa structure while another person owns the land, provided the rights have been set up correctly.
Registered rights such as a lease or superficies can strengthen that separation.
That works reasonably cleanly when the underlying arrangement is genuine. A foreigner may own the house while leasing the land from an unrelated Thai landowner.
A nominee-company villa is messier. The company may own both land and building. In other cases, several contracts divide the economic rights between the foreigner and the company.
If authorities force the landholding to be unwound, the foreigner's practical ability to use, sell or rent the building can become difficult even where a separate building right exists.
The Land Code also contains provisions affecting leases when land is disposed of under these enforcement powers. We would therefore be cautious about assuming that a lease written over nominee-owned land automatically protects the foreign buyer from the consequences of the underlying violation.
Owning the concrete without having secure rights over the ground below it is not much comfort.
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 30-year villa leases in Thailand being targeted too?
A genuine registered 30-year villa lease remains much safer from the foreign-land crackdown than a nominee ownership structure, although buyers should not treat every lease as bulletproof.
Thailand currently allows ordinary leases of immovable property for up to 30 years under the Civil and Commercial Code.
The structure is relatively straightforward. The Thai owner keeps the land. The foreigner receives a contractual right to use it for the registered term.
There is no need to pretend that the foreigner indirectly owns the freehold.
The bigger risks with leasehold are familiar ones: the remaining term gets shorter, resale can become harder, renewal promises may prove less secure than buyers expected, and the financial position of the landowner can matter.
Authorities have lately also shown more interest in arrangements that give foreigners unusually strong long-term control over land while nominal ownership remains Thai. That does not make an ordinary registered lease illegal. Elaborate structures designed to imitate perpetual freehold ownership deserve more scrutiny, though.
A clean arm's-length 30-year lease and a nominee company created to conceal land ownership should sit in very different risk categories.
Can a Thai spouse own villa land bought with money from a foreign husband or wife?
Yes, a Thai spouse can lawfully own land while married to a foreigner, but problems arise if the Thai spouse is only holding the property for the foreign partner.
Foreign marriage does not remove a Thai citizen's right to own land.
Land Office procedures commonly require the foreign spouse to confirm that the land belongs to the Thai spouse and that the foreigner has no ownership claim arising from the purchase.
That declaration becomes important later.
If the evidence shows that the foreign spouse was actually meant to be the owner, Section 96 of the Land Code can become relevant because it covers a person acquiring land as owner on behalf of a foreigner.
Simply transferring money to a Thai husband or wife does not prove that arrangement. Married couples routinely give each other money.
The risk becomes much clearer if there are side agreements saying that the foreigner really owns the property, contractual restrictions preventing the Thai spouse from dealing with it independently, or evidence showing that the Thai owner has no genuine economic interest.
For a genuinely Thai-owned family property, the current nominee crackdown changes relatively little. For a Thai spouse being used as a name on the title while the foreigner secretly retains ownership, the exposure is much higher.
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.
Can foreign villa buyers face criminal charges as well as losing the property?
Yes. Foreign buyers involved in a proven nominee structure can face criminal and business-law consequences in addition to losing control of the land.
The Foreign Business Act reaches the foreign participant as well as the Thai nominee.
Section 36 prohibits Thai nationals from helping foreigners circumvent the Act through nominee arrangements. It also covers foreigners who allow that arrangement to be used.
Relevant offences can carry imprisonment of up to three years, fines ranging from 100,000 to 1 million baht, or both. Courts can also order the offending shareholding, assistance or business arrangement to stop.
Recent cases show that this is no longer just theoretical language in the statute book.
DSI has arrested foreign suspects accused of using Thai nominees in luxury villa rental businesses in Phuket. In the Villa Andaman case, files covering all 31 suspects were eventually forwarded to prosecutors. Other investigations have resulted in arrest warrants for both Thai and foreign participants.
The risk gets even higher when the villa is used commercially. Running rental businesses, property development, brokerage or other restricted activities can create additional Foreign Business Act issues beyond ownership of the land itself.
| Possible exposure | Thai nominee | Foreign beneficiary |
|---|---|---|
| Nominee offence | Yes | Yes |
| Criminal investigation | Possible | Possible |
| Maximum relevant fine | Up to ฿1m | Up to ฿1m |
| Imprisonment | Up to 3 years | Up to 3 years |
| Court order ending arrangement | Yes | Yes |
| Loss of property structure | Yes | Yes |
| Additional business offences | Depends on role | Depends on business activity |
Which foreign villa ownership structures look riskiest in Thailand now?
The riskiest villa structures today are the ones that only work as long as nobody asks where the Thai shareholders got their money or who really controls the property.
A classic nominee company sits at the top of that list.
A shell company with one foreign shareholder, several nominal Thai shareholders, no meaningful operating business and a single villa as its main asset is particularly exposed if the foreigner funded the entire acquisition.
Using the same Thai shareholders across numerous foreign buyers raises the risk further because current investigations are explicitly looking for those networks.
Proper leasehold sits much lower down. Genuine Thai-company ownership with real Thai investors can also be defensible, although company substance and financing need to match the paperwork.
Thai-spouse ownership is generally straightforward when the Thai spouse genuinely owns the land.
For new buyers, the practical lesson is increasingly clear: structures that depend on authorities never examining the economic reality are becoming a worse bet.
| Villa structure | Current risk | Main issue |
|---|---|---|
| Thai nominee company funded by foreign buyer | Very high | Directly resembles structures under investigation |
| Thai individual secretly holding land for foreigner | Very high | Land Code Section 96 can apply |
| Shell company using repeat professional shareholders | Very high | Network screening can reveal the pattern |
| 51/49 company with unclear Thai funding | High | Share percentages alone prove little |
| Genuine operating Thai company with genuine Thai investors | Low to moderate | Company must have real substance |
| Thai spouse genuinely owning the property | Low | Ownership needs to remain genuinely Thai |
| Registered arm's-length 30-year lease | Low | Main risks come from lease term and lessor |
| Lease plus properly established building/superficies rights | Low | Documentation and title quality remain important |
| Lawful statutory foreign land ownership | Low | Buyer must continue meeting statutory conditions |
Get fresh and reliable information about the market in Thailand
Don't base significant investment decisions on outdated data. Get updated and accurate information.
Could Thailand suddenly invalidate every foreign-linked villa company?
A blanket cancellation of every foreign-linked villa company looks very unlikely under the rules currently in force.
Thai companies are allowed to have foreign minority shareholders. Thai companies are allowed to own land. Genuine Thai investors can also invest alongside foreigners.
Authorities still need evidence showing that the particular structure breaches the law.
That gives a real company plenty of ways to defend itself. Thai shareholders can show where their investment money came from. Accounts can demonstrate a functioning business. Dividend records can show genuine economic participation. Directors and shareholders can explain why the land is held by the company.
The difficult cases are companies where those answers fall apart.
One current development makes that distinction especially important. DBD's electronic shareholder records now carry an explicit warning that the shareholder list filed with the department should not itself be treated as definitive proof of the underlying shareholder position. The company's own statutory shareholder register remains important evidence.
That fits the broader enforcement approach: officials increasingly care about what actually happened behind the registration document.
Owners of legitimate foreign-linked companies should not assume a nationwide purge is coming. Owners relying on paperwork that does not match the real financial arrangement have much more to think about.
Could Thailand's crackdown push down villa prices in Phuket or Koh Samui?
The crackdown could create a discount for villas with messy company structures, although there is little evidence so far of a broad crash in foreign-oriented Thai villa prices.
The likely effect is much more specific.
Suppose two similar villas in Samui are offered for 25 million baht. One comes with a clean registered land lease and clearly documented ownership of the building. The other requires the buyer to acquire shares in an old Thai company whose majority shareholders contributed little capital.
A buyer who understands the current enforcement environment should value those two deals differently.
Existing owners may also become more willing to restructure or sell if their companies are difficult to defend. If several such properties appear in the same development or neighbourhood, they could face a thinner buyer pool.
That pressure should be strongest in places where company ownership became especially common among foreign villa buyers, including Phuket and Koh Samui.
If pricing changes, the first visible effect may be a larger gap between clean properties and complicated ones.
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.
So could Thailand really force foreigners to sell their villas?
Yes, Thailand can force the disposal of villa land when authorities prove that the land was acquired unlawfully by or on behalf of a foreigner, and that risk is more relevant now than it was a few years ago.
The strongest version of the headline still goes too far.
Thailand is not currently ordering foreign villa owners as a group to sell their homes. There is no general foreign-villa disposal programme, and legally structured leases, genuine Thai ownership and other permitted property rights remain available.
The vulnerable group is much narrower: foreigners whose supposed villa ownership depends on Thai people or companies acting as nominees.
What has changed is the probability of those arrangements being tested. Authorities are screening thousands of foreign-linked companies, following money through bank accounts, identifying Thai shareholders who appear repeatedly, investigating law offices that set up large numbers of companies, taking cases to prosecutors and expanding operations from Phuket and Samui into other tourist and property markets such as Pattaya.
As seen above, the Koh Samui operation alone moved from 8,254 companies with foreign shareholders to 875 flagged entities and ultimately to 60 cases involving 59 companies, 88 suspects and property worth around 1.2 billion baht. That gives us a much better picture of what the crackdown looks like in practice.
Our conclusion comes with one major qualification. Thailand can force some foreign-linked villa holdings to be unwound, and current enforcement makes that threat increasingly credible for nominee structures. A foreigner with a lawful ownership arrangement has no comparable reason to expect a forced sale simply because they are foreign.
For existing owners, one question now cuts through almost everything else: if Thai investigators followed the purchase money, interviewed every shareholder and checked who really controls the property, would the legal story still hold together?
For a clean structure, probably yes. For a nominee structure, that has become a much harder gamble.
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis tests whether Thailand can actually force foreigners to sell villa property, rather than treating every form of “foreign villa ownership” as the same thing. We separated the issue into the legal power to require disposal, the ownership structures that can trigger it, the evidence authorities use to identify nominee arrangements, and the way those powers are currently being enforced.
We used the Thailand Land Code as the core legal framework, particularly Sections 94 and 96. These provisions matter because they distinguish ordinary restrictions on foreign land ownership from land acquired unlawfully by a foreigner or held by another person on a foreigner's behalf. We also used Department of Lands guidance on foreign ownership, Thai-spouse purchases and registered leases to separate lawful structures from nominee arrangements.
For nominee-company exposure, we relied on the Foreign Business Act and recent Department of Business Development measures. A 51/49 shareholder split was not treated as proof that a structure is either lawful or unlawful. We gave more weight to shareholder funding, financial capacity, economic participation, actual control and the source of the property money.
Recent enforcement was treated as a funnel rather than as a conviction count. A company selected for additional scrutiny is not automatically an illegal nominee company. The Koh Samui operation was particularly useful because it showed the progression from 12,906 registered companies, to 8,254 with foreign shareholders, to 875 entities showing potential nominee characteristics, and then to targeted investigations, suspects and properties.
We also compared several enforcement channels instead of relying on one raid. DSI investigations in Samui and Koh Phangan provided evidence on financial tracing and professional nominee networks, the Villa Andaman case showed that property investigations can progress to prosecutors, DSI and DBD cooperation showed the move toward systematic screening, and the Pattaya operation showed that enforcement is spreading beyond the southern islands.
The conclusion therefore combines legal authority with current enforcement behaviour. The existence of Sections 94 and 96 alone does not prove that every foreign-linked villa is at risk, while raids alone do not establish a power to force disposal. The stronger finding comes from the two lining up: Thai law already allows unlawful foreign landholdings to be unwound, and authorities are now putting considerably more effort into identifying structures that may fall within those rules.
Key sources used for this analysis include the Thailand Land Code published by the Department of Lands, the official English translation of the Foreign Business Act, DSI's Samui–Phangan nominee-network investigation, the DSI and DBD joint nominee-enforcement programme, the Royal Thai Police Koh Samui Phase 7 operation, DSI's Villa Andaman prosecution update, and the DSI Pattaya nominee-property operation.
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.
Related blog posts
- Is buying a villa in Thailand riskier for foreigners now?
- Is Thailand cracking down on foreign property owners?
- Are foreign-owned Thai companies still safe for property?
- Will foreigners soon be able to own 75% of Thai condos?
Fact-checked and reviewed by our local expert
Attaya Suriyawonghae 🇹🇭
Real Estate Broker, Zest Real Estate
