1 hour ago, DonniePeverley said:

Yes do exactly that. And return the land back to the people.

You either protect your local population, or you don't. There should be no ambiguity, wink wink, go on son do as you please and use a couple of Thai guys to make up a fake company.

It would not take thousands of people. Those in the know at ground level know what's going on.

Phuket is an island, one of Thailands biggest tourist earners and should be protected.

I very much doubt any land and houses confiscated will be “returned to the people”. Unless you count some well connected rich Thai guys who pay backhanders to government officials to accept low ball offers as “the people”.

23 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No it is not. Having legitimate Thai shareholders (nominees) owning companies along with foreigners is not illegal, the illegal part is having Thais who are illegal nominees with no operating or financial connection to those companies.

I think you're confused re the definition of nominee in this regard:

A person or organisation in whose name a security is registered though true ownership is held by another party, called nominator, especially for the purpose of concealing the identity of the nominator.

This is definitely illegal. Having a Thai partner is a must (a Thai person who owns at least 51% of the business), but it must be a real partner that had paid for his shares of the company. It can be a silent partner, one that does not participate in running the company, but it cannot just be a name of a Thai person you pay a few Baht for the right to use his name on your company papers.

1 hour ago, LukKrueng said:

I think you're confused re the definition of nominee in this regard:

A person or organisation in whose name a security is registered though true ownership is held by another party, called nominator, especially for the purpose of concealing the identity of the nominator.

This is definitely illegal. Having a Thai partner is a must (a Thai person who owns at least 51% of the business), but it must be a real partner that had paid for his shares of the company. It can be a silent partner, one that does not participate in running the company, but it cannot just be a name of a Thai person you pay a few Baht for the right to use his name on your company papers.

I'm not confused in the slightest.

22 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

Yes, but the task at hand would still be enormous. My own sense is the government doesn't want to go after the foreigners who've abused the company route to own the land their home sits upon - while the government has every right to do so, the huge sh*t storm and international publicity is not in the country's interest. They'd need a thousand staffers to weed though all of these. Then what? Kick thousands of foreigners out of Thailand after seizing their land and house? That's why I think they will investigate and uncover only illegal nominees part of the foreign 'owned' businesses - pizza joints, construction firms, vehicle rental firms, clothing distributors, etc., etc.

I agree with your logic- my concern is that brown envelopes may ensure that certain houses are subject to judicial investigation and then intervention due to a nominee structure and the house then is sold to the giver of the brown envelope- I am being very cynical but we all know that brown envelopes are a part of Thai dealings- TIT

2 hours ago, Legal Lifeline said:

I agree with your logic- my concern is that brown envelopes may ensure that certain houses are subject to judicial investigation and then intervention due to a nominee structure and the house then is sold to the giver of the brown envelope- I am being very cynical but we all know that brown envelopes are a part of Thai dealings- TIT

I guess that's possible. But it might be a stretch to assume the receiver of the brown envelope has the power to launch the investigation, get it prosecuted, seize the property and then have the sole ability to sell it back to the first guy. Stranger things happen here though..

On 6/11/2026 at 9:45 AM, ronnie50 said:

Yes, that's the best solution. If you charge and criminally convict a few of these crooked Thai accounting firms (their Principals) and send them to prison, the rest of the firms won't do this anymore, making the whole nominee racket very difficult for foreigners.

55555 you make the comedy!

I'm in Koh Phangan right now. When I rented my bike I talked to a couple of Thai business owners and they mentioned this ongoing scheme. One of them mentioned to me that a rye of land cost about 4 or 5 million baht and I think on the mainland it costs 1/10 of that.

As I ride through the island I see way too many bike rental shops and of course weed shops as well.

Kind of a sleepy Island with not much going on I'm surprised it's at the center of such a big controversy

On 6/12/2026 at 8:34 AM, ronnie50 said:

I guess that's possible. But it might be a stretch to assume the receiver of the brown envelope has the power to launch the investigation, get it prosecuted, seize the property and then have the sole ability to sell it back to the first guy. Stranger things happen here though..

I agree with you entirely- but TIT!

On 6/11/2026 at 2:50 PM, Bally Jaggers said:

Now sort the nominee problem out in Phuket. Scandalous what is happening there. Environmental destruction. So many noninee structures doing same there.

Phuket has more land title deeds than actual land and the bulk of these are held by Thai citizens. Any abuse of Thai land ownership laws by foreigners that have been enabled by the illegal actions of Thai lawyers will open a can of the proverbial.

On 6/11/2026 at 2:48 PM, ronnie50 said:

Yes, but the task at hand would still be enormous. My own sense is the government doesn't want to go after the foreigners who've abused the company route to own the land their home sits upon - while the government has every right to do so, the huge sh*t storm and international publicity is not in the country's interest. They'd need a thousand staffers to weed though all of these. Then what? Kick thousands of foreigners out of Thailand after seizing their land and house? That's why I think they will investigate and uncover only illegal nominees part of the foreign 'owned' businesses - pizza joints, construction firms, vehicle rental firms, clothing distributors, etc., etc.

If the Thai authorities really want to clean up their act and not appear to be treating foreigners unfairly, they should offer an amnesty. Give anyone using nominee land ownership structures 6-months to get legal. This extends to the lawyers facilitating this abuse.

Of course, this being Thailand, there will be foreigners with enough money to bypass the amnesty and enough Thai people, be they nominee shareholders, lawyers and government officers, to accept payment to get the bypass 'legalised'.

On 6/10/2026 at 3:30 PM, DonniePeverley said:

Would not a simple solution be to ban all nominee structures from owning land ?

Or am i missing something as to why this loop was/is allowed ?

If it is banned there is nothing for [whoever is involved] to take a percentage of.

On 6/12/2026 at 9:19 AM, LukKrueng said:

I think you're confused re the definition of nominee in this regard:

A person or organisation in whose name a security is registered though true ownership is held by another party, called nominator, especially for the purpose of concealing the identity of the nominator.

This is definitely illegal. Having a Thai partner is a must (a Thai person who owns at least 51% of the business), but it must be a real partner that had paid for his shares of the company. It can be a silent partner, one that does not participate in running the company, but it cannot just be a name of a Thai person you pay a few Baht for the right to use his name on your company papers.

You are assuming that the nominee is holding the shares on behalf of a foreigner. That is indeed illegal.

If the Thai person is holding the shares as nominee for a Thai person, and that Thai person has no legal impediment to holding the shares themselves if they so wished, then it is legal.

Use of nominees to conceal a beneficial owner because it would be illegal for the shares to be registered in their own name is the crucial bit.

Lock them all up through away the key grab the houses Thai style you wrong me right its mine now. LOVELY JUBLY