Corrupt government officials are seen as the leading reason foreigners can illegally run businesses in Thailand, according to a nationwide NIDA Poll.

Some 67.10% of respondents blamed corruption or misconduct among state officials for businesses directly operated by foreigners or run through Thai nominees. The findings were released on Sunday 19 July 2026, after telephone interviews conducted from July 13-15 among Thai residents aged 18 and over.

The issue has particular relevance for foreigners living, investing or working in Thailand. The poll reflects strong public concern about nominee businesses, restricted occupations and alleged grey-money operations.

The survey came as Thailand was again dealing with allegations that corrupt officials, hospital staff and Thai men falsely claiming paternity had helped Chinese babies obtain Thai citizenship. Law enforcement agencies have also recently broken up several foreign-owned businesses, from small firms to larger operations, allegedly fronted by Thai nominees in major cities and tourist destinations.

Corruption and weak enforcement blamed

After corrupt officials, 59.31% of respondents cited inadequate penalties as enabling offences by foreign nationals. Government policies or legal loopholes were named by 52.21%, followed by corruption or misconduct among politicians at 50.46%.

A further 48.70% blamed Thais seeking personal financial gain, including those assisting or acting for foreigners. Lack of official oversight was selected by 44.35%, while 29.54% pointed to public indifference. Each respondent could select more than one answer; 0.31% gave no answer.

NIDA said its sample was selected across regions and education, occupation and income groups. It used probability sampling from its master database and multistage sampling, with a stated sampling error not exceeding 0.05 at a 97% confidence level.

Strong concern over grey money and nominees

Foreign investment in illegal businesses or operations used to launder grey money was considered very dangerous by 94.05% of those surveyed. Another 5.42% called it somewhat dangerous, while 0.30% said it was not very dangerous, 0.08% not dangerous at all and 0.15% did not answer.

Thai nominees holding land for foreigners were rated very dangerous by 82.14%, while 81.76% said false registration of Thai men as fathers of foreign children seeking Thai nationality was very dangerous.

So-called zero-dollar businesses were considered very dangerous by 81.29%. NIDA described these as networks controlled entirely by foreign investors within their own national group, limiting income for Thai businesses and workers.

Thai nominee arrangements used to establish companies or hold majority business stakes were rated very dangerous by 81.21%. Large concentrations of foreign residents developing into separate communities or enclaves concerned 77.48%.

Foreigners working outside their permit conditions were seen as very dangerous by 72.98%. Jobs reserved for Thais, including commercial driving, tour guiding and organising tours, were rated very dangerous by 65.42%.

Asked what they had personally encountered, 35.95% said they had never seen unlawful conduct by foreign nationals. However, 26.11% cited foreign investment in illegal or alleged grey-money businesses, 25.88% nominee companies, 20.92% land nominees and 18.85% foreign enclaves.

NIDA stressed that these were perceptions and reported experiences, not independently verified criminal cases.

Join the discussion?

20 July 2026

View full article

“There are none so blind as those who will not see”!

That saying fits the situation perfectly. There is not a lack of information, just a refusal to acknowledge it.

And this is a tidy summary of selective perception of the Anutin government in its purge of foreign nominees, especially when the data points somewhere the authorities would rather not look.

In this NIDA result the public is basically saying “we don’t actually see the foreign crime wave you keep warning us about”. But, the government is too busy chasing its nominee bogeyman to notice.

The poll points straight at domestic structures, the Thai‑run grey businesses using foreigners as fronts, yet the narrative stays fixated on evil outsiders.

Convenient, selective blindness for political purposes. The problem isn’t foreigners, it’s the ecosystem that enables them and a government that ignores this.

27 minutes ago, Jim Waldron said:

Convenient, selective blindness for political purposes. The problem isn’t foreigners, it’s the ecosystem that enables them and a government that ignores this.

You start with the foreigner because that's whose name is on the deed.

AQs I wrote several times, there are always Thais involved.. The results of corruption and greed. Money is the key that opens all doors all over the world. and in Thailand even much easier. But the culprits are never the locals always the foreigners

1 hour ago, ikke1959 said:

AQs I wrote several times, there are always Thais involved..

Yes. No problem finding the Thai accomplices. Their names (and aliases) are right in those documents:

If they want to show people that they mean business then they can start with the people that authorized the safety regulations of the Na Ladprao

There is no question about this and the corruption extends to all areas of the government, from the bottom all the way up to the very top. The Thai government, immigration, customs and the RTP are some of the world's greatest pyramid schemes.

4 hours ago, JerryM said:

You start with the foreigner because that's whose name is on the deed.

I’m not sure if you are referring ing to the nominee shareholder issue, but if you are, the very issue at hand is that the foreigners name is not on the “deed”. It is masked by the nominees name.

16 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

I’m not sure if you are referring ing to the nominee shareholder issue, but if you are, the very issue at hand is that the foreigners name is not on the “deed”. It is masked by the nominees name.

You may be right that the nominees' name is also on the ownership document but they certainly seem to have no trouble finding all the owners including the 49% non-Thai owner as opposed to all those ancillary participants people keep saying are those REALLY at fault.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by JerryM

6 hours ago, JerryM said:

You start with the foreigner because that's whose name is on the deed.

Except the foreigner's name is not on the deed. The name on the deed is the 'company' that was created by the foreigner and his Thai lawyer, who along with the Thai nominees, facilitated the creation of the company and thus the purchase of the land/house. The foreigner is a shareholder. And that's where the authorities can get them (all of them if they had the will power) if they can prove all were complicit in a criminal act (starting with the company's books I guess).

4 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

Except the foreigner's name is not on the deed. The name on the deed is the 'company' that was created by the foreigner and his Thai lawyer, who along with the Thai nominees, facilitated the creation of the company and thus the purchase of the land/house. The foreigner is a shareholder. And that's where the authorities can get them (all of them if they had the will power) if they can prove all were complicit in a criminal act (starting with the company's books I guess).

I will backtrack. My only reason to respond, as I am not proficient in all these intricacies, is that all the reports are that they have the name of the non-Thai owner but have a hard time figuring out all the ancillary players i.e. lawyer, accountant, etc.

And proving the ancillary players is a lot tougher than identifying the 49% owner as you note above.

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by JerryM

1 hour ago, JerryM said:

I will backtrack. My only reason to respond, as I am not proficient in all these intricacies, is that all the reports are that they have the name of the non-Thai owner but have a hard time figuring out all the ancillary players i.e. lawyer, accountant, etc.

And proving the ancillary players is a lot tougher than identifying the 49% owner as you note above.

Right. I guess once they have the company name on the deed they just look up the principals of the company and there they can find a foreign name. I think these days a company needs only three executives - so the foreigner and two 'nominees'. I don't really understand it all either, but I don't see why it would be so hard to track down the other two Thai names. Maybe it's one company, owned by another and by another.. sort of a mini Panama Papers...

3 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

but I don't see why it would be so hard to track down the other two Thai names.

Well over on the Chiang Mai raid topic now they found one of the nominees because --

a Thai man identified only as Mr R was listed as a shareholder in seven companies and an authorised director in one, despite being held at Chiang Mai Central Prison since 25 November 2021. He is due for release on 23 February 2037.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by JerryM

5 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

Right. I guess once they have the company name on the deed they just look up the principals of the company and there they can find a foreign name. I think these days a company needs only three executives - so the foreigner and two 'nominees'. I don't really understand it all either, but I don't see why it would be so hard to track down the other two Thai names. Maybe it's one company, owned by another and by another.. sort of a mini Panama Papers...

I think that quite often the nominees are employees of the outfit setting up the company on behalf of Mr Foreigner. So a package that includes setting up the company and providing nominee shareholders.

2 hours ago, JerryM said:

Well over on the Chiang Mai raid topic now they found one of the nominees because --

a Thai man identified only as Mr R was listed as a shareholder in seven companies and an authorised director in one, despite being held at Chiang Mai Central Prison since 25 November 2021. He is due for release on 23 February 2037.

Part of a prisoner re training program?

A career switch from assault to white collar crime?

I’m jesting of course.