4 minutes ago, L- Lifeline said:

Simply on the basis if they are helping set up the nominee company they are clearly implicated

Setting up companies and keeping books is not illegal.

It would have to be proven that the bookkeeper knows that they are participating in an ongoing illegal activity.

12 minutes ago, L- Lifeline said:

Simply on the basis if they are helping set up the nominee company they are clearly implicated

That is covered in Section 36. Thai National who Assist in Non-Sanctioned Business of the Foreign Business Act (1999) and there is nothing simple or clear about it.

Edited August 22Aug 22 by JerryM

2 hours ago, L- Lifeline said:

Simply on the basis if they are helping set up the nominee company they are clearly implicated

The lawyer/s and / or accountant/s may even be the nominees.

8 hours ago, Guderian said:

It's been widely used in Thailand, too, for at least three decades from my own experience.

It's been widely used ILLEGALLY in Thailand...there sorted it for you.

If you had one of these proxy property ownership structures, as I had back around 1984, then we were both breaking the law. In my case, I knew full well it was illegal and sold out to my farang partner after only three years. Maybe you deluded yourself a bit longer. Maybe you still are?

You and @Gandtee seriously need to get over your dumb and baseless hate for the PM.

t

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

It's been widely used ILLEGALLY in Thailand...there sorted it for you.

If you had one of these proxy property ownership structures, as I had back around 1984, then we were both breaking the law. In my case, I knew full well it was illegal and sold out to my farang partner after only three years. Maybe you deluded yourself a bit longer. Maybe you still are?

You and @Gandtee seriously need to get over your dumb and baseless hate for the PM.

And every now and then, a few people get pinched for it. Nothing new.

22 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

The lawyer/s and / or accountant/s may even be the nominees.

I believe that has already been stated as fact in the OP.

My illegal company had the lawyer, a couple of his staff from his office on Soi Yodsak, and my maid as the majority "owners" Dodgy then, really dodgy now.

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

You and @Gandtee seriously need to get over your dumb and baseless hate for the PM.

Don't you think it is a fair question, "Why now?"

It's been going on for decades, and they decide in 2026 to bring it to an end.

There could be a few reasons why they have decided to do it now. Ranging from too much foreign property ownership, which is distorting the property market here for Thai's, to the PM being racist, to the Thai economy not doing so well.

They've had this ace up their sleeve for decades, why are they playing it now?

2 hours ago, JerryM said:

That is covered in Section 36. Thai National who Assist in Non-Sanctioned Business of the Foreign Business Act (1999) and there is nothing simple or clear about it.

A few years ago, it was widely publicised that any Thai shareholders needed to be fully compliant and current with their personal income taxes in Thailand before they could act as nominees. And that also applied to a legal, Thai-owned company and not just joint ventures with foreigners.

That should have been a "2-minute warning" for anyone still kidding themselves that nobody was going to check on their company and get legal. Maybe some did, but from recent headlines, some didn't.

4 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Don't you think it is a fair question, "Why now?"

It's been going on for decades, and they decide in 2026 to bring it to an end.

There could be a few reasons why they have decided to do it now. Ranging from too much foreign property ownership, which is distorting the property market here for Thai's, to the PM being racist, to the Thai economy not doing so well.

They've had this ace up their sleeve for decades, why are they playing it now?

People have been getting busted for this now and then for as long as I can remember.

It is nothing new.

18 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

It's been widely used ILLEGALLY in Thailand...there sorted it for you.

If you had one of these proxy property ownership structures, as I had back around 1984, then we were both breaking the law. In my case, I knew full well it was illegal and sold out to my farang partner after only three years. Maybe you deluded yourself a bit longer. Maybe you still are?

You and @Gandtee seriously need to get over your dumb and baseless hate for the PM.

So you sold out to your partner. Knowing it was a hot potato? Hate the PM? No. Just his remark regarding ' Smelly farangs.'

5 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Don't you think it is a fair question, "Why now?"

It's been going on for decades, and they decide in 2026 to bring it to an end.

There could be a few reasons why they have decided to do it now. Ranging from too much foreign property ownership, which is distorting the property market here for Thai's, to the PM being racist, to the Thai economy not doing so well.

They've had this ace up their sleeve for decades, why are they playing it now?

See my earlier post regarding personal income tax filing. This started 2 or 3 years ago, around 2024, when it became known that Thailand was actively pursuing membership of OECD. This was maybe a year before the Revenue Department also made their first announcements about taxation on foreign remittances. That ruling was primarily aimed at a large Thai diaspora who were remitting their higher than average salaries to Thailand, tax free. Of course, the Thai bashers and the "Anutin hates all dirty farang" fanboys made (and are still making) much of this.

Thailand hopes to gain full OECD membership by 2028. So, those still carrying on about being treated unfairly, you have maybe 24-months to get your ducks in a row, get legal, or just go pitch your tent somewhere else.

4 minutes ago, Gandtee said:

So you sold out to your partner. Knowing it was a hot potato? Hate the PM? No. Just his remark regarding ' Smelly farangs.'

Do you have an issue with the way many of the people one this board refer to Thais?

5 minutes ago, Gandtee said:

So you sold out to your partner. Knowing it was a hot potato? Hate the PM? No. Just his remark regarding ' Smelly farangs.'

We BOTH knew when the lawyer set up the company, solely to "own" our party villa by the sea, with no paid up capital, annual property tax payments or filing of annual reports, that it was illegal. My work took me away from Thailand, so he willingly bought me out.

Anutin said "dirty" not "smelly". Maybe you weren't actually here in Thailand at the time and are just recycling nonsense.

Edited August 22Aug 22 by NanLaew

33 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

People have been getting busted for this now and then for as long as I can remember.

It is nothing new.

With 47,000 Thai companies suspected of using nominees, it appears they are putting a broom through the thing, stopping it in the future, and cleaning up the past.

Do you think it will all just go away?

4 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Okay, it's fine to enforce the law, but the Thai lawyers that signed off on it and arranged it, knowing their misdeeds, need to be brought to account and charged too as they broke the law as well... this one-sided action leaves a bad taste in the mouth

Good god, how many times does it have to be stated that the lawyers or accountants setting up illegal nominee companies are also being investigated and charged. It is not a one-sided action, by any means.

8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

With 47,000 Thai companies suspected of using nominees, it appears they are putting a broom through the thing, stopping it in the future, and cleaning up the past.

It would appear so.

8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Do you think it will all just go away?

I hope not. I was only commenting that virtually everyone "owning one" one knows it is illegal. They are not victims.

I'll be on the lookout for a fire sale on a beach-front bungalow, if you know anyone, send them my way.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The lawyers likely not doing anything illegal.

Incorporating nominee companies with illegal nominees is not illegal? Huh?

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Good god, how many times does it have to be stated that the lawyers or accountants setting up illegal nominee companies are also being investigated and charged. It is not a one-sided action, by any means.

Yes we know you have made that claim in every thread Lou. Do you also have a link to a source that shows any lawyer was charged or arrested, not just investigated, same as the foreigner?

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why do you assume the accountants are breaking the law?

Because many of these illegal nominee companies are Incorporated by accountants!

1 minute ago, CallumWK said:

Yes we know you have made that claim in every thread Lou. Do you also have a link to a source that shows any lawyer was charged or arrested, not just investigated, same as the foreigner?

Why don't you show us a link where the foreigner was convicted and the lawyer walked?

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Setting up companies and keeping books is not illegal

Incorporating companies with illegal nominee shareholders is illegal!

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Incorporating companies with illegal nominee shareholders is illegal!

The shareholders are not necessarily illegal when incorporation is filed. Changing shareholders is easy.

I am not saying they are all innocent, but I doubt they are all guilty.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why don't you show us a link where the foreigner was convicted and the lawyer walked?

Didn't know I was talking to you Dave Didn't you just say that the lawyers didn't do anything illegal? So by that account every lawyer will have walked away, and your request for a link is just your usual bait.

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I'll be on the lookout for a fire sale on a beach-front bungalow, if you know anyone, send them my way

How do you propose to own it?

1 minute ago, CallumWK said:

Didn't know I was talking to you Dave Didn't you just say that the lawyers didn't do anything illegal? So by that account every lawyer will have walked away, and your request for a link is just your usual bait.

It's a public forum Cal. And no, I did not say the lawyers did nothing illegal, Cal.

So Cal, why don't you show us a link where the foreigner was convicted and the lawyer walked?

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

How do you propose to own it?

I have a wife and an adult son. Likely the son's name.

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The shareholders are not necessarily illegal when incorporation is filed

If they are appointed as shareholders at incorporation purely for the purpose of the foreigner getting around property owning laws, it is illegal.

Edited August 22Aug 22 by Liverpool Lou

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And no, I did not say the lawyers did nothing illegal, Cal.

So this post was not made by you? I clearly see you said The lawyers likely NOT doing anything illegal

I would imagine a foreigner setting up multiple companies,

and in effect a property developer is no doubt in

trouble but a single family owning their own house or

pool villa ?

Surely it makes no sense to go after them

and treat them the same ?

6 hours ago, NanLaew said:

It's been widely used ILLEGALLY in Thailand...there sorted it for you.

If you had one of these proxy property ownership structures, as I had back around 1984, then we were both breaking the law. In my case, I knew full well it was illegal and sold out to my farang partner after only three years. Maybe you deluded yourself a bit longer. Maybe you still are?

You and @Gandtee seriously need to get over your dumb and baseless hate for the PM.

the PM already declared himself as a racist, when he called us in public Dirty Farangs. What do you think would happen to a PM in Europe saying the same about foreigners resp. tourists.