A Thai senator has proposed allowing foreign investors to own 100% of businesses they fully fund, arguing that the change could tackle nominee companies, grey capital and corruption. Senator Prathum Wongsawat raised the idea during a Senate meeting on September 1.

Prathum also suggested that Thailand could introduce investment thresholds allowing overseas investors to qualify for residency or even Thai citizenship.

Ownership rules and nominee risk

Prathum told the Senate that Thailand benefits from foreign investment, but questioned rules which generally limit foreign ownership to 49%, requiring Thai shareholders to hold the remaining 51%.

She said earlier efforts to address nominee businesses and grey foreign capital had failed to deal with the underlying causes. According to Prathum, loopholes in Thai law create opportunities for wrongdoing involving foreign investors and Thai officials seeking illicit benefits.

She argued that some businesses use nominee arrangements despite being funded entirely by foreign investors. In such cases, she said, an investor providing all the capital is unlikely to willingly hand over control of the company.

Prathum said the restrictions can push some foreigners towards Thai nominees or other attempts to bypass the law, including the use of false Thai identities and addresses, so they can operate businesses in Thailand.

She argued that these practices can contribute to grey capital, tax avoidance and opportunities for officials to seek illicit payments.

Drawing on her own investment experience in Russia, Prathum said foreign investors there could own shares in line with the full amount they had invested.

Her proposed reform would make ownership correspond to the proportion of capital invested. Under that model, a foreigner supplying 100% of a company's funding could hold 100% of its shares.

Residency and citizenship linked to investment

Prathum said legalising full foreign ownership where an investor provides all the capital could turn what she described as "grey capital" into "white capital" from the outset.

She further proposed clear investment thresholds under which foreign investors could qualify for residency or Thai citizenship.

She argued that transparent requirements for investment, residency and citizenship would close loopholes and reduce corruption and extortion, because investors operating legally would be less exposed to demands for illicit payments.

Join the discussion?

3 September 2026

View full article

Makes sense in tourist areas where condo foreign quota fills up quick, if they don't do something foreign investment will continue to plumet

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by scubascuba3

This is a monumental shift in policy.

Would there be a minimum investment for residency? Oh yeah, the article mentions "threshold" ,but to be determined I guess.

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by save the frogs

Just now, save the frogs said:

This is a monumental shift in policy.

Would there be a minimum investment for residency?

There has been no shift in policy, just some Senator wanting to get a name for herself

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by jacko45k

This senator is right. The outdated laws to protect the Thai people are only causing all kind of possibilities for corruption, fraud and illegal activities. THailand should enter the 21st century and Thai people travel all over the world to work and are also possible to have a business and home in other countries without the same issues as here in Thailand. Investors are not stupid and if they invest in a business they in fact loose their money as they will have a minority share. That businesses were set up to own land for a house is also a result of lack of modernization. Thailand wants to get taxes and retirees from people but a piece of land is impossible to own for your own house. Put all foreigners in rental houses or condos is not attractive for many. So updating the laws and starting with 100% ownership of your own company is a good start

5 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

There has been no shift in policy, just some guy wanting to get a name for himself.

You don't think it's ever gonna happen?

Just now, save the frogs said:

You don't think it's ever gonna happen?

Not to the extent mentioned... Thais are a fair bit xenophobic.

7 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

There has been no shift in policy, just some guy wanting to get a name for himself.

Senator Prathum Wongsawat isn't a guy.

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

Senator Prathum Wongsawat isn't a guy.

Thanks for the correction.

2 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Not to the extent mentioned... Thais are a fair bit xenophobic.

I believe (could be wrong) that foreigners are allowed to own 100% business in Vietnam ... not that it leads to residency though.

So if it's true in Vietnam, it can be done in Thailand too?

Never say never again.

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by save the frogs

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

You don't think it's ever gonna happen?

It's an interesting idea being floated at Senatorial level. It does appear to address the very obvious route to corrupt practices here, but I'm confident those with vested interests in the current system will be reluctant to give up the gravy train.

Vietnam recently made a special exemption for Elon Musk's Starlink to operate there as a fully foreign-owned entity. If the socialists, who control what their citizens can see on the internet far more than Thailand does, can think outside the box, maybe the "xenophobic" Thai authorities can as well?

7 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Thanks for the correction.

Not a big issue as we're all pretty used to the manosphere of Thai politics,but I wonder which party she represents?

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Not a big issue as we're all pretty used to the manosphere of Thai politics,but I wonder which party she represents?

As a Thai senator she is meant to be neutral.

Such changes as proposed would require amendments (overhaul?) to the

Land Code Act B.E. 2497 (1954)

Immigration Act, B.E. 2522 (1979)

Foreign Business Act, B.E. 2542 (1999)

Nationality Act B.E. 2508 (1965)

Other than that, no problem.

It would be a windfall to thais who can finally sell their condos and houses

The Parliament of Thailand can change organic acts, but the process is significantly more complex and strict than passing or amending ordinary legislation.

Organic Acts serve as crucial extensions of the Constitution of Thailand, governing fundamental institutions and systems such as anti-corruption frameworks, political parties, the Election Commission, and parliamentary election procedures.

https://www.senate.go.th/view/1/About/EN-US

15 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

It would be a windfall to thais who can finally sell their condos and houses

Thus, jacking up the prices so more Thais are shut out of the market

1 hour ago, ikke1959 said:

This senator is right. The outdated laws to protect the Thai people are only causing all kind of possibilities for corruption, fraud and illegal activities.

Perhaps that's why these laws were put there in the first place?

30 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

Thus, jacking up the prices so more Thais are shut out of the market

greater supply may drop the prices, no point condos and houses being unsold. Would be a windfall for Thais

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

It's an interesting idea being floated at Senatorial level. It does appear to address the very obvious route to corrupt practices here, but I'm confident those with vested interests in the current system will be reluctant to give up the gravy train.

Vietnam recently made a special exemption for Elon Musk's Starlink to operate there as a fully foreign-owned entity. If the socialists, who control what their citizens can see on the internet far more than Thailand does, can think outside the box, maybe the "xenophobic" Thai authorities can as well?

Indeed. Even China allows 100% foreign ownership for certain businesses (and one doesn't need to invest "millions" to qualify).

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

So if it's true in Vietnam, it can be done in Thailand too?

Not sure about that, Vietnamese have learnt to deal with foreigners: Dien Bien Phu, Saigon, etc...

1 minute ago, Peter Crow said:

Not sure about that, Vietnamese have learnt to deal with foreigners: Dien Bien Phu, Saigon, etc...

Not sure what you are referring to.

So, little by little, inch by painful inch and looking over the border to the rival neighbours, Thailand is psyching itself up to enter the late C20th.

The Senator is from Chonburi. Maybe some of her proposals that would be good for her province would not be so good for others.

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by JerryM

Thailand is for Thai people... it'll never happen

2 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

This senator is right. The outdated laws to protect the Thai people are only causing all kind of possibilities for corruption, fraud and illegal activities. THailand should enter the 21st century and Thai people travel all over the world to work and are also possible to have a business and home in other countries without the same issues as here in Thailand. Investors are not stupid and if they invest in a business they in fact loose their money as they will have a minority share. That businesses were set up to own land for a house is also a result of lack of modernization. Thailand wants to get taxes and retirees from people but a piece of land is impossible to own for your own house. Put all foreigners in rental houses or condos is not attractive for many. So updating the laws and starting with 100% ownership of your own company is a good start

Absolutely 1000%!!! Get into the 21st Century and stop scaring away investors.

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

It would be a windfall to thais who can finally sell their condos and houses

There is always justification for the restrictions in that it keeps the prices down for Thais, and they would otherwise be paying more. But selling for more surely has its benefits too. There would be major development in the country if foreigners could buy their own bit of land and build on iit.

Even better...

150% ownership*

Thailand pays foreigners to live here. 😎

*The 150% ownership meme is an inside joke within the Fantasy Premier League (FPL) community that highlights the math-defying pain of a highly popular player scoring points against you.It usually features images of sheer panic, sinking ships, or staring in despair at rival managers.

I wonder which country(s) " sponsored" her proposal.

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

You don't think it's ever gonna happen?

What's with the negative waves??!! A glass half empty is a defeatist attitude!