A question is being asked quietly in Phuket law offices, over dinner tables in expat communities, and in WhatsApp groups where foreign property owners swap anxiety and rumour. If Thailand is now enforcing its nominee structure laws after two decades of looking the other way, why does the punishment fall almost entirely on foreign buyers while every Thai professional who designed, sold, stamped and profited from those structures remains untouched?
The question is not whether the law should be enforced. It should. The question is whether enforcement can be fair when it lands on the least knowledgeable party in a chain of professionals who knew exactly what they were doing.
How a nominee structure actually came into being
Picture the mechanics. A foreigner wants to buy a villa in Phuket. He walks into a law office, often a large, reputable-looking one, and asks whether he can do this legally. The lawyer says yes, and proposes a Thai company structure.
Thai nominee shareholders are found. Thai nationals who will hold the majority on paper for a small annual fee, contributing no capital and expecting no profit. An accountant structures the share classes, perhaps with side letters and pre-signed blank share transfers, so that real control rests entirely with the foreigner.
The company documents, the shareholder lists, the meeting minutes and the accounts are all prepared by professionals to give the appearance of a genuine business. They are signed before a notary and submitted to a Thai government office, which registers the company and the land transfer, stamps it, files it and collects the fee.
A developer built the villa to be sold exactly this way. A bank processed the money.
Count the hands on that transaction. Now count how many of them belonged to the foreigner.
There is exactly one foreigner in the entire chain, standing at the very end of it, and he is the only person in the whole arrangement who did not know, as a matter of professional certainty, that what he was doing broke the law. Everyone else knew. It was their job to know.
And he is the one getting the summons.
The uncomfortable part of the crackdown
That is the part of this enforcement wave nobody in authority wants to dwell on. Not whether the law should be enforced—it should. The question is narrower and far more uncomfortable: when Thailand at last decides to enforce a law that an entire domestic industry was built to circumvent, why does the enforcement land on the least knowledgeable party, while every expert who designed, sold, stamped and profited from the scheme walks away untouched?
According to the source material, a Thai legal analysis of the practice noted that in tourist provinces “legal services were not built to protect foreign clients, they were built to close sales.” Law offices prepared the company documents, the nominee shareholder lists, the meeting minutes and the accounts “all to give the appearance of legality.”
The goal, the analysis concludes, was “to make a property purchase possible, not lawful.”
This was a domestic product, not a foreign loophole
There is a comfortable version of this story in which crafty foreigners discovered a loophole and exploited an innocent Thailand. According to the source material, it is not true, and everyone in the property business knows it is not true.
The nominee structure was a domestic product. It was designed, refined, marketed and sold by professionals operating inside Thailand, to foreign clients, as a normal service, for two decades.
The source material reports that many of the legal consultants who were the first and only point of contact for foreign buyers, the ones who spoke their language and explained the company structure, were not permitted to give legal advice in Thailand at all. Their work permits listed them as “consultants” or “office managers,” not lawyers.
So a foreign buyer was frequently reassured about the legality of his purchase by someone who was not legally a lawyer, working inside a firm whose business model depended on closing the sale, using a structure the firm knew a court would not uphold.
The famous fallback, the “30+30+30 year lease” sold to thousands as nine decades of security, is described by industry sources today as “a sales technique, not a legal guarantee.” Others call it, more plainly, a widespread legal fabrication.
What this means for Phuket property buyers
For anyone who bought Phuket property through a nominee structure, the practical question is not what should happen in an ideal world. The practical question is what happens now.
If enforcement continues in its current form, foreign buyers face the prospect of legal action, fines, property forfeiture or deportation while the Thai professionals who created the structures face no apparent consequence.
This creates a secondary problem for the Phuket property market. Buyers who might otherwise consider investing in Thailand now face not only the legal uncertainty of the crackdown, but the moral uncertainty of watching enforcement fall unevenly on the least culpable party in a chain of professionals.
For sellers, especially those holding property in nominee structures, the question is whether the structures can be unwound, whether the property can be sold, and whether a new buyer will accept the legal risk.
For developers, the question is whether future sales to foreign buyers will be possible under any structure, and whether the reputation damage from the crackdown will affect demand.
What remains unclear
The source material does not report whether Thai authorities intend to pursue the lawyers, accountants, notaries, officials or consultants who designed and profited from nominee structures. It does not report whether any professional has faced disciplinary action, lost a license or been charged.
It does not report whether the government offices that registered thousands of nominee companies over two decades will face any scrutiny.
What is clear is that the enforcement is happening, and it is falling hardest on foreign buyers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are foreign buyers being targeted while Thai professionals are not?
The source material does not explain the enforcement strategy, but it notes that foreign buyers are the ones receiving summons while the Thai lawyers, accountants, shareholders and officials who created the nominee structures have not been reported as facing action. The question of fairness is being asked within the property industry and expat communities.
Were foreign buyers misled about the legality of nominee structures?
According to the source material, many foreign buyers were reassured by consultants who were not legally permitted to give legal advice in Thailand, and the structures were designed by professionals to “make a property purchase possible, not lawful.” A Thai legal analysis noted that legal services in tourist provinces “were built to close sales,” not to protect foreign clients.
What is a nominee structure?
A nominee structure involves a Thai company where Thai nationals hold the majority of shares on paper, contributing no capital and expecting no profit, while real control rests with a foreigner. This violates Thai law, which requires that Thai companies holding land must be genuinely Thai-controlled.
Can foreign buyers legally own property in Thailand?
Foreign buyers can legally own condominium units, provided foreign ownership in the building does not exceed 49 percent. Land ownership requires Thai citizenship, though long-term leases are possible. Nominee structures are illegal.
What should foreign buyers do if they own property through a nominee structure?
The source material does not provide specific legal advice, but foreign buyers in this situation should consult a qualified Thai lawyer to understand their options, which may include restructuring, selling or unwinding the arrangement. The legal position is uncertain and enforcement is ongoing.
Sources
- Thaiger — Thais built it, sold it, and registered it. So why is the foreigner the only one in the dock? — link
