Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.
posted 2 hours ago
Last updated: June 20, 2026
Lending to foreign companies in Thailand has entered a new era of regulatory complexity. The 2026 amendments to the Foreign Business Act (FBA), combined with intensified enforcement by the Department of Business Development (DBD) and fresh Cabinet resolutions reclassifying restricted activities, have fundamentally altered the credit‑risk calculus for international banks, private equity sponsors and corporate lenders extending finance to Thai borrowers with foreign ownership. This article provides a lender‑first transaction playbook, covering enhanced due diligence, covenant redesign, security validity, and practical mitigation routes, so that credit officers, in‑house counsel and CFOs can protect their positions immediately. For a broader overview of the statute itself, see the Thailand Foreign Business Act 2026 summary on this site.
The Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) has long restricted foreigners from operating certain categories of business in Thailand unless they hold a Foreign Business Licence (FBL) or qualify for specific exemptions. The 2026 round of amendments, published in the Royal Gazette and effective in stages, represents the most significant overhaul of foreign ownership restrictions in Thailand since the original statute.
Three changes matter most for anyone involved in lending to foreign companies in Thailand. First, the Cabinet resolution reclassifying and delisting several activities from Lists Two and Three of the FBA expanded the range of sectors that foreigners may enter without an FBL, but simultaneously tightened scrutiny on activities that remain restricted. Second, the DBD intensified its administrative enforcement against nominee shareholder arrangements, issuing orders that require enhanced disclosure of beneficial ownership and authorising investigations into historical shareholder transfers. Third, amendments to the FBL application process imposed stricter capital adequacy and local presence requirements on foreign applicants, raising the operational cost of legitimate market entry.
| Date / Period | Measure | Lender Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Early 2025 | Cabinet resolution proposing FBA list reclassification | Signals upcoming changes; lenders should begin portfolio review |
| Mid‑2025 | DBD administrative orders on nominee shareholder detection and disclosure | Raises enforcement risk for existing borrowers using nominee structures |
| Late 2025 – Early 2026 | FBA amendment bill passed and published in the Royal Gazette | Statutory basis for reclassified activities and new FBL requirements |
| 2026 (ongoing) | DBD enforcement actions and compliance audits targeting suspected nominee arrangements | Direct credit‑risk event for lenders with exposure to affected borrowers |
Several service‑sector activities, including certain categories of wholesale and retail trade, specific IT services, and selected construction‑related activities, were moved off the restricted lists, allowing full foreign ownership without an FBL. Conversely, activities related to agriculture, land‑based resource extraction and certain financial intermediation services saw tightened restrictions or new conditions. For lenders, the critical question is whether the borrower’s principal revenue‑generating activity has been reclassified: a shift from List Three to List Two, for instance, increases the regulatory burden and may invalidate an existing FBL or trigger a mandatory licence upgrade.
The 2026 Foreign Business Act reforms translate into three categories of credit risk that affect any institution involved in lending to foreign companies in Thailand: borrower legality risk, security and perfection risk, and enforcement complications arising from nominee shareholder disputes.
A Thai limited company borrower has 51 per cent Thai and 49 per cent foreign shareholding on paper. Following a DBD investigation, the Thai shareholders are found to be nominees, individuals without genuine economic interest who hold shares on behalf of the foreign investor. The borrower is deemed to be operating a restricted business without an FBL, a criminal offence under the FBA carrying fines and potential imprisonment for directors. For the lender, the consequences are severe: the share pledge over Thai‑held shares may be contested because the pledgor’s legal ownership is in dispute; distributions and dividends may be frozen; and the borrower’s corporate status could be subject to dissolution proceedings.
A borrower previously operating freely under a delisted activity discovers that the 2026 amendments have reclassified its business into a restricted list. It must now obtain an FBL or restructure. During the transitional period, the borrower may be technically in breach of the FBA, creating a material adverse change under standard facility agreements and potentially rendering security interests unenforceable if the underlying business is found to have been conducted unlawfully.
BOI‑promoted companies and entities relying on bilateral investment treaty protections continue to enjoy exemptions from FBA restrictions, provided they maintain compliance with BOI conditions. However, any lapse in BOI compliance, failure to meet investment thresholds, employment targets or export obligations, can retroactively remove the exemption, exposing both the borrower and the lender’s security package to the same nominee shareholder risk as described in Scenario A. Industry observers expect the DBD to coordinate more closely with the BOI on compliance monitoring in 2026 and beyond.
Bank due diligence in Thailand must now go well beyond the conventional company search and director verification. The following checklist is designed for credit officers and in‑house counsel evaluating new facilities or refinancing existing ones in the post‑FBA‑2026 environment.
| Due Diligence Item | Documents / Evidence Required | Red Flags |
|---|---|---|
| Beneficial ownership verification | Certified shareholder register; shareholder ID documents; source‑of‑funds evidence for Thai shareholders; DBD corporate extract | Thai shareholders with no apparent business activity or source of funds; circular shareholding arrangements; recent share transfers at nominal value |
| FBA classification check | Legal opinion confirming the borrower’s principal activity and its FBA list classification under 2026 amendments | Activity recently reclassified; pending DBD inquiries; borrower operating in multiple sectors with mixed classifications |
| FBL / FBL exemption status | Copy of FBL (if applicable); BOI promotion certificate; treaty documentation | Expired or conditional FBL; BOI conditions not being met; reliance on treaty protection without legal opinion |
| Historical shareholder transfers | Share transfer records for at least the past five years; board resolutions approving transfers | Transfers to individuals with no commercial rationale; round‑tripping of shares; transfers coinciding with regulatory deadlines |
| Director and officer verification | Director ID and residency verification; cross‑referencing against DBD nominee databases | Directors who serve on multiple foreign‑linked companies without apparent commercial reason |
Where the borrower relies on a BOI promotion certificate, lenders should require a certified copy of the promotion certificate, the most recent BOI annual compliance report, and a legal opinion confirming that the borrower’s current operations remain within the scope of the promoted activity. For treaty‑route entities, a legal opinion on the applicability of the relevant bilateral investment treaty and its investor protections should be obtained before drawdown.
Nominee shareholder risk in Thailand has historically been difficult to detect. Practical methods include cross‑referencing shareholder names against the DBD’s corporate registry to identify individuals who appear as shareholders in multiple foreign‑linked companies, requesting bank statements or tax returns from Thai shareholders to verify genuine economic interest, and conducting shareholder interviews (discussed below).
Lenders should consider requiring borrowers to make Thai shareholders and directors available for interview, either in person or by video conference, as a drawdown condition. Interview questions should focus on the shareholder’s understanding of the company’s business, their source of funds for share acquisition, and whether they have any side agreements relating to voting rights, dividend distribution or share transfer obligations. Any refusal or inability to provide coherent answers should be treated as a material red flag.
Standard loan documentation drafted before the Foreign Business Act 2026 reforms is unlikely to address the specific risks that these changes create. Lenders should consider the following enhanced borrower covenants for Thailand facilities.
The following sample clause can be adapted for inclusion in facility agreements:
“The Borrower warrants and represents that (a) no shares in the Borrower are held by any person as nominee, agent or trustee for or on behalf of any Foreign Person (as defined in the Foreign Business Act B. E.
2542, as amended); (b) all shareholders appearing in the Borrower’s shareholder register are the true beneficial owners of the shares registered in their names and have acquired such shares using their own funds and for their own account; (c) no shareholder is party to any agreement, arrangement or understanding (whether written or oral) that would entitle any Foreign Person to exercise voting rights, receive dividends, direct the transfer of shares, or otherwise exercise control over such shares; and (d) the Borrower will immediately notify the Lender if any of the foregoing representations ceases to be true and accurate in any respect.
In addition to the standard conditions precedent, lenders involved in cross‑border financing in Thailand should require the following before each drawdown:
The 2026 reforms justify adding the following specific events of default and acceleration triggers to facility agreements:
Suggested cure periods should be short, 30 days for notification failures, 60 days for FBL procurement, with automatic acceleration if the cure period expires without resolution. Escrow or blocked‑account provisions for loan proceeds may also be appropriate where nominee risk is elevated but the lender is willing to proceed on enhanced terms.
The enforceability of security interests in Thailand depends on both the type of collateral and the legal status of the entity granting the security. The 2026 FBA changes introduce a new layer of risk that must be addressed in every security package.
| Entity Type | Primary Security / Perfection Risk Under FBA 2026 | Practical Lender Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Thai company with foreign minority and nominee Thai shareholders | Nominee claim may render share pledge void or contested; enforcement against nominee may be difficult; DBD may freeze share register pending investigation | Enhanced beneficial ownership checks; escrow of dividends; share transfer blocking provisions; insist on express nominee warranty and power to appoint receiver |
| BOI‑promoted company | BOI privileges often validate activity but may have specific conditions for foreign currency lending; lapse in BOI compliance could retroactively remove exemption | Require BOI certificate and BOI conditions in security documents; confirm ongoing compliance with BOI covenants; monitor annual BOI filings |
| Fully foreign‑owned entity (treaty or FBL route) | Risk that FBL licensing or activity reclassification triggers retrospective compliance inquiries; treaty protection may not extend to security enforcement | Obtain legal opinions on treaty/FBL route; include cross‑default for change in classification; require lender step‑in rights; consider offshore security as back‑up |
A share pledge over shares held by a nominee presents a fundamental enforceability problem: the pledgor may not be the true owner of the pledged shares, and a court or the DBD may set aside the share register entry on which the pledge depends. Lenders should require a power of attorney to vote and transfer the pledged shares, coupled with an irrevocable instruction to the company’s share registrar, and should insist on express warranties from both the pledgor and the borrower confirming the absence of nominee arrangements.
Foreign ownership restrictions on land in Thailand mean that mortgages over land and buildings are typically granted by a Thai‑majority entity. If the Thai shareholders are found to be nominees, the entity’s right to hold land may itself be challenged, potentially rendering the mortgage unenforceable. Lenders should obtain title searches and land office records as part of standard bank due diligence in Thailand, and should require legal opinions on the borrower’s lawful capacity to hold land.
Thai courts have the power to set aside fraudulent transactions and to investigate the true ownership of shares and assets. In insolvency proceedings, a trustee in bankruptcy may challenge the validity of security granted by an entity operating in breach of the FBA. The likely practical effect of the 2026 reforms will be an increase in contested security enforcement proceedings, particularly where nominee allegations are raised as a defence by borrowers or guarantors seeking to delay or defeat enforcement.
Despite the tightened restrictions, several legitimate pathways remain available for structuring cross‑border financing in Thailand. Lenders must understand each route’s requirements and limitations to protect their credit position.
The Board of Investment has extended promotional privileges that allow BOI‑promoted companies to engage in activities that would otherwise be restricted under the FBA, including in certain cases the ability to borrow in foreign currency and to remit funds abroad. Lenders considering BOI financing in Thailand should verify the scope of the promotion certificate, confirm that the borrower’s current activities fall within the promoted category, and require annual compliance certifications. A BOI‑promoted entity that diversifies outside its promoted scope may lose its exemption, and the lender’s security package with it.
Thailand is party to numerous bilateral investment treaties that provide protections against expropriation and discriminatory treatment of foreign investors. For lenders relying on treaty routes for foreign ownership of Thai entities, it is essential to obtain a legal opinion confirming that the specific treaty in question covers the investor’s nationality, the type of investment (equity, debt or both), and the protections available (including investor‑state dispute settlement). Treaty protections do not automatically extend to lenders, they typically protect the investor, not its creditors, so lenders should structure their security to benefit from the investor’s treaty rights where possible.
Where nominee shareholder risk is elevated, lenders should consider requiring offshore guarantees from the foreign parent or affiliate, in addition to or instead of onshore Thai security. Some international banks use a domestic guarantee and foreign loan structure, the Thai entity provides a guarantee to a Thai branch bank, which then extends the loan from its offshore books, to mitigate onshore enforcement risk. This approach has limits: the Thai guarantee may still be challenged if the guarantor’s legal status is disputed, and Bank of Thailand regulations on foreign exchange transactions must be observed. Nonetheless, diversifying the security package across jurisdictions remains a prudent risk‑management strategy for any institution engaged in lending to foreign companies in Thailand.
When a Thai borrower defaults and FBA‑related complications are present, lenders need a clear enforcement plan that accounts for the new regulatory landscape.
Engage experienced Thai litigation counsel at the first sign of default, not after negotiations have stalled. Local counsel should advise on the viability of security enforcement given the borrower’s FBA status, the likelihood of nominee defences being raised, and the estimated timeline and cost of court proceedings. In cases where nominee arrangements are suspected, lenders may also consider filing a complaint with the DBD, which has the authority to investigate and impose administrative penalties. A concurrent DBD investigation can create leverage in enforcement negotiations, though it may also complicate and delay court proceedings.
Thai courts can issue interim protective orders to preserve assets pending final judgment, including orders freezing share transfers, blocking dividend payments, and restraining directors from dissipating company assets. Lenders should prepare applications for such orders in advance of filing the main enforcement action, and should be ready to demonstrate that there is a genuine risk of asset dissipation. Cross‑border enforcement of Thai judgments remains challenging; lenders with exposure in multiple jurisdictions should coordinate enforcement strategy across all relevant courts simultaneously.
The following redlines and sample clauses are designed for immediate insertion into facility agreements for loans to Thai borrowers with foreign ownership. Bank legal teams should adapt each clause to the specific transaction and take local counsel advice before finalising.
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Dr. Herbert Kuess at Sukhothai Inter Law, a member of the Global Law Experts network.
Member
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Sign up for the latest advisor briefings and news within Global Advisory Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Advisory Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional advisory services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced advisors, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
