Thailand's New Deportation Regulation 2026: How a Foreign Business Act Conviction Can End a Foreign Executive's Stay, Even on Probation or a Fine

Key takeaways

• The Prime Minister's Office Regulation on Deportation B.E. 2569 (2026) has been in force since 28 August 2026. It was signed by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul on 26 August and published in the Royal Gazette on 27 August.
• Breach of the Foreign Business Act (FBA) is one of six listed grounds for deportation, alongside illegal entry, illegal work and forgery of official documents.
• Instigators and accessories are covered. The sixth ground extends the first five to principals, instigators and accessories, so a foreign executive who is not a registered director is not automatically outside it.
• The most misunderstood point: a fine or a suspended sentence does not close the file. Where a court suspends a sentence or imposes a fine, the Office of the Judiciary must report the case "immediately" to the Permanent Secretary of the Interior, and the case still enters the deportation assessment.
• This is not a new power; it is a new efficiency. The regulation standardises the inter-agency procedure so that decisions are made faster.
• The real change is the way two things interlock: the DBD's 2026 nominee checks raise the probability of detection, and the deportation regulation raises the consequences once detected. The US Embassy in Bangkok has warned that US citizens have already been arrested in nominee enforcement actions.
• A deportation order may include a ban on re-entry for a fixed period, and disputes over the regulation's application are decided by the Minister of Interior, whose decision is final.

On 28 August 2026 Thailand's Prime Minister's Office Regulation on Deportation B.E. 2569 came into force. Signed by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul on 26 August and published in the Royal Gazette on 27 August, it took effect the day after publication.

To most foreigners doing business in Thailand the news read like a measure aimed at misbehaving tourists, and that is how most of the international coverage framed it.

But among the six grounds for deportation listed in the regulation, the third is "carrying on business unlawfully under the Foreign Business Act". The sixth goes further: principals, instigators and accessories to any of the first five grounds are covered too.

In other words, this regulation connects directly to the nominee shareholder enforcement that Thailand has been running since the start of 2026.

This guide explains what the regulation actually says, what it means for foreign executives posted to Thailand, and one detail that most reports skipped but that matters most to anyone whose Thai company has a shareholding structure they have never looked at closely.

1. What the regulation provides: two independent paths

The key to reading this regulation is that it has two parallel paths with completely different conditions.

Path one is worded broadly, does not require a criminal conviction, and extends to anyone who instigated or assisted the conduct. It carries the widest discretion.

Path two is the focus of this guide, because that is where the FBA sits.

The six grounds

Under the regulation the Minister of Interior may order the deportation of a foreigner who has served a sentence under a final judgment for any of the following:

1. Illegal entry or illegal stay under the immigration laws

2. Illegal work under the laws on the employment of foreigners

3. Carrying on business unlawfully under the Foreign Business Act

4. Forgery of official documents or use of forged official documents

5. An offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment or more

6. Acting as principal, instigator or accessory to any of the first five

A deportation order may also bar the person from re-entering Thailand for a fixed period.

2. Why the third and sixth grounds matter to foreign investors

The third ground turns the FBA from a company-level compliance issue into a personal immigration issue.

In the past, when a foreign investor weighed the risk of a nominee structure, the arithmetic was about fines, an order to stop the business or an order to wind it up. Those were losses to the company. Now there is one more item at the end of the chain: the person may not be able to stay in Thailand, and may not be able to come back.

The sixth ground closes a back door that many foreign investors assumed existed.

A common arrangement: the registered director of the Thai company is a Thai national or a minority shareholder, while the general manager, plant manager or finance head sent from head office does not appear on any registration document and simply runs the business. Many of those executives assume the legal risk belongs to someone else.

But the sixth ground expressly covers instigators and accessories. A foreign executive who actually directed the setting up of a nominee structure, arranged the funding, or knowingly went along with it is not automatically safe because their name is absent from the company's filings.

This is consistent with the structure of the FBA itself: section 36 punishes the Thai national who holds shares on a foreigner's behalf, and section 37 the foreigner who carries on a restricted business without a licence, each with up to three years' imprisonment and a fine of THB 100,000 to 1,000,000, a daily fine of THB 10,000 to 50,000 while the breach continues, and a court order to stop the business, wind it up or end the shareholding. What this means for the registered director personally is in our guide to director liability in Thailand for foreign directors .

3. The most misunderstood point: a fine or a suspended sentence does not close the file

This is the most important section of the guide, and the one most reports left out.

Path two, on its face, requires that the person "has served a sentence under a final judgment". Many readers stop there with relief, assuming that if they negotiate a suspended sentence or a fine, the deportation procedure never starts.

That reading is wrong.

Under the regulation, the Director-General of the Department of Corrections must provide the name, nationality and case record of every foreign prisoner within scope to the Permanent Secretary of the Interior at least 15 days before release, and that information must be reviewed promptly so that the Minister can consider a deportation order without delay.

The regulation separately provides that where a court suspends a sentence or imposes a fine, the Office of the Judiciary must report the case immediately to the Permanent Secretary of the Interior so that it can be considered.

In other words, not going to prison does not take the case off the deportation track. The fact of a final conviction is itself enough to trigger the report.

For a foreign company this changes the logic of a criminal case. In FBA cases a fine or a suspended sentence used to be treated as an acceptable outcome; under the regulation the same outcome can still end with the executive deported and barred from re-entry. If that executive is the head office's key person for the Thai operation, the real cost is far higher than the fine.

So in any criminal case involving the FBA, the defence strategy has to take the immigration consequence into account from the start, not after the judgment becomes final.

What the middle of that chain looks like in practice, from the 48 hours of police custody to bail with passport surrender, a travel ban and a Thai guarantor, is in Bail in Thailand for Foreign Defendants 2026: The First 48 Hours, Detention Limits, Passport Surrender, the Travel Ban and the Thai Guarantor .

4. Not a new power, a new efficiency

It is important to be precise: the regulation creates no new substantive power to deport.

Thailand could already deport foreigners under its immigration laws. What the regulation does is take the exchange of information, the referral of cases and the execution of decisions that used to be scattered across the Department of Corrections, the Interior Ministry, the Immigration Bureau and the courts, and consolidate them into a standard procedure.

Cases that might previously have gone nowhere for want of coordination between agencies now have clear reporting duties and time limits.

The change in risk is not whether deportation is possible but that the possibility has moved from theory to process.

Equally, deportation is not automatic: the Minister retains discretion and each case is reviewed on its facts. But that discretion sits with the executive branch, and the regulation provides that disputes over its application are decided by the Minister of Interior, whose decision is final. Remedies are therefore limited.

5. The real change: two things interlocking

Taken alone, the deportation regulation has limited effect on a foreign investor who operates lawfully. Put Thailand's 2026 measures side by side and the picture changes.

In the first half of the year the Department of Business Development (DBD) raised the probability of detection:

• Order No. 2/2568 (in force 1 January 2026): in companies with foreign shareholding below 50%, Thai shareholders had to file bank statements showing they had the means to pay for their shares and where the money came from. Replaced on 1 August 2026 by Order No. 2/2569.
• Order No. 1/2569 (in force 1 April 2026): on a change of registration that makes a foreigner an authorised director or adds a foreign partner, the director signing the application had to file an investment confirmation statement. Also replaced on 1 August 2026.
• Order No. 2/2569 (in force 1 August 2026): the current rule, replacing the two earlier orders. At incorporation, an investment explanation statement, each Thai shareholder's bank statements for the three months before payment, and the statement for the account of the director who received the capital; on a change of registration that makes a foreigner an authorised director or adds a foreign partner, the signing director's investment confirmation; and for a company incorporated after 1 August that makes such a change within its first year, the explanation statement and bank statements showing the capital was received in full.

The authorities are also developing an "effective control" test and have said openly that review will look through the shareholding percentage. Where the line between lawful protection and nominee control runs is the subject of our guide to joint ventures and shareholders' agreements in Thailand .

In the second half of the year the deportation regulation raised the consequences once detected: FBA breach is a listed ground, and instigators and accessories are covered.

Neither measure is dramatic on its own. Together they change the risk structure. The old assessment of a nominee structure was "low probability of detection, and if detected mostly a fine". The new one is "rising probability of detection, and the consequences may include losing the right to stay".

The geography of enforcement is worth noting. As reported in September 2026, inspections were most concentrated in Phuket, Koh Samui, Koh Phangan and Pai in Mae Hong Son province; the Samui nominee operation had opened 60 investigations involving property worth about THB 1.2 billion. What these areas have in common is a high density of foreign-held property and tourism businesses, which is exactly where many individual foreign investors are.

6. The foreign executive's position

Three factors make a foreign executive's position in this procedure weaker than it looks.

First, this is no longer theoretical. On 14 September 2026 the US Embassy in Bangkok issued an alert on increased Thai enforcement against nominee arrangements. It stated that Thai officials had arrested several foreign nationals, including US citizens, in nominee enforcement actions, noted the new deportation guidelines in force since 28 August, and said that US citizens found in violation of nominee rules may be subject to deportation. Its advice was to consult a licensed attorney before buying property, investing in a business or forming a company, and to have an existing corporate structure reviewed. An embassy can visit a detained national and monitor the proceedings; it cannot intervene in the Interior Minister's discretion.

Second, remedies are limited. As noted above, the regulation provides that disputes over its application are decided by the Minister of Interior and that the decision is final. Prevention is worth far more than any remedy after the event.

Third, the re-entry ban. A deportation order may bar re-entry for a fixed period. For an executive who runs the company's Southeast Asian business from Bangkok, that is not a personal event; it can interrupt the continuity of the Thai operation itself. The visa and work permit framework such an executive depends on is explained in our guide to working in Thailand as an expat .

7. Four actions for foreign investors

One: review the shareholding structure, and look at substance. If your Thai shareholders cannot explain their capital from their own means and cash flow, the structure is an exposed position under the 2026 standard. Reducing the foreign stake to 39% or lower gives no protection; the authorities now look at where the money came from and who makes the decisions.

Two: map what each expatriate actually does, not their registered title. The sixth ground is about conduct, not titles. Establish how far each foreign executive is actually involved in decisions, funding and shareholding arrangements, and assess their personal exposure in the worst case.

Three: if the structure is flawed, move to a lawful route early. BOI promotion, an IEAT industrial estate, a Foreign Business Licence from the DBD or, for US investors, the Treaty of Amity are all regular routes to a majority or even 100% foreign shareholding. The cost of a voluntary restructuring is far lower than the cost of dealing with a detected breach. The routes are compared in our guide to setting up a company in Thailand for foreign investors .

Four: in any FBA criminal case, the defence must include the immigration consequence. As section 3 explains, probation or a fine does not take the case off the deportation track. Assess the criminal outcome and the immigration outcome together from the start, not in two stages.

For years, foreign investors in Thailand assessed nominee structures on two assumptions: that detection was unlikely, and that detection meant a financial loss to the company. The two measures of 2026 have loosened both. The regulation creates no new power and puts no lawful operator at sudden risk. But it has turned a path that existed and was rarely walked to the end into a procedure with reporting duties, time limits and a final decision-maker. For a company whose structure was already doubtful, time is not on its side. As at the end of October 2026 no deportation order under the regulation had been reported publicly, but the arrests the US Embassy described show that the first step of the chain is already being taken.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

When did Thailand's new deportation regulation take effect and what does it say?

The Prime Minister's Office Regulation on Deportation B.E. 2569 (2026) was signed by Prime Minister Anutin on 26 August 2026, published in the Royal Gazette on 27 August and took effect on 28 August. It has two paths. The first covers conduct or circumstances contrary to public order, good morals or public welfare, referred by the Permanent Secretary of the Interior to the Minister, with no conviction required. The second covers a person who has served a sentence under a final judgment for one of six offences: illegal entry or stay, illegal work, carrying on business unlawfully under the Foreign Business Act, forgery of official documents, an offence carrying five years' imprisonment or more, and acting as principal, instigator or accessory to any of those.

Can you really be deported for breaching the Foreign Business Act?

Yes, it is one of the six listed grounds. But note the conditions: the ground requires a sentence served under a final judgment, so a DBD finding of a nominee arrangement does not lead to immediate deportation; there must be a criminal case and a final conviction. Deportation is also not automatic, as the Minister of Interior keeps discretion and reviews each case. The regulation does, however, require the court to report a suspended sentence or a fine immediately to the Interior Ministry, so avoiding prison does not take the case out of the deportation assessment. The US Embassy's September 2026 alert confirms that arrests of foreign nationals, including US citizens, are already happening.

I am not a registered director, just the general manager sent from head office. Am I exposed?

Not necessarily safe. The sixth ground expressly covers principals, instigators and accessories to the first five. A foreign executive who actually led the setting up of a nominee structure, directed the funding or knowingly went along with it may fall within it, whether or not their name appears in the company's filings. That mirrors the FBA's own structure: section 36 covers the Thai national holding shares for a foreigner, section 37 the foreigner carrying on a restricted business without a licence. Assess personal exposure by actual involvement, not by registered title.

If I get probation or a fine, is the case over?

No. This is the commonest misunderstanding. The regulation provides that where a court suspends a sentence or imposes a fine, the Office of the Judiciary must immediately report the case to the Permanent Secretary of the Interior so that deportation can be considered. For those who serve a sentence, the Department of Corrections must send the name, nationality and case record to the Interior Ministry at least 15 days before release. The final conviction itself triggers the report; staying out of prison does not end the risk. Defence strategy in an FBA case must therefore include the immigration consequence from the first day.

Can I come back to Thailand after being deported?

A deportation order may bar re-entry for a fixed period, decided case by case. The person is in principle returned to their country of nationality; if nationality cannot be established, to the country of last declared residence before entering Thailand. Where there is a risk of torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or enforced disappearance, another state or an international organisation may, within 7 days of the order, request through diplomatic channels to receive the person in that or a third country, subject to the person's written consent and the requesting party bearing all costs; the transfer must be completed within 30 days, extendable by the Minister at most twice, each time by no more than 30 days.

Does this affect a company that has operated in Thailand for years?

Yes, but the change is to the risk structure, not a new prohibition. In 2026 Thailand did two things. The DBD, through Orders 2/2568, 1/2569 and the current 2/2569, required Thai shareholders to show the source of their funds by bank statement and directors to sign investment confirmations, raising the probability that a nominee structure is found. The deportation regulation then listed FBA breach as a ground for deportation, raising the consequences once found. For a company that has held shares through nominees for years, the old assessment of "low risk, fines only" no longer holds. Review the structure early and move to BOI, IEAT, an FBL or, for US investors, the Treaty of Amity.

How Louis Group can help

Louis Group has offices in Taipei and Bangkok, with Thai-qualified lawyers working alongside Taiwanese colleagues in English. We help foreign investors review and restructure Thai shareholding structures, apply for BOI, IEAT and FBL status, assess the personal exposure of expatriate executives, and defend FBA criminal cases with the immigration consequence planned from the start. If your Thai structure was set up years ago and has never been reviewed, now is the time.

Author: Raymond Yu (Po-Chang Yu) , Founder and CEO of Louis Group.

*This article is general legal information, not advice on a specific case. The regulation took effect on 28 August 2026 and its practical application and the authorities' interpretation are still developing. Take advice from a Thai-qualified lawyer and rely on the Royal Gazette and the latest announcements of the authorities.*

Related reading

• Director Liability in Thailand 2026 for Foreign Directors: Civil Exposure, Criminal Risk, Signing Authority and the Work Permit Trap
• Joint Ventures and Shareholders' Agreements in Thailand 2026: Where Lawful Protection Ends and a Nominee Structure Begins under the New DBD Checks
• Setting Up a Company in Thailand 2026 for Foreign Investors: The 49% Rule, Nominee Shareholder Risk, Capital and Work Permit Ratios, BOI and the New DBD Checks