Thailand’s Cabinet has approved in principle a draft administrative regulation intended to establish a more consistent and coordinated procedure for the deportation of foreign nationals who commit certain offences or violate Thailand’s immigration, employment or foreign business laws.
The proposed Regulations of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation would not create a new substantive power to deport foreign nationals. Instead, the draft is intended to standardize the administrative process through which relevant government agencies exchange information, refer cases and implement deportation decisions.
The development is particularly relevant to foreign investors, employers, company directors and persons involved in business structures that may contravene the Foreign Business Act, including unlawful nominee arrangements.
Key Takeaways
The Cabinet approved the draft deportation regulations on 14 July 2026, following an earlier Cabinet initiative on 16 June 2026 to review and improve immigration-related laws and administrative procedures.
The draft identifies six categories of conduct that may result in a case being referred to the Minister of Interior for consideration of deportation.
The categories expressly include unlawful employment and carrying on business in breach of Thailand’s foreign business laws.
Deportation would not necessarily be automatic. The Minister of Interior would retain responsibility for considering and issuing a deportation order.
Important questions remain concerning convictions, procedural safeguards, the scope of ministerial discretion, re-entry restrictions and the application of the framework to non-custodial cases.
Background and Existing Legal Framework
Thailand currently has several statutory mechanisms under which foreign nationals may be removed from the country.
Under section 5 of the Deportation Act B.E. 2499 (1956), the Minister of Interior may order the deportation of a foreign national when this is considered necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. The order may remain in force for the period considered appropriate and may subsequently be revoked if circumstances change.
The Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979) provides a separate removal mechanism. Under section 54, an immigration officer may arrange for a foreign national to be sent out of Thailand where the person entered or remains in the country without permission, or where their permission to stay has expired or been revoked. Pending removal, the individual may be detained or released subject to reporting, residence, security or other conditions.
Although these statutory powers already exist, the Government has identified the absence of a centralized administrative regulation governing the coordination of deportation cases. In practice, cases may require cooperation among the Department of Corrections, Ministry of Interior, Immigration Bureau and other government agencies, potentially contributing to procedural delays.
On 16 June 2026, the Cabinet instructed the relevant authorities to review and improve immigration-related laws, regulations and administrative procedures. The Cabinet subsequently approved the draft Prime Minister’s Office Regulation on Deportation on 14 July 2026, with the stated objective of making the deportation process more efficient and improving coordination among government agencies.
At the time of writing, official sources continue to describe the measure as a Cabinet-approved draft. The final wording, publication date and effective date therefore remain to be confirmed.
Proposed Grounds for Deportation Referral
The draft identifies six categories of conduct that may result in a foreign national being considered for deportation on public-order or public-morality grounds:
- Entering or remaining in Thailand unlawfully;
- Working in Thailand in violation of laws governing foreign workers;
- Carrying on business in violation of Thailand’s foreign business laws;
- Forging an official document or using a forged official document;
- Committing an offence punishable by imprisonment for three years or more; and
- Acting as a principal, instigator or supporter in relation to any of the above offences.
These categories appear to establish circumstances in which a case may be referred for consideration. They should not presently be interpreted as creating an automatic deportation consequence whenever an alleged violation occurs.
The final regulation will need to clarify whether a final criminal conviction is required, whether administrative findings may be sufficient in certain cases and how the authorities will apply the categories where an offence carries a range of possible penalties.
Proposed Interagency Coordination Procedure
The Cabinet announcement describes a specific procedure for foreign nationals serving custodial sentences.
Before a foreign national is released from prison, the Director-General of the Department of Corrections would be required to provide information to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Interior, or an authorized official, within a period to be prescribed.
The information would include:
- the individual’s name and nationality;
- the relevant case file;
- supporting documents and evidence; and
- any other information material to the deportation assessment.
The Permanent Secretary or designated official would then report the matter to the Minister of Interior without delay. The Minister would consider whether to issue a deportation order.
Where deportation is ordered, the Ministry of Interior would arrange for the person to be returned to their country of nationality. Where nationality cannot be conclusively established, the individual may be sent to the country in which they claim to have last resided before entering Thailand.
The Cabinet announcement also contemplates circumstances in which another country, of which the person is not a national, or an international organization agrees to receive the individual through diplomatic channels. In that situation, the receiving country or organization would be required to assume the relevant care and removal costs, and the person concerned would have to provide written consent.
The publicly available summary principally addresses cases involving release from prison. The final regulation will therefore need to clarify how referrals will be managed where the foreign national has not received a custodial sentence, is released on bail, receives a suspended sentence or is subject to administrative rather than criminal proceedings.
Implications for Foreign Businesses and Nominee Arrangements
The express inclusion of business activities conducted in violation of Thailand’s foreign business laws is particularly significant.
Under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999), foreigners are restricted from conducting certain business activities unless an applicable exemption, treaty entitlement, investment promotion, Foreign Business Licence or Foreign Business Certificate is available.
The Act also prohibits arrangements under which Thai nationals hold shares on behalf of foreign persons to circumvent foreign ownership restrictions. Both the Thai nominee and the foreign person involved may be exposed to imprisonment of up to three years, a fine ranging from THB 100,000 to THB 1 million, or both. The court may also order the parties to terminate the shareholding or cease the unlawful business arrangement. Foreign persons carrying on a restricted business without the required authorization may face corresponding criminal and cessation consequences.
The proposed deportation framework could create a clearer administrative route through which foreign nationals implicated in serious Foreign Business Act violations are referred to the Ministry of Interior after the criminal process.
However, the proposed category is broader than nominee shareholding alone. It may potentially cover any foreign business operation conducted without the required legal authorization, subject to the final wording and the authorities’ interpretation.
A company is not necessarily operating through an unlawful nominee arrangement merely because it has Thai majority shareholders, foreign directors, foreign financing or contractual protections for a foreign investor. The assessment ordinarily depends on the substance of the structure, including whether the Thai shareholders made genuine investments, exercise their shareholder rights independently and participate in the company for their own economic benefit rather than merely holding shares on behalf of a foreign person.
Recent Department of Business Development enforcement activity illustrates the authorities’ focus on the source of share subscription funds and the actual involvement of Thai shareholders. In its 2025 annual report, the Department reported screening 777 entities in sectors considered particularly exposed to nominee risks. In several identified cases, Thai shareholders reportedly admitted that their names had been used without their having paid for the shares, while the relevant investment funds had been supplied by foreign persons.
The Question of Multiple Nominee Convictions
For a foreign national facing multiple convictions arising from nominee arrangements, the potential consequences under the proposed framework could be significantly more serious. Section 36 of the Foreign Business Act already exposes offenders to up to three years’ imprisonment. Where a person is convicted on multiple counts—for example, involvement in several nominee companies or a continuing course of conduct—the cumulative sentence may well exceed the three-year threshold that triggers mandatory referral under category five of the draft regulation.
This creates a concerning possibility: a foreign investor who is convicted on multiple counts could find themselves referred for deportation not only because of the foreign business violation itself but also because the aggregate sentence falls within the serious offences category. The wording of category five—”committing an offence punishable by imprisonment for three years or more”—appears to refer to the maximum penalty available for the offence, not necessarily the actual sentence imposed. This distinction will be critical in practice.
Where a court imposes a custodial sentence on multiple counts, the Department of Corrections would be required to refer the individual’s case to the Ministry of Interior before release. The Minister of Interior would then have to consider whether deportation is appropriate in the interests of public order. A person with multiple nominee-related convictions may well be seen as presenting a greater risk of recidivism or as having engaged in systematic circumvention of Thai law, potentially making the Minister more inclined to exercise the deportation power.
The question of whether the Minister retains discretion to decline deportation where a person has been convicted but poses no ongoing risk remains unresolved. The draft regulation appears to preserve ministerial discretion, but the final text will determine how that discretion is exercised in practice.
Unresolved Questions and Practical Considerations
The proposed framework leaves several important questions unanswered.
First, the relationship between criminal proceedings and administrative deportation is not clearly defined. Under the Deportation Act, deportation may be ordered where this is considered necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. This test is separate from the criminal conviction. A person who is acquitted of criminal charges might still face deportation if the administrative authorities consider their conduct to be contrary to public order. Conversely, a criminal conviction does not automatically lead to deportation. The Minister of Interior is not bound by the outcome of criminal proceedings in making a deportation decision.
Second, the regulation’s application to persons who have completed their sentences but are not in custody is unclear. The prescribed procedure contemplates referral before release from prison. For persons who have received suspended sentences, fines, or non-custodial penalties, the same procedural pathway would not be available. It remains to be seen whether separate referral procedures will be established for these cases.
Third, the interaction between the proposed regulation and existing immigration powers is uncertain. The Immigration Act already provides for removal in cases of unlawful entry, overstaying or revoked permission to stay. The new regulation appears to operate separately from these existing removal powers. A foreign national who is deported under the proposed regulation might also face restrictions on re-entry, although this has not been expressly addressed in the publicly available materials.
Understanding Thailand’s New Approach to Deporting Foreign Offenders
The draft deportation regulation represents a significant administrative development in Thailand’s approach to foreign nationals who violate its laws, particularly in the context of foreign business operations. The express inclusion of Foreign Business Act violations signals a policy intention to treat serious nominee arrangements as a ground for potential deportation.
For foreign investors, the message is clear: there is a growing alignment between criminal enforcement against nominee arrangements and the administrative machinery for deportation. The days when a nominee conviction might result only in a fine, with no further immigration consequences, appear to be numbered.
However, the framework is not yet final. Substantial questions remain concerning the circumstances in which referral will be mandatory, the scope of ministerial discretion and the application of the regulation to non-custodial cases. Foreign nationals with exposure to nominee-related proceedings would be well advised to watch the finalisation of this regulation closely and to seek professional advice on their position.
