Section 94 may soon mean forfeiture, not a forced sale: the amendment under study in 2026

If a foreigner is found to hold land unlawfully — most commonly through a nominee company — what happens to it today, and could that get worse? Under the current Section 94 of the Land Code, the Director-General of the Department of Lands orders the land disposed of within a period of not less than 180 days and not more than one year. If the foreign owner doesn't sell it themselves in that window, the Director-General has the power to auction it — but critically, the (former) owner still recovers the proceeds, including any gain from the land having risen in value. Under a proposal now being studied, that would change: the land would instead vest directly in the State, with no compensation at all.

What's actually being studied

• The trigger. Following recommendations from the Office of the Ombudsman, Thailand's Cabinet on 24 February 2026 acknowledged a consolidated inter-agency progress report, and the Land Department is expressly studying an amendment to Section 94.
• The change. The proposal would deny an unlawful foreign owner any entitlement to proceeds from the disposal of the land — instead of a forced sale, the land would be forfeited to the State (ตกเป็นของแผ่นดิน) outright. Reports also describe study of increased criminal fines and imprisonment for the underlying violation.
• The status. This is a study, not a bill before parliament and not a promulgated law. It would need a formal legislative amendment to take effect, and no effective date or retroactivity clause has been publicly confirmed as of this writing.

Why this isn't happening in isolation

This proposal is one piece of a single enforcement push through 2026, not a standalone idea. The Department of Business Development has flagged roughly 68% of foreign-linked companies on Koh Samui and Koh Phangan for shareholding patterns typical of nominee arrangements — see Buying a villa already held by a Thai company — and the Land Department's own May 2026 "Most Urgent" circulars already tightened source-of-funds checks at registration. Section 94 sits at the end of that chain: it's the penalty that applies once a nominee holding is actually confirmed, whether through the ongoing company audit or a DSI raid.

Why the timing matters for existing owners

Under today's rule, a foreigner caught holding land through a nominee, worst case, is forced to sell within 180 days to a year and keeps the net proceeds — a costly, disruptive outcome, but not a total loss. If Section 94 is amended and later applied to a disposal order issued after the change takes effect, that same owner could lose the land outright with nothing recovered. Nothing has been confirmed yet about which rule would apply to structures set up before an amendment passes, and no one should assume the milder version protects them by default once a case is opened. The only position with no exposure to that uncertainty is not being in a flagged structure in the first place.

What to do now, not later

• Get a Thai lawyer to review any company-held or otherwise indirect structure now, rather than waiting for an IBAS flag, a DBD amendment filing, or a land-office query to force the question.
• Ask specifically whether the structure could be read as a nominee arrangement under Land Code Section 96 and the Foreign Business Act — not just whether it was common practice when it was set up.
• Price in the cost of an orderly transition now — restructuring into a registered lease plus superficies (see How foreigners legally own a villa) — against the cost of a forced disposal later, under whichever version of Section 94 is in force when that happens.
• Don't treat "it's not law yet" as a reason to wait. Amendments in this area have moved from study to enforceable circular within months in 2026; the safer structure is worth having in place before, not after.

None of this is a reason to panic over a compliant holding — a registered lease and superficies were never inside Section 94's scope, because they don't involve unlawful land acquisition by a foreigner in the first place. The exposure described here is specific to nominee and disguised-freehold structures, and it is growing, not shrinking. See A Thai company for property: when it makes sense, when it's toxic for the narrow cases where a compliant company structure still works.