A senator's proposal to scale foreign ownership to capital invested: what changed on 1 September 2026, and what didn't

Can a foreigner now legally own 100% of a Thai property-holding company? No — as of this writing nothing in Thai law has changed. But on 1 September 2026, the idea got its highest-profile public airing yet, when a sitting senator proposed scrapping the 49% foreign-ownership ceiling entirely in favour of a rule tied to how much capital a foreigner actually puts in.

What was actually proposed

During a Senate meeting on 1 September 2026, Senator Prathum Wongsawat raised the proposal while the chamber discussed nominee businesses and so-called 'grey capital.' Her suggestion: let foreign ownership match the proportion of capital invested, so a foreigner funding 100% of a business could hold 100% of it, rather than being capped at 49% and required to find Thai shareholders for the remaining 51%. She argued the current rule itself creates the problem it's meant to prevent — that, in her words, 'investors who provide all of the capital are unlikely to willingly surrender control,' which pushes them toward paper Thai shareholders (nominees) instead of genuine partners. She framed the reform as converting undocumented 'grey capital' into transparent 'white capital' from the outset, cited her own investment experience in Russia (where she said ownership share can track capital contribution), and separately floated the idea of clear investment thresholds that would qualify a foreign investor for Thai residency or even citizenship.

What the law still says today

The Foreign Business Act (FBA) B.E. 2542 (1999) treats a company as 'foreign' once 50% or more of its shares are beneficially held by non-Thai nationals — in practice, a foreigner needing land or restricted-sector rights has had to keep their stake at 49% and find Thai shareholders for the rest. Using Thai nominees who hold shares on paper without real capital or control is a criminal offence under FBA Sections 36–37 (up to 3 years imprisonment, fines of THB 100,000–1,000,000) and exposes the land itself to forced sale under Land Code Section 94. None of this changed on 1 September 2026, and enforcement — the DBD/DSI/AMLO nominee crackdown covered in the Land Department's 2026 audit of landholding companies and the 21-agency data-sharing pact — continues under the existing rule. See A Thai company for property (49/51) for the full mechanics and risk.

Capital-linked ownership isn't unprecedented — but it's narrow today

Thai law already lets ownership rights scale with capital in two narrow, discretionary channels: a foreigner investing at least ฿40 million in approved categories can apply for Ministry of Interior approval to hold up to 1,600 sqm of land directly (see the THB 40 million investment route), and BOI-promoted companies can hold land for their promoted business under separate, tightly scoped rules (see BOI-promoted company land ownership). Both show the principle isn't foreign to Thai policy — but both are narrow exceptions requiring individual government approval, not a general rule, and neither resembles the senator's proposal of an ownership percentage that automatically tracks invested capital.

Status: a floor proposal, not a bill

This is one senator's remarks during a Senate discussion, not a cabinet-endorsed policy, not a bill introduced to Parliament, and no ministry or government spokesperson has responded to it in reputable reporting found as of 4 September 2026. For comparison, the separate, better-documented 2026 debate over raising the *condominium* foreign-ownership quota from 49% to 70–75% — backed by developers and reportedly under government review — has been running since mid-2026 with still no bill passed (see Thailand's 49% condo quota debate). A structural change to the FBA's 49/51 rule for land-holding companies would be a considerably larger reform than adjusting a condo quota, and nothing in current reporting suggests it has a legislative vehicle at all.

What it means for a Phangan buyer today

• Nothing changes your options right now. The 49/51 rule, its criminal penalties for nominee arrangements, and the active enforcement campaign all remain exactly as they were before 1 September 2026.
• Treat any claim that '100% foreign company ownership is now legal in Thailand' as false — it is not, and won't be unless and until an actual bill is drafted, approved by cabinet, and passed by Parliament.
• The clean route for a private villa remains leasehold plus superficies, not a Thai company structure banking on a reform that may never happen — see Leasehold vs freehold.
• Worth watching, not acting on. If this idea gains a formal legislative vehicle — a drafted bill, a cabinet resolution, a committee referral — that would be the point to revisit the analysis, not a senator's floor remarks alone.

The proposal is a genuine signal that pressure to reform the 49/51 rule is broadening beyond the usual developer lobbying over condo quotas — but a signal is not a law. Until something concrete moves through cabinet and Parliament, the existing rule, and the existing crackdown on those who try to route around it, are what actually govern a purchase on Koh Phangan today.