Thailand’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI) says it plans to crackdown on the use by foreigners of proxies or nominees to “operate businesses which are normally off-limits to them [foreigners]” after the agency was given authority to investigate nine more categories of ‘special cases’, reports the 7 January 2012 edition of the Bangkok Post. As summarized here , Thailand has expansive laws prohibiting foreign ownership of local businesses.
This same article says the DSI will also investigate various recognized trans-national criminal activities, such as human trafficking and computer crimes. The article says so-called nominee shareholding in violation of the Thailand’s Foreign Business Act (FBA) will also be subject to a DSI crackdown similar to a crackdown on these other, generally recognized, trans-national crimes.
Perhaps jumbling two issues together, the article quotes the DIS as saying that foreigners violating the FBA are sometimes engaged in such recognized trans-national criminal activities:
The DSI had also heard reports of a group of foreign gangsters extorting protection fees from other foreigners.
Mr Tharit said some of these foreigners had used Thai nominees to set up shell companies and used them as a front to launder money and transfer the laundered money overseas.
If so, why not directly target parties involved in these illegal activities? Why the focus on alleged nominee shareholding? And the article does suggest a general crackdown on alleged violations of the FBA – not merely recognized transitional crimes – by listing other, quite ordinary, business activities.
The article mentions that foreigners are involved other businesses that are “off limits” under the FBA and similar laws to foreigners, such as land-trading, mining and newspaper publishing and suggest that such businesses will also be subject to this crackdown. As described, the crackdown will apply to all violations of the FBA through the use of alleged nominees,
To provide a sense of the breadth of such a crackdown, consider that foreign owned businesses are restricted under the FBA from providing “services” of any kind. If, as suggested in the article, this “crackdown” extends to all businesses that are “off-limits” to foreigners, it will cover many business activities that are, in international terms, considered perfectly legitimate.
For example, the Department of Business Development (DBD) of the Ministry of Commerce interprets the term “services” very broadly. The DBD takes the position that a foreign owned Thai company which is engaged in manufacturing (and not otherwise restricted under the FBA) cannot grant a guaranty in favor of its foreign parent company without first obtaining an alien business license because of the FBA’s prohibition on foreign owned companies providing “services”. Since multinational companies often do need to provide such guaranties as security for loan and credit lines, this interpretation of the FBA has a chilling effect on multinational companies that plan to set up a manufacturing facility in Thailand: it complicates their ability to use those facilities as collateral for credit.
The DBD has also issued guidelines and rulings on what it calls “OEM businesses”. The DBD’s guidelines state: “[t]he business of ‘manufacturing service’, which is the manufacturing for remuneration (a service fee) according to plans, forms or manufacturing processes from time to time specified by a hirer (in some cases the hirer may also provide raw materials) which is not the manufacturing of goods for sale in general, is considered to be an ‘other [service] businesses’ under Schedule 3 (21) of the FBA …” In other words, the DBD contends that a manufacturer that engages in “OEM manufacturing” under this rather complicated definition is providing a “service” restricted under the FBA. Will the next maker of an iPhone or iPad want to source components from Thailand if foreign owned manufacturers in Thailand are subject to these restrictions?
And it appears that this could again raise the old battle about what constitutes a “nominee” under Thailand by characterizing legitimate business structures as illegal nominee shareholding arrangements. The Bangkok Post’s 7 January 2012 article says that:
The law, however, has a loophole in that it does not forbid foreigners from holding a majority on the board of directors or having control over voting rights.
A loophole? As set out this article in the American Chamber of Commerce’s magazine, T-AB, characterizing these features of the FBA as mere “loopholes” is misleading and dangerous because it suggests that revising this part of the FBA does not constitute a real change of the law – it’s merely eliminating a ‘loophole”.
In fact, changing the FBA to prohibit such practices – which the National Legislative Assembly attempted to do in 2007 – will make Thailand less competitive, chill investment in Thailand, possibly violate Thailand’s WTO obligations and would, in many situations, amount to compulsory divestiture of businesses by foreigners. As stated at that time in a position paper by the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce in Thailand, amending the FBA to eliminate these “loopholes” would: “necessarily criminalize structures that are legal under current law.”