Thai authorities carried out the third phase of an operation against alleged foreign nominee arrangements in Phuket, Phang Nga, and Krabi on June 20, 2026. The dated Royal Thai Police account describes that day’s searches and arrests. The Royal Thai Government newsroom release was published the following morning, on June 21. Those are the event and publication dates; they are not interchangeable.
The official figures are substantial, but the records describe different groups and different procedural stages. Searches, risk screening, police allegations, and convictions should not be counted as the same result.
Evidence at a glance
| Claim | What the cited record says | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| 49 rai and more than THB 1 billion | The June 20 police account lists 89 search-target land plots covering 49 rai, 1 ngan, and 6.4 square wah, with land and buildings valued at about THB 1.053 billion. The June 21 government release gives the more precise total of THB 1,053,518,872. | The body of the official release describes land targeted or inspected in searches. Its headline uses “reclaimed,” while media headlines use “seized.” The cited records do not show a final forfeiture judgment for every plot. |
| 66 companies in Phuket and Krabi | Thairath reported 66 companies under suspicion. The official provincial breakdown produces the same count: Phuket 10 + 39 and Krabi 9 + 8. | These were two different official categories: 19 companies described as showing nominee characteristics, and 47 landholding companies described as having more foreign than Thai shareholders by headcount. That criterion does not establish a foreign majority of capital or foreign control, and the count is not 66 convictions. |
| More than 600 higher-risk Phuket firms | The Nation reported that more than 30,000 registrations had been checked and more than 600 firms flagged. A later police briefing dated June 22 gives exact Phuket figures: 31,970 registered entities, 11,773 with foreign shareholders, and 632 classified as higher-risk for possible nominee links. | This was a database-screening pool, separate from the 66 Phuket-and-Krabi companies in the June 20 field operation. A risk flag is not a charge or conviction. |
| Warrants and arrests | The June 20 police account says courts approved 59 arrest warrants and that officers arrested 48 people against 55 warrants; some people were named in more than one warrant. The government summary also lists 60 search warrants. | A warrant or arrest is not a finding of guilt. The cited reports do not provide final outcomes for each person or company. |
Why “66 companies worth over THB 1 billion” needs qualification
The 66-company figure can be reconstructed from the official Phuket and Krabi subtotals. The THB 1.053 billion figure cannot: it is the value reported for all three provinces, including Phang Nga. The official breakdown attributes about THB 231 million to Phuket, THB 499 million to Krabi, and THB 323 million to Phang Nga.
The three-province figures contain an unresolved one-company discrepancy. The official provincial first-category rows add up to 28, not 29: Phuket 10, Phang Nga 9, and Krabi 9. The second-category rows add up to 48: 39, 1, and 8 landholding companies respectively, described as having more foreign than Thai shareholders by headcount. Those rows total 76 companies. The official summary and the Khaosod English report dated June 20 instead state 29 + 48, or 77. The public sources do not identify the extra company, so 77 should not be treated as a settled total. The headcount criterion also does not establish a foreign majority of capital or foreign control.
What the authorities alleged
The police and government accounts say officials examined corporate registrations, shareholder structures, financial statements, land records, and business premises. They reported examples in which Thai shareholders allegedly had not supplied genuine investment capital, or appeared to be employees or relatives holding shares for foreign controllers. They also reported seizing company records, accounting documents, computers, phones, and electronic data for further examination.
Those are government findings and police allegations at the investigation stage. The sources identify searches, warrants, arrests, complaints, and evidence collection. They do not report Phase 3 convictions for the 66 companies, the disputed 76-versus-77 three-province perimeter, or the 632 firms identified by the separate Phuket screening.
A flag is not a nominee conviction
A company does not become an illegal nominee arrangement merely because it has a foreign shareholder or appears in a risk-screening pool. The legal question turns on the real arrangement: who contributed the capital, who exercises control, whether Thai shareholders have a genuine economic interest, and what the evidence proves in the applicable process.
That distinction also explains why the official tables separate companies described as showing nominee characteristics from landholding companies with more foreign than Thai shareholders by headcount that were still being examined. Shareholder headcount alone does not establish capital majority or control. Corporate ownership, landholding eligibility, and nominee evidence are related questions, but they are not interchangeable labels. See our background guide to Thai-company property ownership and nominee risk.
What remains unknown
The cited records do not explain the one-company difference between the provincial rows and the official summary. Nor do they provide a company-by-company charge sheet, the evidentiary basis for every risk flag, subsequent prosecutor decisions, or final court judgments from this operation. They also do not establish that title to every one of the 89 plots had been finally transferred, forfeited, or ordered sold when the releases were published.
For an individual company, current registry documents, capital records, shareholder evidence, land records, and the procedural status of any case would need to be checked separately. This article reports the public record; it is not legal advice or an assessment of any particular company.
Related reading
The next policy change is covered separately in our August 1, 2026 nominee-screening brief.