Thailand’s third Andaman nominee operation covered 89 land plots

Police valued the targeted land and buildings at about THB 1.053 billion

The Royal Thai Police said the operation brought together police, immigration officers, the Department of Business Development and land authorities. The 89 plots covered 49 rai, 1 ngan and 6.4 square wah, or roughly 7.9 hectares.

Courts approved 59 arrest warrants, covering 28 Thai nationals and 31 foreigners. Police reported that 55 warrants had been executed and 48 people arrested during the operation; some individuals were named in more than one warrant. Those numbers describe enforcement steps taken at that stage, not a final court outcome for the entire group.

In the police account, a nominee structure refers to Thai shareholders allegedly holding shares on behalf of foreigners in order to circumvent legal restrictions. Investigators also examined companies holding land where foreign shareholders outnumbered Thai shareholders. Those were separate categories in the enforcement report, and neither a search nor the presence of foreign shareholders by itself proves that a company was acting unlawfully.

For practical context, see How to buy property in Thailand. This development also connects with Chonburi raids target 33 companies in nominee-property probe.

Phuket had most of the plots, while Krabi carried the highest stated value

Phuket accounted for 56 plots with a stated value of about THB 231 million. Police placed 10 companies in the category they described as showing nominee characteristics and another 39 in the category of landholding companies with foreign shareholders exceeding Thai shareholders. Search warrants in the second category were used to gather evidence and question people connected to the companies.

Phang Nga accounted for 8 plots worth about THB 323 million. The police release listed nine companies in the first category and one in the second. One of the cases involved a villa business where officers also examined hotel operations and the role of Thai shareholders.

Krabi accounted for 25 plots with a stated value of roughly THB 499 million, the largest provincial amount in the release. Nine companies were placed in the first category and eight in the second, including a property-development business mentioned separately by police.

There is a small inconsistency between the official summaries. The government release gives 29 companies in the first category, while the province-by-province figures in the police release add up to 28. For that reason, the plot count, area, stated value and warrant figures are firmer reference points than a single combined company total.

Later court results were reported for the first three phases as a group

The enforcement campaign continued after the Andaman operation. In a 17 July update, the Royal Thai Police said courts had issued convictions in 20 cases across the first three phases in the southern provinces. The police described those judgments as including 15 months’ imprisonment, a THB 15,000 fine and an order to dispose of land acquired unlawfully or without permission within the period set by the land authorities.

That later statement did not identify all 20 judgments as cases arising from the 20 June operation. It therefore does not support saying that all 89 plots were confiscated, every company targeted in Phase 3 was unlawful, or every person named in the June operation had already received a final judgment.

The compliance issue is the real ownership structure, not the company label

For a foreign buyer or entrepreneur using a Thai company, the practical issue is whether the registered ownership reflects the real funding, control and economic participation behind the company. The June operation shows that authorities may look beyond the shareholder list when landholding appears to depend on Thai shareholders who do not genuinely provide capital or exercise the rights associated with their stake.

That makes corporate history and landholding history material parts of transaction due diligence. A buyer taking over shares in an existing company needs to understand how the company acquired its land, how its capital was funded and who actually controls decisions. The operation is not evidence that every Thai company with foreign participation is improper; it is evidence that arrangements built around alleged proxy shareholding remain an active enforcement target.