A few years ago, foreigners could register a company in Thailand by paying a symbolic fee for a pre-packaged service. Lawyers provided a mass registration address where hundreds of firms used the same single square meter. The state ignored this to attract capital.

‍

In 2026, the DBD became proactive. Automated systems and strict Economic Substance rules now make using fake addresses risky and outdated.

‍

І. How the “Virtual Office” model worked before

‍

Even before 2026, Thailand's “virtual office” model existed not as a “grey area” but as a market standard, grounded in minimal legal requirements. The Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand requires every company to have a registered office to receive official correspondence. However, the Code does not specify what makes an address “real”- it requires neither staff nor business activities to be present at the address. So, the registered address serves only a formal purpose and does not prove a real economic presence.

‍

On this, the practice of so-called mass registration addresses emerged. Within a single physical location, dozens or even hundreds of companies could be registered, which did not contradict the law, as the key criterion remained merely the presence of the address in the documents. The registrar checked not the actual use of the premises, but the correctness of the submitted forms and the presence of basic proof of the right to use the address (e.g., a letter of consent from the owner). The lack of digital verification tools and integration with state registries effectively made any deep control impossible.

‍

In parallel, the market for nominal services, or "virtual office providers," actively developed. They offered foreign clients a package solution: an address for registration, minimal legal support, and a standard set of documents for submission to the registry.

‍

The key factor enabling this model was the liberal architecture of corporate regulation. The legislation did not contain the concept of economic substance in the modern sense, and state control was limited to a formal review of documents. The registrar had neither the legal obligation nor the technical capability to verify whether a physical office existed, whether activity was conducted there, or whether the address corresponded to the actual business.

‍

The economic context played an equally important role. For a long time, Thailand maintained a policy of maximum simplification for foreign capital entry, which involved minimal barriers to company registration. The absence of physical presence requirements enabled rapid business formation at lower cost, stimulating entrepreneurial activity and increasing the number of registered legal entities.

‍

ІІ. The 2026 new regulatory approach

‍

1. Transformation of the DBD’s Role. In 2026, the Department of Business Development (DBD) faces a new function. The registrar, once focused only on formal document checks, must now verify the authenticity of declared data. Under the Order of the Central Partnership and Company Registration Office No. 4/2568 (2025), the registrar is also required to cross-check the head office address with state registries, such as civil registration and real estate databases.

• In the event of a lack of confirmation or the detection of discrepancies, the registrar has the right to refuse or suspend registration.
• Addresses with many registered companies now get extra scrutiny.

‍

Consequently, the registered office address ceases to be a declarative detail and becomes a verifiable legal fact.

‍

2.Intro

‍

Introduction of Automated Digital Verification (NDID Integration). The second fundamental element of the reform is the introduction of automated data verification through the DBD Biz Regist digital system, integrated with the National Digital ID (NDID) infrastructure.

‍

This mechanism provides for:

• A two-stage verification process (pre-screening + substantive review);
• Automatic matching of applicant data with state databases;
• The system verifies data instantly: address, identity, and more.

‍

3. Financial Transparency and Proof of Funds Requirement. A vital component of the new model is the verification of shareholders' financial capacity, as established by the Order of the Central Partnership and Company Registration Office No. 2/2568 (2025).

‍

Under this act:

• Shareholders are required to provide bank statements for the last three months.
• These documents must confirm the availability of funds in an amount corresponding to their share in the registered capital.
• Stricter checks apply for companies with foreign owners.

‍

This rule targets fake capital contributions, common in nominee setups.

‍

4. Strengthening Control Over Nominee Structures. The crackdown on nominee shareholders is carried out through a combination of Section 36 of the Foreign Business Act, B.E. 2542 (1999), and the Order of the Central Partnership and Company Registration Office No. 1/2569 (2026).

‍

Section 36 explicitly prohibits Thai nationals from serving as nominee shareholders to circumvent foreign participation limits. New bylaws specify the mechanism for applying this rule, in particular:

• Thai shareholders must confirm they act for themselves, not as nominees.
• Registrars can ask for financial proof and explanations of fund sources.
• Providing for the verification of actual control over the company, rather than just the formal distribution of shares.

‍

As a result, nominee structures have moved into the high-risk, potentially legal-violation category.

‍

The reforms create a substance-over-form doctrine. Enforcement, not law, drives this shift.

‍

This doctrine dictates that:

• The address must correspond to the actual place of business.
• Capital must be factually contributed and verified.
• Shareholders must exercise real control.
• Formal documents alone are no longer enough for registration.

‍

Thus, in 2026, company registration in Thailand became a full-scale compliance procedure, in which every business element is evaluated for its factual existence and economic justification.

‍

IІІ. Key regulatory and legislative acts

‍

‍1. Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand (Book III, Title XXII: Partnerships and Companies). The foundational regulatory act governing company activities in Thailand is the Civil and Commercial Code.

‍

Specifically, this Code requires each company to keep a registered office to receive official correspondence and interact with state authorities. The address is required in the constitutive documents and must be reported to the registrar at incorporation and when it changes.

‍

However, the Code never required real activity at this address, enabling formal or virtual offices.

‍

2. Notification of the Department of Business Development No. 1/2569 (2026) re: Address Verification Requirements. The key subordinate act of the reform is Notification No. 1/2569 (2026) of the DBD, which establishes a mandatory procedure for the digital verification of a company's address.

‍

This act provides that:

• Verify the registration address through state digital databases.
• The registrar may refuse registration if the address is not confirmed or linked to ownership or lease rights.

‍

Integration with identification systems (NDID, Ministry of Interior registries) is applied.

• Thus, for the first time, this act introduces a mandatory requirement to verify an address rather than merely declare it.

‍

3. Foreign Business Act, B.E. 2542 (1999). The Foreign Business Act governs foreign participation. Section 36 clearly bans Thai individuals or entities from acting as nominee shareholders and holds them liable for any arrangement designed to evade foreign ownership restrictions. This provision now has new practical importance in the 2026 reform because:

• The DBD has begun actively verifying actual control and the shareholders' sources of funds.
• Formal setups now need factual proof to comply.

‍

The Anti-Money Laundering Act provides the basis for financial rule reform, with changes in 2025–2026.

‍

This act establishes:

• The obligation to verify the source of funds (Proof of Funds);
• Requirements for the identification of beneficial owners;

‍

Control over transactions and financial flows.

• In conjunction with DBD requirements, this means that shareholders must confirm the real origin of capital; the absence of such evidence may lead to a refusal of registration or subsequent sanctions.

‍

5. Revenue Code of Thailand (Section 77 and related VAT provisions). Tax aspects are regulated by the Revenue Code of Thailand, which defines the concept of “place of business” for taxation purposes, particularly for VAT. According to Section 77 and related regulations:

• A company must have a factual place of business operations.
• For VAT registration, it is necessary to provide an office address and proof of its existence (including physical indicators such as signage).
• Tax authorities have the right to inspect whether the declared place of activity matches the factual one.

‍

These requirements directly conflict with the use of a “virtual office,” as tax registration requires a real physical presence rather than just a formal address.

‍

ІV. Real presence requirement (substance)

‍

In 2026, the “substance” requirement in Thailand gained practical and verifiable substance, directly impacting the possibility of company registration. The key position of the Department of Business Development (DBD) is that a registered office must not only be declared but also confirmed as a real object with a legal title and a digital footprint.

‍

First, in accordance with Notification No. 1/2569 (2026) of the DBD re: Address Verification Requirements, mandatory address verification via state registries has been introduced. This means that the address must match the data in the real estate and civil registration registries. If an address cannot be identified or lacks confirmation in digital databases, the registrar may refuse registration. Consequently, addresses that do not factually exist or “mass” addresses without an individual link to the company are automatically disqualified.

‍

Second, the requirement for an address set forth by the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand is interpreted in new practice alongside DBD requirements as an obligation to have a confirmed right to use the premises. In practice, this necessitates the submission of:

• A lease agreement, or
• Ownership documents combined with the owner's consent.

‍

The key point: documents must not only exist but must also correspond to the data in state registries. Formal letters of consent or “virtual” services without a real agreement are no longer accepted.

‍

Third, the verification procedure is integrated with the digital infrastructure (NDID, DBD Biz Regist), ensuring automatic data matching. The address is verified alongside:

• Applicant data;
• Information regarding the property owner;
• Registration records.

‍

Any discrepancy results in the application being blocked at the pre-screening stage.

‍

V. Liability for false information

‍

Within the framework of the 2026 reform, providing false information during company registration—specifically the use of a fictitious address—is treated as a breach of the duty to ensure the accuracy of registration data. This approach stems directly from the Act Determining Offenses Relating to Registered Partnership, Limited Partnership, Limited Company, Association, and Foundation, which establishes liability for violations of registration requirements and corporate data management.

‍

Specifically, under this Act (including Section 14), a company is obliged to maintain a properly registered office and to report truthful information regarding it. Under the current Department of Business Development (DBD) administrative practice, submitting a fictitious or unverified address is effectively treated as a failure to fulfill this duty, as such an address does not meet the requirements for a registered office as a real place of contact for the company. If a false address is submitted willfully, the provisions regarding the submission of false statements to a state authority apply. Pursuant to Section 46 of the same Act, liability arises if a person provides false information or conceals material facts with the intent to mislead the registrar. In the 2026 context, this covers situations where an address is used formally to create the appearance of presence without actual use of the premises.

‍

Furthermore, it should be noted that liability is not limited to the company as a legal entity. According to Section 25 of the aforementioned Act, directors and persons responsible for management may be held personally liable for violations involving the submission of false data. This reinforces the importance of proper due diligence at the registration stage and throughout ongoing business operations.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The 2026 transparency reform in Thailand marks a decisive shift from a formalistic registration model to a substance-based regulatory framework. Practices that were once tolerated - including the widespread use of “virtual offices” and mass registration addresses - are no longer compatible with the regulator's expectations.

‍

Through the combined application of corporate, AML, and tax regulations, as well as new administrative orders of the Department of Business Development, the concept of a registered office has been fundamentally redefined. It now requires verifiable physical presence, legal rights to the premises, and consistency with state digital records.

‍

In this new environment, company registration is no longer a procedural step but a compliance gateway, where address, ownership structure, and financial capacity are all subject to scrutiny. As a result, the use of fictitious or purely formal arrangements is ineffective and exposes businesses and their directors to significant legal risks.

‍

Connect with TUCC

‍

Stay updated with the latest market insights, legal guides, and networking opportunities within the Thai-Ukrainian business corridor.

‍

Website: thaiukraine.org

‍

Email: info@thaiukraine.org

‍

LinkedIn: Thai-Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce