Meanwhile, the island resort of Samui is reopening in a limited capacity to foreign tourists. The Samui Sandbox, or what some have dubbed the Samui corridor (due to the sealed pipeline of travelers transitioning through Bangkok), has commenced in recent days although there seems to be less than optimal demand for this program compared to its Phuket counterpart. To quote directly from a recent article titled “No foreign tourists on first day of Samui reopening” in The Nation:

Only 11 foreigners – all members of the media – will take the Bangkok Airways flight from Bangkok to Samui on Thursday, according to the Koh Samui Tourism Promotion Association. “We do not expect a lot of travellers to visit Thailand in the third quarter this year as the rise in the country’s daily Covid-19 cases would affect their confidence,” association chairman Ratchaporn Poolsawas said on Wednesday. “However, what we can do is start tourist operations in line with standard procedure in a bid to stimulate the country’s tourism.”

Clearly, demand for the Samui project is not as robust as some might hope. However, as the weeks go by the Samui program may prove to be a desired destination for future tourists. Also, it may prove to be an alternative to the Phuket Sandbox in a hypothetical situation where the Phuket program must be rolled back even though this does not appear to be a likely possibility as of the time of this writing.

While positive news abounds for Phuket and Samui, Bangkok remains under severe lockdown conditions presumably throughout the remainder of July. Restaurants cannot provide dine-in services, alcohol service of all kinds are banned, shopping malls are closed, and the city remains in a de facto state of severe lockdown. When exactly this will end remains to be seen as calls from within Thailand and in other jurisdictions are being made for a paradigm shift in the way pandemic response is undertaken with some arguing that the containment strategy is no longer viable especially in light of the devastating economic impact these measures have had and which will presumably continue should these policies continue to be enforced.

While the American Embassy in Thailand continues to provide US visa interviews and other routine services (albeit in a rather truncated manner) some have argued that the Embassy should provide vaccinations for expats Americans. As of the time of this writing, the Embassy has stated this service will not be provided and it seems unlikely this will change any time soon.

The China-specific issues notwithstanding, many have pointed to the increasing strength of the Thai baht as a cause of concern. Budget conscious travelers to Thailand are being put off by the relative increase in cost to travel to the Kingdom as a result of the appreciating local currency.

Finally, some of the decreasing tourist numbers could be attributed to the increasingly stringent immigration policies being placed upon ostensible tourists. In the past, there were a number of individuals who opted to live in Thailand utilizing tourist visas or 30 day stamps. These individuals who have been tabulated as “tourists” in the immigration records, but the reality was that these people were using such visas to live in the Kingdom. New enforcement measures have been put in place and new policies promulgated which are designed to discourage such behavior. For example, where once overstay in Thailand was considered a rather trivial offense which resulted in a relatively nominal fine, especially for those who overstayed their visa for a prolonged period. Now overstay can result in deportation and a prolonged registration on the Thailand Blacklist. Meanwhile, Immigration officers at border checkpoints have been turning away prospective entrants to Thailand if they are using multiple 30 day stamps in one year or are attempting to remain for a prolonged period of time in the Kingdom on single entry or multiple entry tourist visas.

Notwithstanding the above issues, Thailand remains one of the best jurisdictions in Southeast Asia to do business. Proof of the increased interest in Thailand is the fact that Foreign Direct Investment in Thailand has increased by over 200% in 2018. This increase in FDI may be attributed to the fact that the benefits which can be accorded to companies looking to do business in Thailand under the Board of Investment (BOI) are substantial and can even include prolonged tax holidays. Meanwhile, Thailand boasts the best infrastructure in the region and Bangkok has seen tremendous real estate growth as well as infrastructural improvement including, but not limited to, the expansion of the rail system within the city. High speed rail systems are likely to be brought online in coming years as well. Clearly, although Thailand is seeing some decline in terms of tourism it is increasingly apparent that business travelers and investors are choosing the Kingdom to conduct business.

It should be noted that along with all of the above developments, Thailand remains arguably the best jurisdiction for Americans doing business in the region as Americans can enjoy the benefits of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. This agreement allows Americans citizens and American companies “national treatment” when doing business in the Kingdom thereby permitting 100% ownership of American enterprises operating in Thailand. This coupled with Thailand’s infrastructure and business environment makes Thailand an especially welcoming destination for American investment.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that some new developments have taken place with regard to this topic. To quote directly from the website of The Nation Newspaper:

THE Business Development Department has reviewed a new draft law and added in the document that a foreign individual cannot register a business in the Kingdom. The move aims to prevent |foreign enterprises from competing against Thais in many businesses that should be preserved for Thais. The original draft, known as “one person, one company,” states only that a single person can register a business in Thailand.

As readers of this blog and website may be aware there are many provisions enshrined in Thai law designed to protect Thai enterprises from foreign competition in Thailand. Most notable is the Foreign Business Act which specifically designates the type of business activities which are restricted to foreign nationals. As the website of Coconuts Bangkok noted:

This addition to the draft is designed to keep foreign businesses from competing against Thai companies in the long list of industries that the government has deemed reserved for Thai nationals only.

The aforementioned list of industries is detailed in the provisions of the Foreign Business Act. Currently, Thai law requires that a limited company have at least 3 shareholders in order to be registered pursuant to Thai law. This proposed law would change those provisions. It appears that Thailand would be the third country in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to adopt this type of change while Malaysia is apparently reviewing similar legislation.

The final draft of this proposed law remains to be seen, but it seems logical to assume that easing of corporate regulation of Thai company structures will result in increased business activity.

It should be noted that pursuant to the terms of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity, it is possible for American citizens to own virtually 100% of their companies in Thailand notwithstanding the provisions of the Foreign Business Act. It remains to be seen how these changes to the law will impact the registration of so called Amity Treaty Companies.

Mr Pongpun said the authorities were improving regulations on the incorporation of private companies to allow the incorporation of a juristic person registered by only one person.

At present, corporations (also referred to as juristic persons) in Thailand must have a minimum of three (3) shareholders in order to incorporate under Thai law. It should be noted that prior to an amendment to Thai corporate law at approximately the turn of the century it was required that all companies registered in Thailand have a minimum of 7 shareholders in order to incorporate pursuant to Thai law. Many at the time felt that the 7 shareholders requirement was too cumbersome and for that reason the statutorily required number of shareholders was reduced to 3. Since then, there have been those who have noted their belief that allowing Thai corporate structures with only one shareholder would bring Thai corporate law more in line with similar bodies of law globally. For example, in many American jurisdictions Limited Liability Companies or LLCs are only required to have one member/shareholder, while similar Limited Company (Ltd.) structures are allowed in Britain and the Commonwealth nations and many European jurisdictions allow for similar corporate structures as well.

It remains to be seen whether Thai corporate law will be amended to allow for single shareholder corporations in Thailand. It is a good sign that such structures are being considered by Thai officials especially since such structures would be especially beneficial to small business owners in Thailand. Of special note to American readers, pursuant to the provisions of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity it is possible for American Citizens to own 100% of an Amity company registered in Thailand. Should the aforementioned changes take place it could result in Americans being able to own their small business singularly without any Thai shareholders.

In the past, Thai authorities did not, in general, heavily scrutinize Thai companies with all Thai shareholders, even such entities having a foreign director. In fact, there was a time when simply maintaining a majority of Thai shareholders provided a degree of protection against substantial official examination. Thai partnerships (both limited and ordinary) were also somewhat immune from significant governmental oversight even where a foreign partner controlled a stake the firm. However, it should be noted that pursuant to the provisions of the Thai Foreign Business Act virtually all Thai business entities with a foreign majority ownership structure have been required to obtain either a Foreign Business License, a Treaty Certificate pursuant to the provisions of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity, or some other form of documentation showing either licensure from the Ministry of Commerce pursuant to Thai law or exemption based upon a Free Trade Agreement.

As of January 2013, a new policy regarding newly established Thai companies came into effect. Thai companies with any foreign directors must now prove that the registered capital has been paid into the company by the relevant shareholders. This is even the case where the company is wholly owned by Thai nationals. Furthermore, where a foreign national maintains 50% (or more) interest in a Thai partnership evidence must be provided showing paid up capital in the enterprise. Registered capital has always been an issue for Thai authorities, but it would now appear that the rules regarding registered capital will be applied more stringently especially where there is a foreign director or partner involved in the Thai company or partnership.

As the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is set to come into existence in 2015 and based upon the fact that Thailand has signed various international agreements pertaining to international trade and foreign direct investment there are some who argue that the time is quickly coming when Thai regulation of foreign run businesses will be liberalized. Until that time comes, the rules imposed upon foreigners setting up businesses in Thailand are likely to be more strictly enforced compared to times past.

For related information please see: Thailand Business Registration.

A Thailand limited partnership generally consists of, at a minimum, at least one Managing Partner who manages the business and at least one Limited Partner. Depending upon the unique circumstances of a given business enterprise there could be one or more managing partners and one or more limited partners. Although managing partners are personally liable for partnership debts, limited partners are not persoally liable for partnership debts and are only personally liable for the their capital contributions, especially if said contributions have been removed, in whole or in part, or if said contributions were never submitted. It should be noted that limited partners may lose some degree of their limited liability if the limited partner engages in the managment of the partnership or allows his or her name to be used in the Limited Partnership’s legal name. Limited Partnerships in Thailand must register their partnership agreement with the Ministry of Commerce in the same manner as a Registered Ordinary Partnership. As a general rule, Limited Partnerships are taxed in much the same manner as Registered Ordinary Partnerships.

Limited Partnerships which include a foreign national may be subject to the provisions stipulated in the Foreign Business Act. Therefore, where a foreign national owns a majority interest in a Thai Limited Partnership the Partnership may need to apply for a Thai Foreign Business License. However, American Citizens wishing to structure a limited partnership in Thailand may be eligible to obtain an Amity Treaty Certificate for the partnership pursuant to the terms of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. If a foreign national owns simply a minority interest in a Thai limited partnership as a limited partner, then the partnership may not be required to obtain a foreign business license. However, the foreign national would not be able to manage the limited partnership.

Limited partnerships are able to be converted into limited companies so long as such conversion complies with relevant Thai corporate law.

For information regarding Thai Limited Companies please see: Company Registration Thailand.

It is not uncommon for a permanent resident to receive a plum posting for an American corporation overseas or for its subsidiary. This is a frequent occurrence these days in a globalized world, and especially when jobs have become more scarce in the US since the economic downturn. While such an assignment may provide a great boost to the permanent resident’s career, he or she may still wish to preserve the ability to naturalize, but the overseas posting presents a challenge since it may be difficult to maintain continuous residence. One of the key requirements for applying for US citizenship under INA § 316(a) is the need to be physically present for half the time in the US during the qualifying period, which may either be five or three years (if one is married to a US citizen) and to have also resided continuously during this period. The challenges of maintaining residence while on an overseas assignment were addressed in a prior blog, Naturalizing In A Flat World, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/07/naturalizing-in-flat-world.html.

Those reading this blog are well advised to click on the hyperlinks above to read the above cited article in its entirety as the article is very insightful.

Those who are unfamiliar with the overall immigration process should note that visas such as the CR-1 visa and the IR-1 visa (utilized by the immigrant spouses of American Citizens) can place the visa holder on something of a “path to Citizenship”. That being stated, the CR-1 visa only provides the visa holder with conditional lawful permanent residence upon entry as such visas are issued to couples who have been married for less than 2 years at the time of admission to the USA. Meanwhile, the IR-1 visa provides unconditional lawful permanent residence upon admission to the USA and is issued to spouses of American Citizens who have been married for 2 years or more. After remaining in permanent resident status in the USA for 3 years, and maintaining the requisite physical presence required under relevant US law, a permanent resident, married to an American, can file for naturalization to United States Citizenship.

This issue also relates to the K-1 visa (a non-immigrant US fiance visa) because those who enter the United States in K-1 status, get married, and apply for adjustment of status may begin accruing time toward eventual naturalization as soon as the adjustment of status petition is approved. Once an adjustment is approved for a K-1 visa holder, then that individual essentially becomes a CR-1 visa holder with Lawful Permanent Residence. Therefore, the K-1 holder, now permanent resident, must still apply for a lift of conditions before being granted unconditional lawful permanent residence which must precede an eventual naturalization application.

As noted in the article cited above, there may be some US permanent residents who can accrue time toward naturalization while not actually physically in the United States if such an endeavor fits within some of the exceptions present within the statutory framework of relevant US Immigration law. American companies with offices abroad may fit the statutory exception scheme for naturalization notwithstanding foreign residence. However, the unique facts in any case require that those truly interested in this issue must either conduct their own thorough research or retain the assistance of an American attorney as this issue can be highly complex.

Many American companies operating out of the Kingdom of Thailand opt to conduct their affairs pursuant to the privileges accorded to Americans and American companies under the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. So-called “Treaty of Amity Companies” may allow for an American individual or company to own virtually 100% of a Thai enterprise conducting business in Thailand. Amity certification allows American businesses to operate with “National Treatment” and thereby circumvent some of the restrictions placed upon foreign business enterprises pursuant to other relevant Thai law. That said, Amity Treaty certification may not, in and of itself, mean that one working for such a company can accrue time toward naturalization while abroad as such issues are likely best analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

For related information please see: Thai Company or US Company Registration.

(Reuters) – For Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric (GE.N), the 130 year-old American industrial behemoth, the financial crisis marked the end of the age of America’s economic dominance.

This blogger has noticed that there seems to be a level of pessimism regarding the American economy. Although it is currently going through economic turbulence, and has been for a while, the US economy, in this blogger’s opinion; remains one of best countries in the world for trade and economic activity. Those doing business in the USA may enjoy the benefits that come from the American financial, economic, and physical infrastructure. Hopefully, the optimism for which America has, in the past, been noted for will return once the economy returns to an “even keel”. Reuters continues:

But Mr. Immelt said the future will be different. For the next 25 years, he said, the American consumer “is not going to be the engine of global growth. It is going to be the billion people joining the middle class in Asia, it is going to be what the resource-rich countries do with their newfound wealth of high oil prices. That’s the game.”

A lot of that game will be played in China. At a moment when it is compulsory on the American right to pay homage to the exceptionalism of the United States, Mr. Immelt, a lifelong Republican, is matter-of-fact about China’s inevitable rise.

The interesting piece of information that this blogger noted in the aforementioned article was the fact that the G.E. CEO took notice of the fact that the middle class is growing rapidly in Asia. The thought of an Asian middle class numbering 1 billion or more is truly staggering when one takes into account the economic impact of such growth. As Asians in general become more affluent the side effects will likely be increased trade and economic activity as these newly minted members of the middle class use their new found wealth to make purchases of property, goods, and services (in Asia, the EU, UK, and the United States). The most poignant line of this Reuters article, in this blogger’s opinion was:

“It is going to be the biggest economy in the world,” Mr. Immelt said of China. “The only question is when.”

There is little doubt that China has an incredible capacity for growth and those looking international investment or business opportunities are well advised to research the Chinese market. That said, China does not represent the only country in Asia which has economic opportunities that are becoming more readily available to investors and entrepreneurs due to globalization. The Kingdom of Thailand, a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), has investment opportunities in the form of Thai Property, Thai Real Estate, and Thai businesses. Furthermore, for Americans conducting business in Thailand can prove profitable especially since the US-Thai Treaty of Amity allows Americans to own virtually 100% of a Thai Company with Amity Treaty certification (sometimes referred to as an Amity Company).

Meanwhile, the landlocked country of Laos recently opened a Lao Securities Exchange in an effort to raise capital through equity investment. The Kingdom of Cambodia recently announced that a Cambodian Stock Exchange is to be unveiled in mid-2011 while recent reports have noted that Burmese officials hope to be in the process of creating a Myanmar Stock Exchange as well. Such developments remain to be fully realized, but such examples clearly indicate that Mainland China is not the only “game in town” when it comes to investment opportunities and economic growth in Asia.

For related information please see: US Company Registration.

Several companies have recently disclosed risks arising from the political turmoil in Thailand. For example, Priceline.com, an online hotel auctioneer, recently disclosed that “civil unrest in Thailand, a key market for our Agoda business and the Asian business of Booking.com. This may result in “significant year-over-year declines in booking volumes in this market….Thailand has experienced disruptive civil unrest in prior years as well and continued or future civil or political unrest could further disrupt Agoda’s Thailand-based business and operations.”

Communication cable manufacturer General Cable is also reporting that it is subject to business risk arising from unrest in Thailand. The copper, aluminum, and fiber optic wire and cable products provider recently disclosed that its “business is subject to the economic, political and other risks of maintaining facilities and selling products in foreign countries. . . Thailand recently experienced significant political and militant unrest in certain provinces. The country’s elected government was overthrown in September 2006, with an elected government only recently restored.” [emphasis in original]

Political turmoil can have substantial unforeseen consequences for some businesses and business models operating throughout Asia. This is why retaining the assistance of local legal counsel can be advantageous for multinational corporations as professionals with on-the-ground knowledge of local business customs and practices can guide clients away from unforeseen legal, and in some cases; business, risks.

There are many, this author included, who feel that the current political turbulence in Thailand is simply a “bump in the road” eventually leading to overall tranquility and economic prosperity in the Kingdom of Thailand as well as the South East Asia region. Bearing that in mind, those wishing to establish a business or corporate presence in Thailand are well advised to conduct research and due diligence before making irrevocable business decisions as  maintaining a corporate presence in Bangkok, or the emerging markets in Cambodia, Laos, Burma (Myanmar), Malaysia, and Vietnam can be fraught with unforeseen legal and business issues which may not arise in jurisdictions such as the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, or Canada.

Many wishing to do business in Thailand opt to do so under a Thai Limited Company as this type of juristic person provides a measure of limited liability. Limited Liability is often one of the first methods employed by those wishing to hedge against unforeseen future business risks. American businesses may also enjoy many benefits pursuant to the language of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. Regardless of the type of corporate structure, any foreigner wishing to work in the Kingdom of Thailand must obtain a Thai work permit prior to taking up employment pursuant to Thai labor law.

For related information please see: Bangkok Lawyer or Amity Treaty Company.