PHUKET, THAILAND – Thailand’s tourism authorities in Phuket stepped up action against suspected “nominee” tour companies and identified two major violations, including a case involving an Israeli director whose firm now faced license revocation.
Raid on tour operators in Phuket
On 8 April 2026, the Register Office for Travel Enterprises and Tour Guides (Southern Region, District 2) announced that inspections had been carried out on 6 April 2026. The checks involved the Tourism Ministry’s registration office working together with the Phuket Provincial Tourist Police.
The operation was aimed at tour businesses active on the island. Officials focused on compliance with license conditions and management structures at the inspected companies.
Focus on breaches of tourism and guide law
According to the authorities, the operation was designed to impose order and tackle violations under the Travel Enterprises and Tour Guides Act (B.E. 2551/2008). During intensive on-site inspections, officials identified two major cases.
For both companies, the agency said it was preparing measures for license revocation and financial penalties. Further procedures were to follow the legal provisions of the tourism law.
Suspected nominee structure with foreign influence
In one company, inspectors said they discovered irregularities during a more in-depth review that pointed to a concealed proxy or “nominee” structure. A change in the management and board structure after the license had been granted was considered particularly conspicuous.
Officials viewed this post-licensing change as an indication of possible foreign influence behind the business. The case was cited as an example of how nominee constructions could be used to bypass restrictions on foreign participation.
Israeli director triggers planned license revocation
According to the authorities, the current board of the firm in question consisted of two people: one Thai national and one Israeli citizen. This configuration was assessed as lacking the necessary qualification under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act.
That provision requires that more than half of all company directors must be Thai nationals. Because this requirement was not met, the authorities prepared to revoke the company’s license.
Authorities cite protection of image and Thai operators’ interests
The registration office announced that it would immediately withdraw the license of the affected company in order to prevent damage to Thailand’s tourism image. Officials stressed that a strict response was necessary to maintain confidence in the regulatory system.
They also pointed to the need to protect the economic interests of Thai operators in the tourism sector. According to the agency, enforcement against nominee structures helped ensure fair competition for compliant local businesses.
Second case: operations at wrong location without registered branch
On the same day, inspectors examined another tour company that was properly registered but allegedly violated rules regarding its business address. The firm was said to have operated at a location that did not match the one stated in its license.
In addition, a branch office had reportedly not been correctly registered, which the authorities treated as a violation under Section 22/2 of the Act. The case was forwarded for further legal action and possible fines.
Signal to foreign capital groups and nominee models
The authorities described the operation as a warning signal to operators acting unlawfully in the market. They emphasized that this applied in particular to foreign capital groups that used Thais as nominees.
At the same time, officials underlined that the measures were intended to improve transparency in the tourism sector and protect law-abiding Thai companies.
“The measures serve transparency in the tourism sector and protect compliant Thai enterprises.”
said the registration office, according to the report.
Debate over stricter controls and legal models
The report also raised questions about future policy toward tour companies with foreign participation. It asked whether Thailand should subject such firms to even stricter controls, or instead focus on clearer and faster procedures for legal business models.
Readers were invited to share how they experienced the situation in Phuket, including whether inspections led to more quality and fairness or had negative effects on supply and prices.
“Should Thailand introduce even stricter checks for tour firms with foreign participation, or are clearer procedures for legal models more important?”
said the article’s closing commentary.