Can DTV holders work remotely for foreign companies on the soft power visa in Thailand?

The new Thai law made by Chris Mitchel announced in the Royal Gazette

OR

statements signed of by the head of Royal Thai Police Chris Mitchel, or any other Thai Government department under your supervision.l

@Rob***

just a question mate because I'm very curious, what do you mean by official announcement and official statement? Can you give me an example just so I'm clear on what you mean by those two things

@Rob***

No one is claiming “everyone can work in Thailand.”

I cited the Immigration Act and the Working of Aliens Act. You’ve cited nothing.

Mockery isn’t a substitute for a statute. If you believe offshore remote work is illegal for DTV holders, cite the section. Otherwise, this is just opinion which is not law.

@Chris *********

LOL. Chris makes Thai law.

Good job, well done, lots of anonymous or nicknames would be proud of you.

I live in the real world.

enjoy yourself, try to make some other laws. who knows it might help people

@Rob***

there is no Thai law or announcement that says “everybody can work in Thailand”, that’s not how Thai law functions.

Thai law works by prohibition, not blanket permissions. The relevant statutes are the Immigration Act and the Working of Aliens Act, both of which I’ve already linked. Neither contains a prohibition on offshore, foreign sourced remote work by DTV holders.

If you believe such a prohibition exists, please cite the section of whichever law and I'll have a read

@Chris *********

where did you post that link to the official law and announcement that everybody can work in Thailand?

IF you mean this post, there is NO official statement to find.

Just some random phrases from a foreigner.

0/

Yeah

@Khun *****

! You cant tell him what to do, he's a big boy!

@Khun *****

I go to bed when I want, not when you say so.

I don't forget what I say, don't worry.

You on the other hand seem a bit confused, you name friends of you who should have asked me for proof about the Working of Aliens Act, but I don't see them in this discussion here, so how could they ask me for evidence.?

@Luit ****************

Now go to bed before you start forgetting what you're saying again. There's a good lad.

@Lu**

I thought you said Google knows everything? It certainly knows you're full of nonsense 😂

@Chris *********

nice try!

@Lu**

again, Google is not the friend you think it is 😂😂😂

@Lu**

are you seriously relying on Google AI? 😂

You are still reversing the burden of proof.

I am not claiming an “exception.” I am disputing your claim that the Working of Aliens Act prohibits all work by default unless expressly permitted. That is a positive assertion, and it requires a statutory citation.

The Act defines “work” (Section 5), enumerates categories where permits may be granted (Section 7), and prohibits engaging in work that requires a permit without holding one (Section 9). None of those provisions state that all activity, including offshore, foreign sourced remote work with no Thai employer, no Thai clients, and no Thai economic nexus, is regulated employment by default.

Law does not operate on “everything is illegal unless exempt” unless the statute explicitly says so. This Act does not.

Google results, AI summaries, or how many people disagree are not legal authority. Statutory text is.

If you believe the Act prohibits all remote work performed while physically in Thailand regardless of employer, client, or nexus, please cite the exact section and wording that says that.

@Khun *****

Proof of what, the Act does not exclude remote work, so how can I proof?

You can find everywhere on the internet that Thai Working of Aliens Act does not make an exception for remote work, but when you think it does, just show me where the exception is described.

And

@Chris *********

and Khun Sean together is just 2, not my definition of numerous.

But what else can you expect from somebody who puts Khun for his own name? Somebody with knowledge about Thailand would never, ever do so.

@Chris *********

You say it excludes some types of work you should show the exclusion, how can I show exclusions that only exist in your mind.

Of course Google is not a legal source, but its AI is thousands of times better than your intelligence and that of your lawyer.

And I decide if I stop with something, that is just not up to you.

When you don't agree with what Google AI finds that is up to you, but till this very moment you are just the ONLY ONE that keeps telling remote work is outside the scope of the Act without any proof.

You can keep telling so a thousand times or more, but without any proof and all other signs suggesting you are wrong, I stop this discussion with you until you proof something.

Where you keep posting misinfornation I keep correcting you.

Have a nice evening.

@Luit ****************

It's really about time you start providing evidence for your imaginary claims. You've been asked by numerous members now so it seems like your purpose is just trolling.

@Lu**

I'm very curious as to what field you're in/were in

@Lu**

repeating that “the Act prohibits all work unless permitted” does not make it so.

Please cite the section and wording that states all work performed in Thailand by a foreigner is prohibited by default, including offshore, foreign sourced remote work.

You and your Google obsession man, if that's what you're basing your arguments of you need to stop 😂 “Google says” is not a legal source.

@Chris *********

Again, the Working of Aliens Act prohibits all work done in Thailand, regardless if or where it is paid, unless it is permitted by a work permit or exempted by a visa. Remote work is also work done in Thailand and is not without the scope as you keep suggesting without any proof. Remote work is also requiring a permit or exempt by visa.

When the act was not for all work, the exceptions should be writen somewhere and not only in your stubborn mind.

Maybe Google this:

"is remote work in Thailand allowed without visa or work permit"

It also will give a clear explanation, just like I told here.

@Lu**

voluntary work is not what’s being discussed here, this is about the DTV.

The question is whether the Working of Aliens Act or Immigration/DTV conditions prohibit offshore, foreign-sourced remote work with no Thai employer, no Thai clients, and no Thai economic nexus. They do not.

The Act does not regulate “all activity by foreigners by default.” It regulates work requiring a permit, and then defines when a permit is required. That structure necessarily limits scope.

The fact that many people previously registered companies or obtained work permits before DTV/LTR existed is not evidence of illegality, it reflects legal uncertainty and lack of appropriate visa categories at the time, which the DTV was explicitly created to address.

If you believe the Act prohibits offshore remote work by DTV holders, please cite the section and wording that states this. Repeating that the scope is “very broad” is not a statutory reference.

@Chris *********

I suggest you find a new lawyer, because you are totally wrong, indeed voluntary work is prohibited by this law and you really need a work permit for voluntary work.

Your ideas just don't match the reality, which is the scope is very broad.

Why do you think before DTV and LTR a large number of remote workers registered a company, applied for work permit and visa just to keep everything legal.

You keep saying that the structure of the act limited the scope, but that does not make sense.

If you're getting this information you're basing your strange stance on from a lawyer, I'd suggest finding a new lawyer 😂

@Lu**

the scope is limited by the Act’s own structure and operative provisions, not by an extra sentence saying “this law doesn’t cover everything.”

Section 5 defines “work” for the purposes of the Act, and the Act then regulates when a work permit is required and who can issue one. Every enforcement provision, penalty, exemption, and permit mechanism presupposes a regulated employment relationship i.e. services rendered for an employer or business that is subject to Thai jurisdiction.

That is the scope. Laws regulate what they are designed to regulate.

If the Act covered all activity by foreigners in Thailand regardless of employer, client, location, or payment, then:

• work permits would not be employer-based

• exemptions would be meaningless

• unpaid activity, hobbies, and personal remote activity would all be criminalised

• the Act would say so explicitly

It does none of those things.

Your argument assumes a universal prohibition and asks others to prove an exemption. That reverses how statutory law works. Scope is defined by what the Act regulates and enforces, not by hypothetical activities it never mentions.

If you believe the Act regulates all foreign activity performed inside Thailand, please cite the section that states this. Definitions alone are not prohibitions.

@Chris *********

Then show me that the context limits the scope of the law.

There is nothing at all mentioned about the scope restrictions you suppose are there.

You tell me my reasoning breaks down, but in fact it is yours, you keep telling that work for foreign employers and not Thai clients are out of scope, but nowhere that restriction can be shown by you, so it is just an assumption by you.

It is the same as when I tell work without an employer or voluntary work are without the scope because they are not explicitly mentioned in the law.

Maybe you should ask your lawyer about this, he might explain it better to you.

@Lu**

this is where your reasoning breaks down.

Statutes don’t regulate “everything by default” and then require people to prove exemptions. They regulate what they define.

Section 5 defines “work” in a specific legal context. You’re asserting a universal rule, that all activity by a foreigner inside Thailand is regulated work, but that rule is not written anywhere in the Act.

This is like saying walking is illegal unless explicitly permitted, simply because jaywalking is prohibited. That’s not how prohibition based law works.

If you believe the Act regulates all foreign activity regardless of employer, client, location, or payment, the burden is on you to cite the section that says so.

@Chris *********

You limit the scope of the Working of Aliens Act, the limits you mention are nowhere in the Act, but only in your imagination.

@Lu**

this is where you’re getting it backwards.

I’m not claiming an “exemption.” I’m pointing to the scope of the Act itself. Laws don’t regulate “everything by default” and then require people to prove they’re exempt, they regulate what they define.

Section 5 of the Working of Aliens Act defines “work” in the context of employment or services rendered for an employer or business. The Act then regulates when a work permit is required. It does not state that all human activity by a foreigner is regulated work, nor that physical presence alone triggers regulation.

You’re asserting a universal rule (“all work, regardless of employer, location, or payment”) that requires explicit statutory language. There is none.

I don’t need to prove an exemption from a prohibition that is never stated. If you believe the Act regulates all foreign activity performed in Thailand, the burden is on you to cite the section that says so.

Laws define prohibitions. What is not defined is not regulated.

@Chris *********

No, the law not only regulates work requiring a permit defined by Thai employer etc.

It regulates all work, also work for foreign employers or no employers, regardless of where and if it is paid.

You can make fun of that and only believe your own made restrictions, but they are just not in the law.

You claim some kind of work is exempted from this law and now you ask me to show it is NOT exempted????

How can I show something that not exists?

You should prove that categories of work you mention are exempted, otherwise there is no reason to believe they are exempted from the law.

On tax: you’re correct that the Revenue Department and Immigration are separate agencies, but that doesn’t make tax treatment irrelevant.

If foreign sourced remote income were inherently illegal employment, the Revenue Department would not waive filing obligations under the DTA, and Immigration would not issue or maintain lawful visa status.

Multiple agencies applying the same legal framework consistently is not coincidence, it reflects how Thai law actually functions.

@Lu**

you're back embarrassing yourself again 🤣

Thai law does not prohibit “all work by foreigners.” It regulates work requiring a permit, defined by Thai employer, Thai clients, or Thai economic activity. Offshore, foreign sourced remote work falls outside that definition. If you disagree, cite the section. Repeating an incorrect premise constantly doesn’t make it law.

@Chris *********

Revenue department has nothing to do with visa, for them only tax law and DTA between countries are of interest.

@Chris *********

You still keep reversing things, Thay law says all working for foreigners is prohibited.

That means they don't need to prohibit offshore foreign sourced remote work explicitly, it is all just in the definition of work, but you don't seem to believe that.

So for working as a foreigner you need to be granted explicitly.

That can be with a work permit or with a visa that grants an exception.

DTV workcation is one of those visa, just like LTR and Elite can allow work.

You’re confusing “permission” with “lawfulness.”

Thai law does not issue permissions for every lawful activity, it defines prohibitions.

The Working of Aliens Act regulates work requiring a permit (Thai employer, Thai clients, Thai economic nexus). It does not prohibit offshore remote work, and Immigration/DTV conditions add no such prohibition.

If explicit permission were required for everything lawful, most daily activities would be illegal by default. That is not how Thai law or any civil law system works.

Copied and past "Chris Mitchell

Anonymous participant 459 There is no article that says “Soft Power DTV holders may work remotely” because Thai law does not grant permissions that way."

So the law does not grant permission BUT

@Chris *********

does, what a joke.

Very simply put, law tells you what you can't do not what you can do.

Anonymous participant 459 There is no article that says “Soft Power DTV holders may work remotely” because Thai law does not grant permissions that way.

The correct legal question is whether offshore, foreign-sourced remote work is prohibited for DTV holders. It is not.

The Working of Aliens Act regulates employment requiring a work permit (Thai employer, Thai clients, or Thai economic nexus). The Immigration Act and DTV conditions contain no prohibition on foreign remote work, and no distinction is made between “workcation” and “soft power” DTV once issued.

This is also reflected in tax treatment. I attended the Thai Revenue Department to file a return and was explicitly told no filing was required, due to the nature of my foreign-sourced income and the Australia/Thailand tax treaty.

If foreign sourced remote income were automatically illegal “work,” the Revenue Department would not waive filing, and Immigration would not issue or maintain my legal DTV status.

In Thai law, what is not prohibited is lawful.

@Luit ****************

Kindly look for successful applicants online in this group (Traders and investors) and their threads to research if you are looking at assisting others.

@Tapan *******

I know there can be a lot of difference but the question here is when it will be work for workcation, and when is it just investment like savings are, what are the limits?

@Luit ****************

Owning stocks in a dormant account (or with occasional buying and selling) vs Trading are two different constructs.

Need to show: consistent buying and selling, P&L statments of brokerage accounts, cash flows into and out of Bank accounts towards brokerage, Tax Returns with Capital Gains, Declaration from a Chartered Accountant.

For more knowledge, you can search and look for cases which have been approved just in case you are looking at guiding someone.

@Tapan *******

I know, but when I am here on visa exempt, selling and buying stock for my own portfolio is generally not seen as work, but maybe the acvountant did fond a construction that makes it remote work.

If trading for yourself is seen as work, just having some stock would suffice for workcation and nobody would care about softpower anymore.

Honestly that's what I think it is. The money's drying up and the pension is measly and they're bitter at the world

@Chris *********

it's been the same for 25 years. They used to scream on Thaivisa that working remotely was illegal when it never has been and immigration has said they don't consider remote work to be "work" for immigration purposes.

They are just very jealous that it wasn't possible when they were younger.

It's really odd isn't it

@Chris *********

just like a bunch of bitter retirees here. They desperately want it to be true.

Yeah well that's a given 😂 before that

@Chris *********

Bored farang pensioner along with Bob D'Andrea and Robert Lagas.

@Jo**

I'm very curious what field you are in?

@Jo**

I recognise the sections you reference. They simply do not say what you claim they say.

Law turns on wording, not conviction.

If you ever find the clause that creates the prohibition you’re asserting, I’m happy to revisit.

@Chris *********

I've pointed out the sections various times. You just refuse to recognise them for what they are. That makes the conversation pointless but does nothing to change my position

@Jo**

No problem mate I appreciate your effort. If you ever find the section that actually says what you’re claiming, feel free to post it.

@Chris *********

I give up. I've done my best to educate you

@Jo**

you’re still collapsing the structure of the Act. Sections 5, 7, and 9 perform different functions.

Section 5 defines what “work” means for the purposes of the Act. A definition does not create a prohibition.

Section 7 then specifies which types of work may be performed by aliens and the conditions under which a permit may be granted. The existence of Section 7 is critical: it shows the Act regulates specific, enumerated categories of work, not all human activity by default. If all activity were regulated work, Section 7 would be unnecessary.

Section 9 prohibits engaging in work that requires a permit without holding one. It does not independently declare that all activity by a foreigner requires a permit. The permit requirement is triggered only when the regulated categories in the Act apply.

Nowhere in Sections 5, 7, or 9 does the Act state that physical presence in Thailand alone converts offshore, foreign sourced remote activity with no Thai employer, no Thai clients, and no Thai economic nexus into regulated employment.

@Chris *********

Section 9. No alien shall engage in any work other than the works

under section 7 and the permit shall be granted by the registrar, except for the alien

who enters into the Kingdom temporarily under the law on immigration so as to

engage in necessary and urgent work for a period of not exceeding fifteen days and

that alien may engage in that work after giving written notification to the registrar.

@Jo**

you’re collapsing three different provisions into one rule. They don’t do what you claim.

Section 5 defines what “work” means for the purposes of the Act. A definition does not create a prohibition. It defines the scope of activities that may be regulated when the operative sections apply.

Section 9 prohibits performing work that requires a work permit without one. The Act then specifies when a permit is required, which is why permits are employer-based and activity specific. It does not state that all activity by a foreigner requires a permit.

Section 4.7 is not a blanket authorisation to “work.” It is a ministerial authorisation mechanism for specific duties or missions where regulation would otherwise apply. It operates at the permission stage, not as a definition of work, and not as a post issuance visa condition.

None of these sections state that physical presence alone converts offshore, foreign-sourced activity into regulated employment, nor that all activity by foreigners is prohibited unless explicitly authorised. If that were the law, employer-based permits, exemptions, and defined categories would be pointless.

@Chris *********

lets try and make it simple

Section 5 defines work

Section 9 states one can't work without a work permit

Section 4.7 provides a mechanism for ministers to authorise one to enter and perform any duty or mission

@Jo**

a definition does not create a prohibition, enforcement clauses do.

Section 5 of the Working of Aliens Act defines what constitutes “work” for the purposes of the Act. It does not state that all activity by a foreigner is prohibited, nor that physical presence in Thailand alone converts foreign, offshore activity into regulated employment.

If the definition itself were a prohibition covering “all and any type of work,” the Act would not require employer-based permits, exemptions, or enumerated categories, yet it does. The structure of the Act itself contradicts your reading.

On “4.7” specifically: this section relates to visa application pathways and eligibility, not post issuance legal permissions or prohibitions. It explains how an applicant qualifies for a visa category at the time of application.

Once a DTV is issued, Immigration law does not create separate ongoing legal regimes based on which subcategory (workcation vs soft power) was used to apply. There is no clause in the Immigration Act, DTV conditions, ministerial regulation, or MFA guidance stating that remote work is permitted only for workcation applicants and prohibited for soft-power applicants after issuance.

Application criteria are not ongoing conditions unless they are expressly written as such. No such condition exists for the DTV.

A prohibition must be written. If you believe the Working of Aliens Act or Immigration regulations prohibit offshore, foreign-sourced remote work performed with no Thai employer, no Thai clients, and no Thai economic nexus, please cite the section and wording that states this.

@Chris *********

the prohibition is contained in the definition of work, it clearly covers all and any type of work and makes no reference to an employer or business. The get out for the workation option is covered by 4.7

I'll put it into a scenario for you.

Think jaywalking. There’s no law saying “walking on a footpath is allowed.” But, there is a law saying you can’t jaywalk.

The Working of Aliens Act works the same way: it regulates specific kinds of work that require a permit. It does not declare all activity by foreigners illegal unless expressly permitted.

A prohibition must be written. If it isn’t, it doesn’t exist.

@Jo**

you keep asserting “ALL work” but you still haven’t shown where the Act says that.

Please point to the section and wording where the Working of Aliens Act states that all activity performed by a foreigner while physically present in Thailand (or words to that affect) is regulated work.

We have discussed Section 5, which defines “work” in relation to employment or services rendered for an employer or business, which is why the Act then regulates when a work permit is required i.e. Thai employer, Thai clients, or Thai economic activity.

There is no clause stating that mere physical presence in Thailand automatically converts foreign, offshore activity into regulated employment, and no provision stating that “ALL work by aliens” is prohibited unless expressly permitted.

If the Act truly “covers ALL types of work,” please quote the exact statutory language. Constantly repeating the claim isn’t the same as citing the law.

@Chris *********

the act doesn't need to classify offshore or remote activity because it covers ALL types of work that takes place in Thailands jurisdiction by aliens, that's you and me and any other non Thai person. I've previously pointed out to you the applicable sections of the act but you somehow ignore them and rule them out as if you had the power to rewrite Thai law

@Jo**

that is not what the Working of Aliens Act says.

The Act does not regulate “all work carried out inside Thailand.” It regulates work requiring a work permit, which is defined by the existence of a Thai employer, Thai clients, or Thai economic activity.

Section 5 defines “work” in the context of employment or services for the benefit of an employer or business in Thailand. The Act does not classify offshore, foreign sourced remote activity with no Thai nexus as regulated employment.

There is no section of the Act that states physical presence in Thailand alone converts foreign, offshore work into regulated employment.

Immigration/DTV conditions also contain no clause limiting remote work by DTV holders to the “workcation” application pathway once the visa is issued.

If you believe the Act “expressly states” otherwise, please cite the section number and wording. Assertions aren’t law, statutes are.

@Chris *********

The Working of Aliens Act regulates ALL work carried out inside Thailand including remote work that you perform inside Thailand. It expressly states that you need either a work permit or specific permission to allow you to work. In the case of a DTV that permission is only given via an application under the Workation route.

@Rob***

Sir respectfully, statutes are official statements.

The Working of Aliens Act is primary legislation enacted by Parliament and enforced by the Ministry of Labour. It regulates when a work permit is required, specifically where there is a Thai employer, Thai clients, or Thai economic activity. It does not prohibit offshore, foreign-sourced remote work with no Thai nexus.

Immigration regulations and the DTV conditions likewise contain no prohibition on such activity, nor any distinction based on whether the DTV was obtained via “workcation” or “soft power.”

If you believe there is an official prohibition, please cite the specific section of law, regulation, or ministerial order. Anecdotes about deportation cells are not legal sources.

@Chris *********

I asked for official statements, not personel experience

AS stated in my first comment, you are the living proof:

You will get many more conflicting information, mostly from people claiming that as long as you are not arrested and sit in a deportation cel, you are allowed to do what ever you want.|

@Rob***

you’re conflating visa application pathways with legal prohibitions.

The DTV is a single visa class. “Workcation” and “Soft Power” are eligibility routes at application, not separate visas with different post-issuance conditions. There is no Immigration regulation or DTV condition that restricts offshore, foreign-sourced remote work based on which pathway was used.

The Working of Aliens Act regulates work requiring a Thai nexus (Thai employer, Thai clients, or Thai economic activity). It does not prohibit remote work for foreign employers with no Thai nexus.

This is also reflected in tax treatment. I attended the Thai Revenue Department to file a return and was explicitly told no filing was required, due to the nature of my foreign-sourced income and the Australia/Thailand tax treaty.

If foreign sourced remote income were automatically illegal “work,” the Revenue Department would not waive filing, and Immigration would not issue or maintain status.

In Thai law, what is not prohibited is lawful.