dsfbrit

- A nominee shareholder dies - the new shareholder takes over - then what - I have undated letters from the original nominee shareholder only!!

no new shareholder can take over. the share certificates and the blank share transfer document are in YOUR hands and YOU appoint the new shareholder.

Thanks for that Dr Naam. That's actually encouraging news. One thing though that concerns me - I only have blank transfer documents, no share certificates ?? I have never seen any share certificates ?

I suppose I can issue those myself anyway when needed?

Just playing around with various ideas. How about if your company sold (for a nominal fee, of course) the LAND to your Thai partner/spouse, and then transferred the HOUSE into your own name? Just a thought ...

Nice try jitagon. I asked this or a similar question of Sunbelt Asia earlier in the year. Here is a snippet of the emails:

My Question:

Hi Greg,

...

One option I may like to do eventually, would be to remove the LAND from the company ONLY and leave the House in the company name and keep the company.

I would then put the land in my wife's name and lease for 30 years but leave the House in the company name.

This would avoid much of the Business Tax? etc...

The Reply:

The Land Dept won't let you take out the land ONLY because they feel you are avoiding trying to pay tax. It is a good idea but they won't allow it.

Regards

Greg

30 year lease allows sole right to occupy but what about sole right to sell and receive the proceeds? Is that part of what a lease guarantees? Or can it be an addition? Can it be reasonably assumed to hold up in court if it came to that? While I'm at it, any recommendations on an attorney for drawing up a lease?

Hi ArizonDave, I think you are asking if you can sell the remainder of the lease, as you obviously no longer own the land nor the house.

We recently discussed the selling of a lease issue here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=131932

As an aside, what many Farang do is put the land in the wife's name and the House in their own name (you can own the house).

As for a lawyer, Sunbelt Asia - who sponsor this link - are as good (and reasonably priced) as any I am told.

I certainly am considering using them if I decide to set up a lease or Usufruct and shut down my company.

good luck

Can someone tell what happens to the shares of a Nominee shareholder in the case a Nominee shareholder dies?

Can they just 'will' the shareholding to another Thai, or does there need to be a shareholders meeting and a new person appointed formally??

In any case - the un-dated pre-written letters that all us 'landowners' have from the current Nominees, transferring their shares, will become useless at this point.

It has concerned me for some time, but I wasn't going to bother looking into this issue until the new FBA was implemented.

Forgive me if this has been proposed before but surely the simple solution for Farangs worried about their illegal Thai companies and unable/unwilling to pay the cost of transferring their property to their Thai wives is to resign as a Director of the company and install their wife as the 49% shareholder instead?

Nice try, but I don't really think this would help me personally, nor most people with a Thai wife. The cost of transferring to my Thai wife and setting up a 30 year lease in my case, is around 300,000 Baht. Bearing in mind I have to pay 15000 Baht a year for the accounts etc... the transfer would pay for itself in about 20 years anyway.

Also, the company would now not be owned by me and the dodgy company structure would still be in place as well.

Good thought though - worth discussing for sure.

Sure, it helped with the heat, but over time, the rats found that it was the perfect nesting enviornment and set up home in the nicely insulated areas between the aluminium foil backing.

Did you seal the ends, or did the foil just rot?

How did the rats gets inside the foil?

Regardless of what you do, it will be a gamble. No one knows how this thing is going to shake out. Maybe waiting is not the best thing to do. If worse comes to worse, there will be a HUGE glut of bogus company properties for sale. If it were me, and I'm glad it's not, I would be trying to sell it now and dissolve the company ASAP rather than waiting. I guess it depends on how well you are sleeping at this point.

Do you still think the same in light of the FBA being 'stopped'. The trouble is I dont think people CAN sell their houses without dropping the price drastically.

Personally, I have slept well all through this thing - except when I first read the headlines last year and nearly ****ed myself!!! - so I may continue to hold my nerve.

The interesting thing is, I no longer like the 'feel' of the company set-up anyway. I have thought of several scenarios I have not seen other people document that I don't like, for example:

- A nominee shareholder dies - the new shareholder takes over - then what - I have undated letters from the original nominee shareholder only!!

It would cost me about 300,000 Baht to transfer to a 30 year lease - so I may go and do that. As it costs me 15000 Baht to have my accounts done twice a year, it would pay for itself in around 20 years anyway!

Can never understand this business about buying/setting up a Company to buy a house….

Anyone can buy a house, just not the land to Non Thais, as was explained to me some years ago… buy the house.. Lease the Land for 30years + Automatic further 30year lease… Pay altogether = same price as any Company name, or Thai would pay..

In some ways you are right. A lot of us (me) did this not realising just how dodgy it all was - silly really in retrospect - but hey we all do dumb things in our lives don't we!

However, there is no such thing really as a 30+30 year lease. Its only the first 30 years that is registered with the Land Registry office. We had a good debate on this subject here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=131932

Even now, I may switch to the 30 Year Lease option or Usufruct. I estimate to do this will cost about 300,000 Baht worst case. This will cover all the taxes on the transfer (6 percent), Setting up Lease and tax on Lease, Will for wife to leave to me on death and shutting down the company.

Is there anymore news around about the houses bought under company name and changes that might be done?

Rainmaker - you have not heard the good news - the FBA has been stopped.

Read about it here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=135266

Did you seal the ends, or did the foil just rot?

I was about to install this in my loft.

Curiously I had a couple of rats living up in the loft for a few weeks last year.

Killed them with that sticky glue matting you can buy and some poison pellets in some food!

Mind you my wife had just bought a new Karaoke machine at the time - so they may just have left on their own accord!

For Now ! - will do me just fine

It is becoming increasingly difficult for the authorities to implement this legislation - its the 'fine print' that is very hard for them to agree on. Its OK to say in principle they dont want foreigners to control their companies nor own their land. Trying to put this into a form of words that satisifies everyone, not only Parliament but foreign investors is not so easy to do.

Interesting times indeed!

Sorry to hear about your missus' family situation. Some Thai males can be absolute horrors. In that case it would be certainly be risky for her to be a significant shareholder and she shouldn't be an authorized director either. Re the school. May be worth further investigation but check the implications of using a company that needs a special licence as land ownership vehicle, unless it owns the land the school is on in this case. Schools need a licence for the Ministry of Education and are subject to regular inspections. Ideally your land owning company should receive as little attention from government depts as possible and the property should serve as the company's headquarters (and possibly a director's residence but remember to pay a reasonable amount of rent for this or the Rev Dep will come snooping around to see how much of the house is office and how much home). With the sole business being a language school which no doubt has an admin office in it it would be hard to argue the need for a separate office as head quarters. Another problem with language schools is the work permit problem for foreign teachers, which is a hassle in itself but can also attract unwelcome attentions from the Labor Ministry and the Immigration Bureau which is a part of the police.

Thanks for the feedback - what a mess !

I wont be financially destroyed whatever happens with the FBA, I certainly feel for those that could be.

Klikster: Sadly my wife's family does not have any money. The father frightens the life out of me - not so much in a physical sense, but my wife is very much in awe of him and is one of the reasons - in fact the main reason come to think of it - why I dont really want to put anything in my wife's name. Some time ago I put some money in a bank account in my wife's name as we were thinking of opening up (she was) a Karaoke bar. Sadly the dad got to hear of this and in no time at all he had 10 cows sitting in his field!!! I retrieved the rest of the money and vowed not to be so dumb again!!! The trouble is she was relieved that I said I would look after the money as she found it nearly impossible to say no to him!

I now control all the money and she has an allowance each month!!!

Arkady: I know every case is different, but if I lose control of the company by putting it in anyone else's name then its worse than a Lease or Usufruct in my particular case - and sadly for lots of other people I suspect. If the father heard my wife owned a company - never mind all the legal mumbo jumbo all he would hear is daughter-owns-company , so its best I protect her from herself!

Mind you if he hears daughter-owns-lease, I think the problem is the same???

I am just hoping this FBA can be steered through in some way.

The woman who owns the Language School I attend is currently having personal difficulties and is considering selling the school. That may even be an option and something I would enjoy owning and working in - and owning land through - certainly an option maybe - thoughts on this would be appreciated...

Thanks Arkady for the prompt and comprehensive response, I will ask my lawyer re: the health check but his response has been in the past " just wait ,we have time". After following the threads on company ownership of house/land and the modifications of the FBA to remove amnesty etc I'm not confident this is the best course.

It would seem the options are:

1. Sell it. ( bit hard in this climate)

2. Sell land to thai (who?) and leaseback ( 30+30+30) knowing the the extensions are unregistrable and that I cannot sell on the lease without the landholders consent.

3. As above with Usufruct . Would this be any more secure as regards safe tenure and future sale of the property?

I would prefer not to have the attentions of the Govt Depts you mentioned if possible.

I know its harder for some people than others to wait and see, but really there are thousands of farang like us in our position. I have a Thai wife who I can put the house/ and land in their name if necessary - so am 'luckier' than you I guess .

I know you are looking at your options, but waiting until the FBA comes into law and what the possible legal options are at that point at least seems sensible.

Hey you have waited this long, its only another few months, then I am sure we will be discussing all the options like crazy on TV.

I have decided that IF at the end of the day I have to close down the company I would probably go the Usufruct option, as I agree with you that as 30 years is all you can register at the land office, then we need to assume after 30 years we have nowhere to live.

Although the 30 year lease has been successfully tested in the Supreme Court and the Usufruct has not - at least the Usufruct is for life.

If you close down the company and do the lease or Usufruct 'thing' then lets face it - it is very very unlikely you would ever be able to sell it. Even if you have all kinds of clauses written into the lease -its no longer yours, you are just a glorified tenant!

Its why I would rather keep the company in some form, restructure, even start trading almost anything rather than shut it down - I really believe at the end of the day there will be a legal way/ or acceptable loop-hole somewhere that can be sought.

Still we shall see wont we.

Good Luck with your investigations

Funny, I just bought a villa in Pattaya. I think it is time to be bold and buy. Every developer is dying to sell now. Prices are way down. Get yourself the deal. It will inevitably turn around. As for ownership, it is the same deal. Get a good local attorney refered by a property owner.

Can I ask you a couple of questions about this:

- How much

- What method (ie: company/ lease/ wife's name).

I am someone who has a house / land via the company route and am looking at all options. So am just interested in what other people are doing to acquire the land at the moment and what is selling and for how much.

Wow I seem to have asked a sensitive question, however this topic was supposed to be about a market for the resale of leases NOT the leasing of land for more than 30 years.

I was going to start a new topic and ask people not to discuss lease extensions but I think I have found out all I need too. The market is small. Most farangs are buying (illegally or through a spouse) and the resale market is in it's infancy.

Thank you to those who stayed on topic. To those with opinions on lease extension, START YOUR OWN THREAD

To be fair - I think if you re-read your question you will see that many have responded to this:-

'I have also heard a few 'anti' comments about leasehold having loopholes. Just how safe am I from a dishonest landlord/freeholder? '

I would also say that this thread has been very informative - one of the best I have read - in dealing with lease issues.

So much so I have actually added it to my 'Favourites' list for future reference.

Also I dont see how you can answer the first part of your question without understanding the leasing issues - you may for example be told you can sell your place with its 20 year lease by getting the landowner to agree a 30+30 year extension.

I personally, as I am too honest I guess, would not want to lumber a potential buyer with the possible problems they will have renewing the lease in 20 years time. I would therefore reject this 30+ 30 year suggestion or explain the true situation to the potential buyer.

Mind you I am so dumb, I would tell someone the problems with the FBA if someone wanted to buy my house and the company - so there is no hope for me anyway.

I just sold a house in Pattaya. It has been on the market for one year.

2 bedroom, 2 bathroom, 103 square meters, 51 talangwah, 2.85 Million baht + 1/2 transfer fees (developer to foreign held company).It is a friend's home which I have been looking after.

.

A House has been sold in Pattaya

I repeat - a house has been sold in Pattaya - hooray

Would you come around here and help the 9 or so farang to sell their house on our estate.

So the farang bought the company structure as well ?

If he did - did he say he was planning to keep the company structure - or was he married to a Thai and planning to move into her name?

Just because you were conned 5 years ago, now you like me to stop saying something that is at variance with your belief. Unfortunately, I cannot oblige since I am born as a free person and still believe that 30+30 year lease is possible. I am not in an estate business but a person with independent means with no ulterior motives in joining this TV forum which is the best I have ever experienced. I may be wrong and I may be right that is up to the readers to judge on our rationales. There is no monetary reward or reward of any nature in sharing my knowledge and experience with others.

I have promised myself on the TV forum not ever to insult people with different point of view from mine or cast on their intelligence just because of my knowledge and experience being different from theirs. I have seen a few ugliness in this forum when the exchange was reduced to childishness. In sticking to this principle, I have learnt quite a lot from others and it has also changed my thinking and attitude when I was proven wrong.

To state that "Anything beyond this (the first 30-year lease) is at the discretion of the land owner, whoever that may be in 30 years time." is a generalised statement without recognising the free intention of the lessor and lessee. It also reflects on the lack of impartial reading of my message. My message was that even if the landlord dies before 30 years is up, the successor to the property is still obliged to the legal commitment as previously made by the deceased because the land is subject to that incumbrance already registered with the officials. It is not 100% protection but rarely has the landlord won the case when there is this dispute in court which is not often. Similarly, if the landlord is a company, the company's liquidator is obliged to follow the legal commitment previously made by the company. All I require to hear is for someone to tell me that I am mistaken and why. If I am wrong, then I would apologise and learn of the new ground and become a better man. If I am right, then others could benefit from this TV forum in knowing the right standing of the renewal clause of 30 years.

I have said all that I can say on this and to show that I am someone who is only too happy to listen to other peoples points of view I have just given you the last word.

So if it stops raining I am off down the beach.

Have a nice day

only the first 30 years is registered...........the lease contract might state that the lessee has an option to renew for another 30 years or even state that the option is exercised with full advance payment now, but nevertheless, the second 30 year lease needs to be registered in future... if something happens (death, liquidation etc) to the original lessor (during the first 30 years) the contractual option to renew is gone... (BUT it might just be possible to mortgage the land in favor of the lessee to secure lessee's rights)....

besides the legal issues, I've seen leaseholds for sale (on Rajadamri Road) but it seem as the remaining lease term approaches 15 years or so, the re-sale prices drop dramatically...

Upon death or liquidation of the lessor, the lessor through his estate executor or the company's liquidator still has the legal obligation of granting the rights to the lessees.

I am one of the leaseholders of a few properties along the Rajadamri Road and Rajprasong Road. Both lessors are famous and respectable. Under both long-term leases which are all well registered, the future renewal clause was at the mercy of the lessor and the lessee went in with the opened eyes recognising this disadvantage. But the lessees have the hope that when the time comes, the lessor would be fair like their past conducts.

The value of one property has gone down at a certain level but not proportionately to the prices they originally paid. The declining value is mainly caused by bad management even though the property is situated at the most desirable location facing the whole view of the Royal Bangkok Sports Club. The investment return is not that great.

However, the value of another property on that vicinity has gone up not down while the remaining period is shortened. The reason is mainly due to a good management and sporty Executive Committee who conducts the place like a hotel. There will always be refurbishing and improvements to the corridors etc. Occupancy rate has been in the range of 90% with high rental. The return to the investment is in the two digit range with large capital gain potential.

Irene, Trajan is correct. The only legally binding lease is for a period of 30 years - registered at the Land Office.

The rest is just not worth the paper its is printed on! You say you have these 'well registered' with lessors 'famous and respectable'. Come off it - 'pull the other one' as they say in the UK. Who can say what these companies will be like in 30 years. Lets face it Enron were 'famous and respectable' just a few years ago!

I don't wish to be rude, but you really should not peddle this stuff as 'fact' on TV as is just confuses people.

I think you are rude. Tell me what do I gain from so doing. I am a seasoned investor for thirty years on condominiums and equity. I am sharing my experience not as an observer because I have been so impressed with TV for the past help some of the members have given me. I am doing this just as a pay-back for the good deeds of others.

The fact is there are naive farang - like I was 5 years ago - who read and take at face value the views of well intentioned decent people like yourself.

It was nice decent people like yourself as well as Estate Agents and others that told me it was OK to buy my house and land in the company name. I believed these people.

Now I hear all over the place 'its OK to buy your property with a 30+30+30 lease'.

Its almost the same mantra that I heard 5 years ago about land 'ownership' through the company route.

And look at us lucky landowners now!!! Awaiting the result of the FBA - oh joy!!!

Acquiring your land through a lease is only guaranteed for 30 years if registered at the land Registry.

Anything beyond this is at the discretion of the land owner, whoever that may be in 30 years time.

So I would please please please politely ask you to stop saying otherwise.

I however repeat, I am not an expert, just a farang who got conned 5 years ago and now do all I can to warn others of the

the folly of listening to stuff like this.

Of course CBREs points are self-serving. But it's interesting to see these things actually said publicly. Before it was just guys like me - and a few others saying this - you know 'the whiners'..who were 'exagerating' everything. When senior salespeople start saying it publicly - alarm bells are ringing loudly behind closed doors I'll bet.

I think - okay I 'think' - Pitchon's main point is that the retiree market from developed countries wanting a 2nd home is a growth industry as long as the world economy doesn't tank (yeah, yeah, I know)..and if Thailand wants a piece of the action it needs to become more open - not more closed. There are only so many 'millionaires' out there, but an awful lot more mid-market earners.

Otherwise those people will go elsewhere. All the goods and services that spring up with middle-class investment will also go elsewhere. That's all..

I agree. I am one of these retirees - not a millioanaire (Baht millionaire only!), but at 53 decided to sell up in my home country and retire out here. I bought a house through the company route (normal practise in Thailand - nominees for companies -everyone does it - I was told - even the multi-nationals blah blah blah...). Dont bother flaming me - we all know I am a 'pratt' in some peoples eyes!! However there are a lot of other people like me out there now switching to 30 year leases or Ususfructs or whatever. What a mess !!! who wants the hassle of all that!

What good is a 30 years lease anyway - when I was 20 I never thought I would live to be 50! Now I am 53 I cannot imagine being 80!!

Yet my mum is 87!!! bless her - so I would be booted out of my home when I am 83! Then what??

Lets hope at that age I still have my wits about me and some money in the bank - at least enough for the visa renewal - or I wont have a house NOR will I have a country to live in either!

I would never have bought a house in Thailand if I had better understood the way the Thai authorities would change the way they implemented their laws. I have advised all my chums in the UK and elsewhere to avoid buying property in Thailand.

It seems logical - that now people like me fully understand the thinking of the Thai authorities towards Farang house/land ownership - no more nonsence about land ownership - that we would not want buy a house here.

The Housing market is as bad as it is at last being publicly stated by this thread. This needs to be stated more and more and maybe the FBA will be watered down!

By the way there are now 9 house for re-sale in this estate outside Pattaya. They have come on the market steadily since Jan 2006. Ranging from 3mill to 7million Baht. Only one has been rented out and the rest just sit there empty.

I think you have summed that up very well. I think you might have posted what many are feeling and when you work for so many years to get liquid, you should not have to be worried in your old age about where you going to live..

I would like to know when this 30/30/30 lease will be tested. Does anyone know if anyone has had a lease for 30 years and the next 30 year renewal was passed on free of hassles.. I realize in this 30/30/30 year lease structure, that the next of kin etc has to sign??>.. maybe Im wrong, but please educate me.

We are discussing this here.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=131932

I am no expert believe me, but since last year I have looked into the company structure thing and all the options. I have been offered good advice from the experts here on TV - who I trust more than any other source - and I have been convinced - there is no such thing as a 30+30 year lease that is worth the paper it is printed on.

The 30 year lease also MUST be registered at the Land Office.

If you want tenure beyond 30 years then you need a Usufrct, which allows you to remain in the property until you die. That is another subject though isn't it, with another set of questions not relevant to this thread.

only the first 30 years is registered...........the lease contract might state that the lessee has an option to renew for another 30 years or even state that the option is exercised with full advance payment now, but nevertheless, the second 30 year lease needs to be registered in future... if something happens (death, liquidation etc) to the original lessor (during the first 30 years) the contractual option to renew is gone... (BUT it might just be possible to mortgage the land in favor of the lessee to secure lessee's rights)....

besides the legal issues, I've seen leaseholds for sale (on Rajadamri Road) but it seem as the remaining lease term approaches 15 years or so, the re-sale prices drop dramatically...

Upon death or liquidation of the lessor, the lessor through his estate executor or the company's liquidator still has the legal obligation of granting the rights to the lessees.

I am one of the leaseholders of a few properties along the Rajadamri Road and Rajprasong Road. Both lessors are famous and respectable. Under both long-term leases which are all well registered, the future renewal clause was at the mercy of the lessor and the lessee went in with the opened eyes recognising this disadvantage. But the lessees have the hope that when the time comes, the lessor would be fair like their past conducts.

The value of one property has gone down at a certain level but not proportionately to the prices they originally paid. The declining value is mainly caused by bad management even though the property is situated at the most desirable location facing the whole view of the Royal Bangkok Sports Club. The investment return is not that great.

However, the value of another property on that vicinity has gone up not down while the remaining period is shortened. The reason is mainly due to a good management and sporty Executive Committee who conducts the place like a hotel. There will always be refurbishing and improvements to the corridors etc. Occupancy rate has been in the range of 90% with high rental. The return to the investment is in the two digit range with large capital gain potential.

Irene, Trajan is correct. The only legally binding lease is for a period of 30 years - registered at the Land Office.

The rest is just not worth the paper its is printed on! You say you have these 'well registered' with lessors 'famous and respectable'. Come off it - 'pull the other one' as they say in the UK. Who can say what these companies will be like in 30 years. Lets face it Enron were 'famous and respectable' just a few years ago!

I don't wish to be rude, but you really should not peddle this stuff as 'fact' on TV as is just confuses people.

I am always keen to see a new option of what to do if/when the new FBA comes into being - could you elaborate on this idea a bit?

Pridyathorn's departure may be a positive here. With any luck the other obvious foreigner hater in the cabinet, the Commerce Minister Krirk-krai will go too in the reshuffle. At any rate Sarayud has seen that Pridyathorn's anti-foreigner stance did nothing to help the survival chances of his government and may now want to leave the FBA amendments on a back burner, given the huge problems he is facing with the TRT resurgence, the constitutional referendum and his failure in the South. In fact this government's chances of lasting till the next election are not looking so great now. If Sarayud is also replaced, his successor would have an even tougher job to establish credibility in a very short space of time and might not feel any sense of ownership or the FBA amendments.

Land owning companies still face another problem from the Land Code but delaying the FBA amendments would probably give some more breathing space before the possibility of systematic checks could loom. Without any impetus for the Commerce Ministry from the FBA amendments the Lands Dept would have to push the Business Development Department to help it track down illegal land ownership without any benefit to the Commerce Ministry. Not wanting to encourage complacency but feeling more inclined to watch political development for a bit before embarking on expensive restructuring.

Wow - that's one of the most intelligent posts I've seen for ages! Very good, Arkady.

Thanks for your kind words. Four months have passed since my post. Unfortunately Krirk-krai didn't get the boot from the cabinet and vowed that the amendments would be dropped over his dead body. Sarayud was too naive economically and pumped up by his own speeches on self sufficiency to realise the FBA amendments would be a real threat to the country as well as wanting to be nice to all his fellow ex-bureaucrats, however dangerous or useless they might be. The NLA approved in principle an even nastier version of the amendments which increased jail time from 3 to 5 years and removed the amnesties for foreign shareholders and Thai nominees. The last word on the FBA was that the amendments would be passed by the NLA in July or August and would be published in the Royal Gazette to become law by late August. However, things have been silent for the last two months. Possibly it will all go ahead as planned or with a slight delay. However, the Sarayud governement is now dealing with a far thornier piece of legislation which is of great importance to its military masters in the junta in the form of the National Security Act. This aims to return powers to the military they last held under the military dictators of the 70s who used the communist suppression laws to facilitate an open season on any one they disliked, particularly in Isaan and the deep South where villages were bombed to smithereens by the air force allegedly on suspicion of aiding terrorists and Muslims in the South were boiled in oil. On the other hand the FBA amendments mean nothing to the CNS and there is no reason for them to push Sarayud to have them passed. The Democrats have made clear they will throw the FBA amendments out, if they are in power and even Thai Rak Thai did the same before its dissolution. The longevity of an amended FBA seems highly questionable and Krirk-krai may find himself alone in the government in pushing for them, since Chalongphob, the finance minister, although he has been very low profile since his appointment, is a free trader. In this environment and with more pressing issues to deal with in its remaining term it is quite possible that the Sarayud government will quietly forget about the FBA amendments. It is too early say for sure but it is an even bet that the next government will be anxious to get foreign investment rolling again to boost the economy and will attempt to distance itself from the Sarayud's capital controls and FBA amendments.

I would continue to avoid expensive restructurings until the political scene is clearer. A Thai lawyer I met recently who seems quite sensible told me that, even if the amendments are passed, the first line of screening for existing companies will be to check articles of association of companies with foreign shareholders to see, if they have any preferential voting rights. He said that changing the objectives of the company to eliminate Annex 1 and Annex 2 businesses, as some TV posters have suggested, is pointless and may even draw unwelcome attention to the company. Company objectives are usually very broad boilerplate and are not regarded by any one as a guide to what the company actually does. In any case, if you don't have a preference share structure, it wouldn't make any difference, since your company is entitled to do those businesses, many of which require a special licence anyway. Another view he expressed which is contrary to those of some TV posters who are advocating a very cautious approach is that it would be extremely difficult to go after a company majority held by a foreigner's legally married Thai spouse, if it is operating a genuine business, as that would deny a Thai-foreign couple the right to operate a family business which is the core business structure in Thailand. Capital for a wife's investment can be provided in the form a dowry.

The best advice seems to be: for those with preference share structures - restructure or be prepared to restructure to eliminate the prefs at short notice if the FBA gets amended; for those with no business or work permit or not filing accounts - fulfill these legal requirements that are nothing to do with the FBA amendments; for those operating a business legally and filing accounts - wait and see which way the wind blows.

Arkady, yet another admirer here heaping praise on a post of yours - I fully agree with this argument.

My only minor addition would be to suggest that 'seeing which way the wind blows' would involve waiting quite some time after/if the FBA is amended and see how things are actually implemented. Wait for a couple of court cases at least or some firm evidence of true implementation before rushing to do anything.

I have also heard a few 'anti' comments about leasehold having loopholes. Just how safe am I from a dishonest landlord/freeholder?

I am not an expert, but being a land 'owner' in a company name, I have made a lot of enquiries since the news last year that the land laws would be interpreted more rigidly.

My research into this has come up with the following:

- 30 year lease registered with the Land Registry office is very safe. It has been tested all the way up to the Supreme Court (I was advised this in a thread in TV - so may be worth looking for if you are interested). I have not heard of any loopholes.

- Incidentally - to dispel an urban myth here in Thailand - there is no such thing as a 30+ 30 lease. Only 30 years is recognised legally and then its up to the owner if they want to extend.

My friend who has leased a small plot has it written into the lease that he can sell it on. She got a lawyer to draft it though of course that does not always mean it's 'legal'.

Interesting post Adagio.

I have been looking at all the options I may use to move my house and land out of the company if the new FBA is a nasty little piece of law. I have not come across this option at all???

Was this 30 year lease registered with the land registry?

I have to say I am sceptical this would be of any real use in practise - BUT if someone has evidence of the contrary it would be another option.

Anyone heard of this???