MangoKorat

Yes. About 5 years ago there was a clamp down in Bangkok looking for overstayers, illegals etc. There were reports of people being stopped on the street in the Sukhumvit area for passport checks. I was in a taxi at the Asoke junction traffic lights when 2 coppers approached and asked to see my passport. As far as I can remember though, that's the only time I've been checked in 22 years. There was also a time around 7 years ago when clubs in upper Sukhumvit were raided. Those raids were targeted/drugs related though and not random passport checks. Both Thais and foreigners were subjected to urine tests. Any foreigner that couldn't provide a passport on the spot was locked up until someone could get their passport for them.

Well there's a hell of a lot of us 'losers' then. Would I want a relationship with an 18 year old? Not a chance. Would I bang an 18 year old that offered it? Absolutely! You're welcome to as many women of your own age with boobs like envelope flaps and stretch marks as you can handle Mr Temple-goer. I'll stick to something that remains reasonably attractive.

Which Fast Train is that?

No, I wasn't 'misremebering' anything. The rule did exist but as has been established in posts after mine, it was done away with.

Whilst I agree that using a Thai Limited Company to own land is against the law if the business is not actually trading and/or has no reason to own land, your statement is incorrect. If the company is correctly structured and the Thai shareholders shares don't include voting rights, they cannot get rid of the foreign shareholding/directorship. The Thai shareholders though, may have to prove where they got the money from to buy the shares and that they bought them for investment purposes. Your wife's granny might have a problem claiming she's a legitimate investor. There are several types of business where a company with foreign shareholding can own land legally - a property development/investment business for example. A shophouse, used for a business that a foreigner is legally allowed to be involved in should also be OK. However, I doubt that a Thai court would be convinced that a company owning just one piece of land/house and renting that out to a director was a legitimate property investment business. It all hangs on that word - circumvention. They may exist but I'm yet to see an example of a Thai Limited Company with foreign control owning a piece of land legally when we are talking about single plots containing just one house. Most seem to be fake companies, submitting accounts and paying a little tax - as such I'm sure that each one of them is at risk if they are investigated. What I find unfair, if its true, is that when such 'fake' companies are discovered, is that the penalty is forfeiture. Deeming the ownership contravenes the Thai land laws and ordering the sale of the property would be a much fairer way of dealing with the matter. Personally, I find the Thai land laws archaic and xenophobic, they cause lots of problems for married couples and should be reformed. I don't see why a foreigner married to a Thai can't own property but have to sell it within a set time should they divorce - much like the rules on what happens when a Thai wife dies and wills a property to a foreign husband.

That should of course say 'owning through the company route'.

Its easy to see why people often do the wrong thing but think they've done the right one. That's why its wise to use a decent Thai lawyer rather than believe what you read on online forums. 'Under Thai law, if you divorce your wife you / she gets 50% each' - That is not correct. For example, if your wife owned the land or the house before your were married, you would only be entitled to 50% of any uplift in value since the date of your wedding. 'Under Thai law if you use a company, it's 49% ownership opposed to 51%' Potentially incorrect depending on the rules in play in your area. Some Land Offices will refuse to register a property in a company name if the foreign ownership is over 39% (and possibly other percentages). The most serious side of owning through the property route is that the company must be trading and it must, if required, demonstrate a need to own property. If that can't be proven, such ownership is in direct contravention of the Thai land laws as the company has clearly been set up in order to circumvent those laws. There is a specific clause in the laws regarding circumvention. Those who simply pay a book keeper to make up a set of fake accounts and pay a little tax each year for the 'company' that 'owns' the land, will always be at risk.

Why puzzled Mr Somebody? Civilised countries don't release deceased's names until the family have been notified. Would you like to find out your son was dead via a social media story?

As has already been stated, the departure tax was never 'got rid' of - it was transferred to the airlines who I guess will have added it to their ticket prices.

Whatever the reason for death or the man's background, I'm suprised that the Thai authorities consider it OK to name him before they've contacted his family.

You'd better be hoping that the Thai farm-workers that harvested your veg, also wash their hands after using the bathroom then. I'm sure they do though..........in those special handwashing sinks in the farm fields. The ones next to the mobile toilet blocks, have you seen them?

You can't even trust organically grown veg in Thailand. Its a few years back so I can't remember details but some group or other, not sure if they were official or an environmental group, tested 100 supposedly 'organically' grown vegetable samples from shops/markets around Bangkok. The vast majority had traces of harmful pesticides on them. I'll be growing a lot of my own veg soon.

There you are @Goat - kind of debunks your claim that Brits doing wrong are 'protected' - clearly stated as a Brit. Also: https://aseannow.com/topic/1293784-naked-brit-smashes-beer-bottle-over-elderly-australian-tourist’s-head-in-pattaya/ Again, nationality clearly stated as British.

Do we know exactly what this criticism was?

I can't say I've heard that but I've long suspected it - especially since the announcment that many foreigners in Thailand will now have to file tax returns. Reading through the details on that on this website, I was convinced that such landlords are trying to avoid tax. There is a specific tax dealing with income from property - from memory, I believe its 12.5%.

Right, I was just trying to understand the reason for your post.

Are you saying that a tenant or Usufruct holder cannot now register their own TM30?

It is clearly not as simple as you posted. Otherwise we would not have people posting on here (one quite recently) that they are having problems. It was simple for you, it is clearly not as simple for everyone! I have created this post to help the people that are having problems - if you don't need any help then you don't need to chirp in then do you? As for immigration, well that's up to you and although I understand where you are coming from. I don't muck about with them. My local office has been taken to court twice (possibly more now) and lost. Speak to Sebastian (formerly of Isaan Lawyers,now of Thai Law Online) if you don't believe that. I would of course remain polite - which is probably why they backed down on this matter when I first applied to register TM30. I would not get into any heated argument with them but instead, leave it to my lawyer who has dealt with my local office many times. Thai's respond far better to Thai's, they won't have a foreigner telling them what to do but they will normally listen to a Thai who's on the same level of social standing. If not, court is an option but it would be a last resort. If you cow tow to them when they are going against Police Orders, you make a rod for your back that you may have to live with forever. There was a guy on here a couple of years back that cannot ever get his yearly extension done by his local office because he had an altercation with them. He didn't get a lawyer involved and now has to use another address and a different office for his extensions. Its about how you do it - I've been around Thailand long enough to know that you don't walk in to an Immigration office and simply tell them they are wrong. You go through 'channels', my lawyer knows them but I'll admit that I am fortunate in that she aslo knows most of the staff at Korat Immigration.

You do spout a lot of twoddle. I thinnk you will find that the problems go with the age and booze - not nationality so wind your neck in and stop spouting your racist nonsense. As we've seen in recent months there have been foreigners of all nationalities causing problems in Thailand. The later headline also states that he's a Brit so where's the protection? As I'm typing this I'm watching a bunch of American yobs beating one member of an opposite group to a pulp during the University riots in the US (on TV). Do you think they'd behave any differently if they were in Thailand? They are just yobs and thugs and that mate - is a borderless phenomenon. When I first came to Thailand there were very few male tourists under 40 - except for the backpackers and they've always had their own hangouts. I rarely saw any trouble in those days. Thailand has become far more popular with younger tourists of all nationalities - they get rat ar5ed and violent. I've seen groups of Indian youths causing trouble with Thais, Germans fighting each other and Arabs being rude and violent towards Thai street vendors. Most of that is because they are a much younger group of tourists than we used to see. I have no idea what the mix of nationalities is in percentage terms but when I visit the bar areas most of the voices I hear are British. They may or not make up the largest group but despite what the TAT say, there's still a hell of a lot of younger Brits visiting and a large expat community so its not so unsual to find them in the news.

Then maybe you should read the entire post because that's exactly what I'm saying. However, it is not always as simple as you think it is. Its quite clear from the posts I've seen on here that some people have problems getting their landlord to register TM30 and didn't know they are most likely able to register themselves. Furthermore, members have reported that their immigration office would not accept them registering themselves. Therefore, armed with the Thai version of the official document, they should be able to demonstrate to their local immigration office that they can indeed, register themselves.

On several occasions I've seen posts on here where members have stated that their landlords refuse to register TM30 for them. You don't need to get your landlord to do it. Whilst going through some old documents I came across an English version of an amendement to the Thai Immigration Law in relation to TM30 registration. I seem to remember I found it as a result of a fight I had with Korat Immigration over whether or not I needed to get the registered owner of my property to register my TM30. I was successful in getting Korat Immigration to back down and let me register. The registered owner of my property lives 200km away and Korat required an 'in person' first registration - hence why I was prepared to fight. I can't remember where I got this document from - but it was most likely from this site or its predecessor - Thai Visa. The title on the document is: Immigration Act In the name of his Mejesty King Bhumibol Enacted on the 24Th of February B.E. 2522 The 34Th year of the present reign Wherease it is deemed proper to revise the Law on immigration I have a title on it of: Thai Visa, Immigration and Property Info/781542698_ImmigrationActB.E.2522(1979)en-immigration.pdf - that seems to suggest that I obtained it from Thai Visa, the old name for this website. I hold a registered Usufruct Agreement and my Thai lawyer advised me that as such, I am the House Master and the document appears to confirm that. The document though, also conveys that status to anyone who is a tenant. The URL for the document no longer works and it is not possible to post PDF's here. I would convert it to a jpg and post it that way but the entire document is 15 pages long so I'll just copy and paste the relevant sections. As I don't have a working URL, I cannot state that the information is official but I believe it to be so. If you are having any problems with your immigration office regarding this issue, the English version should only be used as a reference point. To convince your immigration office, you may need to find the original Thai version. I'd be happy to send a copy to any interested member by e-mail. The relevant sections are 4 and 38. 4 deals with the definition of House Master whilst 38 clearly states that the House Master must register the occupant. Clearly you will need either a copy of your lease or your Usufruct to accompany the document. From Section 4: “ House Master ” means any persons who is the chief possessor of a house , whether in the capacity of owner , tenant , or in any other capacity whatsoever , in accordance with the law on people act. Section 38: The house – master , the owner or the possessor of the residence , or the hotel manager where the alien , receiving permission to stay temporary in the Kingdom has stayed , must notify the competent official of the Immigration Office located in the same area with that hours , dwelling place or hotel, within 24 hours from the time of arrival of the alien concerned. If there is no Immigration Office located in that area , the local police official for that area must be notified. In case the house , dwelling place , or hotel where the alien has stayed under provision of Para.1 is located within the Bangkok area , such notification must be reported to the competent official at the Immigration Division. Making notification , in reference to the Para 1 and 2 of this Section , must comply with regulations prescribed by the Director General

I have some information that I believe may help people who are having problems registering for TM30. However, its in the form of a pdf which cannot be posted on here directly - only as a link. The link on the info no longer works. I would convert it to jpg in order to post it but there are 15 pages. I am unsure where I go it from - it may even have come from AN but as yet I cannot find an alternative URL. Do you think the sources you refer to above have will have English versions of the TM 30 regulations?

Those who learned English as a first language will understand the meaning of the term 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. I think we both know why you Mr Maestro, do your very best to dis whatever I post but we won't go into that again will we? When I am wrong about something, I admit to it as soon as I become aware of the fact - whereas some people state that someone who has direct experience of a particular matter is talking jibberish. If I was in a position to, I would never, for example, remove every post a member had made on a particular subject simply because I considered it as 'false information' - even though that member (and others) had actually experienced the matter in question. Oddly, I have seen that done on AN.

Right, now I understand where all the confusion has come from. I read https://asean and until this moment have failed to see that its actually asean.org and not asean now - my apologies. However, you have both been banging on about me being an employee of a law firm after I stated that I wasn't. You also failed to recognise that I originally stated that I would accept that the law I referred to had been overridden when someone provided evidence that it had been. I have made it clear from the outset that the information I referred to was as I understood it from sources I researched and that to the best of my knowledge, sources that had not been superceeded by any officially provided source. As soon as that evidence was provided I did indeed accept it.

I think you know exactly what I mean. I was not prepared to do the search that I did many years ago when websites such as Asean Now didn't exist as it took me hours to find official versions of the laws. So I did a quick one off search on Google and the link I provided from an AN page came up - hence my statement 'from our own website' which was then misconstrued as me being an employee of the firm. I posted the link, I didn't even notice that it ended in .pdf. It was simply the result of a Google search