MangoKorat

That would depend on when the property was bought. If purchased after marriage then it may well be considered as 'Sim Somros' - a marital asset. However, it is very complicated and down to interpretation. In such a case, I think the prosecution's case would be that a house cannot be a marital asset as a foreigner cannot own land. It would be up to the defence to convince a court that they are not seeking ownership, only a share on the financial aspect. To be fair, I have heard of cases where a court has decided that the foreigner is entitled to 50% of a property's value. It remains questionable though. I convinced a Thai court that an item (not a house) was bought with money I held before I was married to my (ex) Thai wife - even though the actual purchase was done after marriage. I provided a certified paper trail of the money's source, showing how long it had been held and that it was transferred into Thailand. Therefore the case was allowed to go ahead with the outcome almost certain as the court ruled that it was up to my (ex) wife to prove otherwise. I cannot be 100% certain of that outcome as my wife (ex) backed down before court and returned the asset but I believe the court made it quite clear. Marital financial disputes can be a nighmare and a lot of things are taken into consideration.

I don't think you have considered all angles in that statement. If it can be proven that money has changed hands to facilitate an I.O.s 'discretion' as you put it, that is corruption and all parties involved can be prosecuted. Unless the extension holder could convince a court that he/she was unaware of the situation (unlikely), they too would wind up in court. The highly likely outcome would be that the foreigner would be ruled complicit and be punished accordingly. Such punishment would almost certainly include revocation of their visa. Do you not remember the fake passport stamps fiasco?

A Usufuct does not convey ownership - only the right to use and enjoy the property. Therfore, the intention of the law - to keep Thai land in Thai ownership is not broken. You can think a Usufruct is dodgy as much as you like, it is a legal instrument, accepted in Thai law. Thankfully Thailand has a functioning legal system and therefore if the authorities did try to 'clamp down' on them, they themselves would fall foul of the law. It is always possible that they could ban future Usufructs but existing agreements are within the law and therefore cannot be anulled. To do so would threaten every law in Thailand and that would have serious consquences, both nationally and more importantly, internationally. Thailand is not Russia yet. I believe the law would be upheld.

The dubious thing is and always will be - any method used to try to circumvent the Thai land laws in order for a foreigner to attempt to own land. On another thread a guy was questioning Usufructs given by woman to her foreign husband - I'm not really interested, I'm not married and even when I was, my property had nothing to do with my wife. The registered owner of my property is a trusted friend. I have a Usufruct and other documents that I'm satisfied give me the right to do whatever I want, including sell my Thai home. Nothing I have attempts to try and get around the ownership rules. Many years ago when someone told me I could set up a Thai Ltd Co. to own a house/land and control that company through taking away the voting rights of the Thai shareholders, I looked at the land law and that one sentence regarding circumvention said it all for me. I knew then that unless the company was actually trading and had a reason to own land/property - such a deal could always fall foul of the law. I dismissed that route and have been arguing with people about it ever since. I don't doubt that there are literally thousands out there that have gone down the company route and have not had a problem - yet. They may have a problem in the future though. Given the current spate of Xenophobia, driven by more than a few news reports of wrong doings by foreigners, who knows what's going to happen really? This could all blow over and may stay related only to the current investigations as per the OP. Or it could cause nationwide investigations into all Thai Ltd Companies with foreign shareholders that own property. My gut feeling is that it will blow over once this case is fully prosecuted and put to bed. This is not the first time this has come up, there was a case a number of years back - can't remember the exact details but it was related to Thai Ltd Co's with foreign directors/land. The government at the time threatened all sort of reforms to company structures etc. But then big business got jittery. If yer basic guy in the street was having his property dealings threatened - where did that leave them? Foreign investment looked like it might go down the plughole. A few changes were made outlawing nominee directors, Thai shareholders now have to prove where the cash for their shares comes from and some Land Offices will not register land to companies where foreign directors hold more than 39% of the shares. That was about it really - that's not to say they won't go after individual cases that fall into their lap but when the bosses of major multinationals start to worry about doing business in Thailand, that's when the government sweep this under the carpet. I'd take a bet, this matter will run a few more weeks, lots of talk will go on about how they are going to clamp down on these pesky foreigners stealing their land - then, like almost everything else they do, it will just go quiet. Does that mean I think its safe for a foreigner to use the company route to own a house? Never.

Partly correct but.........................as I've said a thousand times to those who told me they own their house through a Ltd. Co - if investigated, the company needs to have a reason to own land. The cover all clause in the Thai Land Law is the one about circumvention. If it can be proven that the company, trading or not, only owns the house in order to circumvent the law, its illegal and the property may be subject to forfeiture. Claiming the company is in the real estate business and letting the house out to yourself as a director is very likely to also be seen as circumvention - especially if that company only owns one property. There is trading and then there is trading - washing a few thousand baht through the company every year and paying a little tax is unlikely to be seen as trading. I believe that if say, the property is a shop-house and the company is carrying on a real business in that property, that should be seen as legal but as ever, anyone considering such methods should check it out with a decent Thai lawyer first. There are far better ways to protect your investment and guarantee your rights to live in a property that don't involve trying to circumvent the land laws. Providing you have a Thai citizen that is prepared to be the registered owner and will accept you placing a legal charge on the title - that's your investment protected. The only spanner in the works being that some Land Offices won't accept a foreign mortgage. You have not circumvented any law, the property remains in Thai ownership. Do not do this in cash - a paper trail at all stages is required to be secure. A correctly worded Usufruct is legal and will protect your right to live in the property - just don't build a house or your wife's family land - especially not in the moobaan or any other place where you are likely to be harrased in the event of a relationship breakdown. The Usufruct must also be registered at the Land Office to be legal.

The availability of non-manufacturer software and the scope of what it can do depends on the popularity of the model. All software can be 'broken in to' but it has to be worthwhile for the software manufacturer. Some manufacturers software has been hacked and copied and is available either freely or cheaply on the web. I can buy a copy of my Kawasaki's diagnostic programme and the cable to connect into the diagnostic port, very cheaply on the web for use on a laptop. The bad news for you may be that there are not millions of Triumph 1200's out there. Do an online search for your particular model.

Not quite worldwide. In the UK and I believe the EU, manufacturers have to make access to diagnostic systems available by law. Granted, that access is basic with some areas of detail only accessible by manufacturers software but is big business so software companies get around it fairly quickly.

I never said it did. You know exactly why I posted that. Enough of your stupidity for one day thanks, good day.

I have not criticised the Norwegian Police but unlike you, I don't 'claim to know it all', I reseach before I claim. A little bedtime reading for you. https://www.nkvts.no/english/report/not-worth-talking-to-police-about-violence-in-close-relationships-that-are-not-reported-to-the-police/ 'The number of reported cases of domestic violence increased by 500 percent from 2005 to 2011.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_Norway

Really, where?

There ain't no politics at play in Thailand, only a group of about 6 families who's only interest is maintaining their power and therefore their wealth. They do that through their lackies, the military. Ever wondered why, despite constant announcements of new policies, nothing much actually happens in Thai politics? Why consecutive Thai governments 'talk a lot but do nothing'? Its just a game. The only serious business is keeping those who threaten the status quo, down - and that's exactly what's going on here. They know the MFP will be back again with a new name, just as Future Forward became Move Forward but they're just about to be knocked back a few years..........and so it goes on. Look what happend to Thaksin, he got too big for his boots, became too popular so he was punished to remind him of his place and now he's been allowed back again. Its not politics, its greed. The lengths some people will go to to maintain and increase phenominal wealth is difficult to understand. What drives someone who has more wealth than they can ever fully utilise is totally beyond my comprehension. I'm not talking about a few millionaires ($) - the wealth some people have is staggering but it never seems enough.

Yep.

40 years ago??? You just can't help yourself can you? Do you not think that just about all members here know what you're up to? Obviously not but go ahead, if you want to continue looking like a pratt everytime you post anything, be my guest. It wouldn't matter if it was 400 or 4 years ago, domestic violence against women by men is up by all methods of counting - especially during and since the pandemic.

Typical reply from you. Don't be a pratt all your life, have a day off! In many countries domestic violence often goes without charge. It is aslo very common My dad used to beat the sh*t out of my mother every time he had too much ale - which was at least every weekend. One one occasion he poured a pan of boiling water over her - scarring her for life. The police were often called yet no charges were ever made. When I reached 14, I stopped that violence but my mother had suffered for many years and I cannot think of a single time where she caused it. Why women stay with men like that is beyond me but they often put up with years of abuse. Amazingly (and commonly), many women won't press charges against their husband.

Yes well given that immigration rules emanate centrally, do think every single office will have had their own translation done or that the MFA will have done it for them? My money would be on that what they were really trying to achieve at the outset was 2 entries in 12 months. Believe me I've seen some real humdingers on translation over the years. The official translation of the Thai Land laws is terrible. I'll never work out why they don't get English translations at the very least proof read by a native English speaker. Have you ever looked at the English text books used to teach kids English in Thai schools?

Thanks for the clarification. I suspect however, that the authorties made that rule by way of a translation error. Twice in any 12 month period would make more sense for their purposes.

Ask the OP. I think you know very well that in all cases where there is an unproven offence, reporters state 'alleged' Stop being so damned awkward!

'The situation escalated when the driver allegedly attempted to forcibly take her into the taxi.' He should not have been trying to force her into his car, no matter what had taken place - full stop! According to the article, it was only the intervention of bystanders that prevented him from doing so.

Yes but I don't think the hotel would try to kidnap you.

Is that correct? I was under the impression that it was 2 entries in 12 months. That's only an assumtion though but I'm pretty sure that's what an I.O. told me as he was totting up entries in my passport.

Yes and sadly, the Thai people voted for that in 2016 when a referendum on a new constitution was held. Under the guise of the restrictions in place due to the political turmoil at the time, opponents of the draft constitution were banned from campaigning against it and, if I remember rightly they were not given any TV time. Some could say 'more fool them' but the reality is that the Thai people didn't really know what they were voting for. They might well have noticed that the new 'Senate' would ultimately control the makeup of all future governments but that was presented to them as a 'checks and balances' system which would remove the need for any future coups. What they failed to notice, and I think was not made clear to them, was that the military would decide on the makeup of the senate. Just about all the publicity regarding the draft constitution was handled by Prayuth & Co and was very much in their favour. According to Wikipedia, refering to the then military government: 'They banned criticism of the draft constitution and prohibited monitoring of the referendum. Activists against the document were arrested, detained, and prosecuted in military courts, whilst voters who expressed their intention to vote against the draft were also arrested and prosecuted by the military regime.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Thai_general_election The word 'shafted' comes to mind. The net result of the 2016 referendum was not illuminated until the 2023 'election', and I use the term 'election' very lightly when the winning party was not allowed to form a government. Through the Senate, the military remain in control of the country (for their masters though). They may allow a little latitude to whichever group they 'allow' to be in power in but they are firmly in charge. Interestingly the Election Commission stated that their 80% turnout requirement for the 2016 referendum was a target and not a requirement. The actual turnout was 59% and the vote in favour was around 61%. By my calculations that means that only around 36% of the electorate voted in favour of the new constitution.

The Army decide who appears to run the country and they are not worried at all.

Very rarely yes. Just a one off glitch I'd suggest.

Pointless, the only previously used vehicles that are now allowed to be imported are those used for diplomatic, municipal and military purposes and they must be imported by the authorities that will actually be using them.

I'm now starting to understand why the Thai government seems increasingly anti Westerner but pro Russian. Both countries have a simlar type of 'Democracy'. Thailand doesn't seem to have resorted to murdering its opposition parties yet - they just lock them up and ban them (at the moment).