MangoKorat

Each time I read such things I think.......riots! And riots is exactly what would happen in most countries where any group tried to remove the democratic rights of the people. Imagine trying to do this in France? Sadly, the Thai people seem totally resigned to the fact that the Military will always be in charge of the country and there's nothing they can do to change that. So sad.

The translation here could be looked at as confusing. It is not against the law to simply 'transport passengers in a car'. It is illegal for a foreigner to drive any motor vehicle in Thailand as part of an occupation - paId or unpaid. The purpose being to protect Thai jobs. Taking the translation literally it could be said that you can't even drive your family around.

To avoid being arrested for petty reasons.

Precisely! One has to wonder what the purpose of stressing the King's involvement in the democratic process is. They wouldn't be using that in an attempt to gain support from the people..................would they?

They cannot be serious........wasn't the result of the last election and who was actually allowed into government the real 'overthrow of democracy'?

Her?

I actually trust in Thai law and I trust my lawyer. I detect a 'foreigner always loses' assertion in the above statement. If indeed it is possible for 'your ex to request it' - are you saying that a court will always act on that request? Do you not think that they would consider the circumstances? I've often heard people state that a foreigner will always lose in a Thai court - the same sort of attitude that claims we are always held responsible for car accidents etc. I have had occasion to litigate in Thailand twice; once against a major hospital group and once against my ex wife. I won both cases and believe me, the hospital brought in some 'big shot' lawyer from Bangkok. As I said previously, your understanding of that rule is not the same as mine but whatever, I would expect a court to act in a proper manner and only find for the party that has right on their side. I would add one caveat to all of that though - having seen what goes on in the Thai courts, I think a foreigner's chances of success very much depend on their choice of lawyer. The courts seem to decide a case based only on what a lawyer puts before them, they don't seem to point out the law to a lawyer. If your lawyer doesn't fully understand the law concerned and believe it or not, many don't, you are at risk of losing because of your lawyer whether you are in the right or not. In one of my cases, it was clear that my lawyer understood the law better than the judges involved. It is therefore vital that any Usufruct Agreement is written by a good Thai lawyer, using only the accepted clauses. That way, it should stand if tested at court.

I agree but even if it was allowed to be registered, it would probably be cancelled on the death of the Usufruct holder - just as the Usufruct is.

Points one and three of your additions are contained within a normal Usufruct in any case. Point two is against the normal and accepted wording of a Usufruct Agreement and could possibly render it void. It is also not necessary as no matter who own the property after the Usufruct is registered, they must fully accept the rights granted by it. Usufructs are not liked by some Thai lawmakers and judges and there is an agreed format as to the terms of a Usufruct and the rights it grants. Thai lawyers acting for owners wanting rid of a Usufruct, scour the agreements looking for clauses that go against the accepted format. Usufructs that have been found to have clauses outside the agreed format have been cancelled by the Thai courts. It is far better not to 'rock the boat' by trying to add clauses - none of the clauses that you added were necessary or granted you additional rights.

And they probably will. When a brothel in Leeds was raided a few years back all the Thai girls working there said they'd been forced to work against their will, had their passports taken form them, were in huge debt etc. etc. My ex wife and I often visited Thai get-togethers in the area and knew some of those girls - no way were they working against their will and none had been trafficked. They'd simply learned how much they could earn in the UK, arrived on tourist visas and overstayed.

I have heard of that before. I of course, am not a lawyer but the information that I have been given is that which my lawyer gave me. I'm not sure that a Usufruct can be voided because my understanding is that the rules you refer to only apply in certain circumstances and also that they only apply to a contract of value. It could be said that a Usufuct is of no value to anyone else other than the Usufructuary because it is not transferable. As for the purchase itself. If a person loans money to their girlfriend to buy a property and it is bought before marriage, it then becomes Sin Suan Tua and remains so after the marriage. I am unsure as to whether the lender will have a claim to any uplift in value (less the Sin Suan Tua amount) over the years. On that matter I only know UK law as I was caught up in such a scenario. I owned a property before marriage and my wife, on divorce, could not claim a portion of its value as it was on the date of our marriage when we divorced. She could however, as we had lived in the property together and therefore she could claim to have taken care of its maintenance etc, claim a portion of the uplift in value. I have a feeling though, that the law in Thailand is different on that matter and that property treated as Sin Suan Tua includes any uplift in value. In other words it is completely removed from any calculations as to division. If, as the poster is saying, he doesn't plan to get married, he does at least have the option of increasing the mortgage amount if he spends anything on the property or to take account of significant uplifts in value - subject of course, to his partner's agreement. I'd suggest, that a canny wife would refuse to accept such an increase whereas the position of a girlfriend is always regarded as somewhat less secure. As I always say in these matters, get the advice of a good Thai lawyer. However, they can only advise as things are. In this case, they can only advise him as if he intends to live with his girlfriend. As a person's situation changes so might their legal position. The Thai government could solve a lot of these problems - and a lot of fighting between couples, if they allowed married foreigners to jointly own property with their spouse. Upon divorce, a similar method could be applied as exists where a wife leaves a property to a foreign husband on her death. He has to sell it within, is it 6 or 12 months? Whatever, they cannot continue to own the property

Everyody's circumstances are different. Only you can decide what's best for you. If all you want to do is protect your original investment, that shouldn't be a problem. The likelihood though, is that you will add to and alter the property over the years. I don't think there's anything to stop you increasing the mortgage to cover that. Many people say rent, don't buy in Thailand but I've rarely seen a Thai property that suits all my wishes. I also want to know that in the event of falling on hard times, I don't have any monthly rental to pay. Owning my own property is far better for me. I have a Usufruct and a couple of other measures - all done through my lawyer and satisfy me that whereas my name may not be registered on the Chanotte as the owner, I have total control of the property, including the right to sell it and keep the money. All perfectly legal as nothing I hold attempts to state that I am the owner and no attempt has been made to circumvent the Thai Land Laws. The registered owner is still a Thai citizen. I'm single so I don't have to worry about any division of property in the future. The Thai Land Law states that a foreigner cannot own land, it does not state that a foreigner can't control land. Whatever you do to protect yourself, I cannot stress enough that you should seek out and use a good Thai lawyer. I'm told that in some areas, such a person is difficult to find. I've used mine for 10 years and I trust what she tells me. Ask around, try to find the same.

True but at least in Thailand, if you can show you owned something (including cash) before you were married, that remains yours and does not form part of any division in the event of a divorce.

Remember this though: If you don't get married and things break down, your only claim will be on the amount of the mortgage. I can't remember the exact amounts and again it depends in the land office but let's say you purchase a property for 3 million baht. The Land Office may refuse to allow a mortgage to be registered of say 2.5 million. The most likely scenario - based on what others do is that you buy land and build a house. So, let's say the land costs 1 million and the build costs 1.5 million. The Land Office valuation for the property may well be say 600,000. So to register a mortgage on the property that covers your total outlay - 2.5 million, you could have a hard time persuading the Land Office. Some Land Offices will just accept a mortgage of any amount - they are not really interested - some can be difficult. They are all different - this is just one of the reasons that you should always use a lawyer. The Land Office is far more likely to accept a request for a charge over the property in the amount given by a lawyer than they are from you. Yout starting point, if you know where the property will be is to find out if the Land Office accepts foreign mortgages - if they don't, everything else is a waste of time. I am not sure on this but I think it is far more likely that a Land Office will say yes to a foreign mortgage if asked by a lawyer than they will if you or your girlfriend asks them. The reason for that is xenophobia. Many Thai's don't want any foreign involvement in Thai land. There is no law preventing a foreign mortgage but some Land Offices refuse to. It follows that a request made by a lawyer - someone who knows the law, is far more likely to succeed if they are an office that is opposed to foreign mortgages. My Land Office refused to even accept my Usufruct when I tried to register it personally - no problems for my lawyer.

For an explanation search 'Sin Somros' and 'Sin Suan Tua' Here's one explanation: https://www.siam-legal.com/legal_services/Marital-Property-for-Thailand-Divorce.php

It just makes things easier in the event of a divorce but if you don't get married, you won't have that problem. In fact, if you don't get married and things go south - things will be far easier. It would take pages to explain why - its all about who's due what and who gets what in a divorce - Thai law. Yes, the debt is still oustanding but the amount of debt may be different to what you think is due to the laws applied on divorce. In all cases, keep a paper trail. Make sure you can show that the funds you transfer were actually yours before you transfer them to Thailand and always transfer them through a bank - don't do it in cash. Yes I know............but you would no believe the size of some cash deals in Thailand. If you do get married, make sure you can prove that the funds used to purchase the property (transferred) were yours before you were married and not earned after you were married.

Partially correct. A Usufruct Agreement is not transferable by the Usufructuary (you). It applies to the signatory (s) and only the signatory (s). The owner can sell the property but the Usufruct remains in place - that renders the property virtually unsaleable in real terms. To obtain the best protection under marital law, make sure the funds to buy the property and the actual purchase are transacted after marriage not before. I am told that some Land Offices, if they know the purchaser is married to a foreigner, are still requiring the foreigner to sign a document stating that they are giving the money to their spouse freely for their own use and they will not make any claim over the property in the future. This is an old thing and was I am told, never the actual law in Thailand but it was something that many Land Offices applied. A lawyer told me that such a practice is actually illegal because it goes against family law in terms of a dispute on divorce. I think it goes without saying that a Land Office that tries to apply that 'rule' are unlikley to register a foreign mortgage. Where the Land Office will accept and register a foreign mortgage (not all do) It is possible for a foreigner to grant a loan/mortgage etc. - thereby creating a legal charge over the property. The Land Office in my area - Pak Chong, will accept foreign mortgages. 30 years is the maximum time allowed in Thailand for a lease. A Usufruct is not a lease. The Usufruct does not have a specified time - it dies when you die. It does not however, expire on death of the owner. Whoever the title is inherited by, or indeed sold to - the Usufruct stays in place and the new owner must accept it. As an addendum - if it is possible to use a Thai friend to purchase the property, do so - that makes life far less messy in the event of a future marriage breakdown. You still take out the mortgage on the property so your investment is protected - its just easier if things go wrong. Your lawyer will tell you why. I would always recommend using a decent lawyer in these matters.

I think you've answered your own question. If she was indeed, transporting customers around regularly, then she was breaking the law and that would be quite clear. However, I think the Thai authorities should take a look at each category of work that is available to foreigners and possibly allow a little flexibility in terms of the scope of such employment. After all, in many cases foreigners are actually providing jobs for Thais that didn't previously exist. That rarely seems to count but it should. That is what I think - however, I am fully aware that the Thai authorities are unlikely to apply any logic to their thoughts. Selfishness and illogical thinking has always prevailed in Thailand. I can't think of any better way to explain what I mean by that than to go back a few years - before the advent of booking websites. In bad times when tourist numbers were down, instead of putting on promotions and offering discounts to try and attract more business, hotels in Thailand would often put their prices up! I remember those days quite well - I just couldn't work it out. Totally illogical and the opposite of what most would do. Harming business rather than enhancing it. In much the same way, they are unlikely to consider serving one drink - as I postured in a previous post, as a one off. I may think that logical thinking should be applied to the application of the Labour Laws but I am very aware that its unlikely to happen.

I'm not really interested in what happens in other countries. This report concerns Thailand and in my opinion, common sense should apply.

He won't get anywhere near 7 years!

He obviously quickly removed his crash helmet and put on the baseball cap and headphones. I'm sure he wasn't riding through busy traffic whilst part of his sensory conception is blanked out by music. 😉

What this all comes down to is: With regard to the man who has been acting as a tour guide on Phuket, whether you agree with the law that prevents that or not (I don't), he seems to have been carrying out such employment and if so, is guilty. Slam dunk. However in relation to the hotel manager, the question is whether or not carrying out a minor task, which based on the report, is what it was, should be considered as breaching the Thai Labour Laws? When does a favour become an occupation? Say you're a bar owner, a customer walks into the bar and orders a drink but your staff are at the toilet. Is it so wrong for you to open a bottle of beer for that customer? Would that actually be depriving a Thai of a job? If you don't have any or not enough waiting staff and are regularly serving customers then you are breaking the law. Based on the reports this woman has legal employment within the tourist industry. If all she's done is given a lift, on one occassion - again, is that so bad? If she has been doing it regularly, that is a different matter. Surely common sense should apply? - and in fact it might, we know not at this stage.

Ignore him, you've clearly seen his contributions on other threads - I have a name for people like him, well 2 names actually and one of them is hole.

A visit from the police will probably sort that out.

I am in no way agreeing with the company but they may not be aware of the problem. There are many ways in which criminals could have obtained your details without them knowing - including the company's software being hacked. It may be worthwhile contacting your bank's fraud department to see if there are other reports of breaches after a genuine transaction has been made with that company. In the UK, the banks share such information with each other in order to identify where breaches originate, I can't see Australia being any different. I used my card at a restuarant once and it was skimmed. I later learned that a member of staff at the restaurant was arrested for 'skimming' cards. Things have got a lot more sophisticated since then but the concept remains.