MangoKorat

I understand why you might say that. However, expats starting businesses which create employment and pay taxes is a form of Foreign Direct Investment - something which Thailand works hard to attract.

I am aware that it is possible to own the structure and I know several that do although I have to admit, I don't know what those documents are - they could be just as you state. A structure can be separated from the land - think about it. Example, an owner demolishes a structure on their land and puts is up for sale - it is only the land that is for sale. I am yet to see a chanotte that states anything about structures although I am aware that Land Offices are increasingly recording details of structures built on land when updating their valuations. The purpose of separating the land from the house in this particular case would be that in the case of a relationship breakdown, the usufructuary would not be liable to charges of criminal damage if he was to demolish a structure that was not contained in the title deeds - i.e. the Usufruct was only on the land. My Usufruct, when translated into English legalese states ' that land described on the illustration situated at xxx xxx xxx and the dwelling house thereon'. Therefore, in my case if I wish to end my Usufruct I must hand the land back the land with the structure intact. Mine also goes into some detail regarding exactly what the house consists of and the condition of those structures at the time of the agreement (a Usufructuary must return the property in a reasonable condition). It also states that 'reasonable' is 'allowing for usage and time'. That level of detail I believe, is not usual but I believe its there because the previous 'owner' was a foreigner and wanted to avoid problems). The actual registered owner was his wife. The Usufruct was not one of the standard items - it was drawn up by the 'owner's lawyer, who is now my lawyer and a local judge.

I don't think the street food stalls should be got rid of but an alternative space should be found for them - similar to a marketplace. Don't just ban the culture, adapt it for modern times. Anything that causes you to step off the footpath on a busy main road is a danger to most of us but imagine how it is for a disabled person? Bangkok needs to seriously address all aspects of access for its disabled citizens and tourists. Likewise the fruit (etc.) vendors alongside fast moving highways - downright dangerous as Thai's see something 'arroy' and suddenly stop. These could be dealt with by providing proper laybys that are fenced off from the highway. Granted, impulse buying would end but many lives and injuries would be saved. Brits - can you imagine fruit stalls on the M1?😁

I think you mix with the wrong crowd.

A strange reply. I don't remember saying that common knowedge convicted anyone. I'm saying that the cases where people have got away with murder are common knowledge. We've all read about them.

Hmmmmm - American?

More of the same bitterness - get help!

You really are a bitter little person aren't you? Get some therapy - don't waste your life being bitter.

Why do you post in such a way? Do you do it for effect? If so, you may want to think again, it actually works against you. Why do you say 'could not make money in his home country' - is that because of your own experience? I can't speak for others but I earned almost all of my money in my home country. I'm moving to Thailand full time this year and I'm certainly not thinking I will be able to earn money easier - I fully expect it to be much more difficult.

Firstly - and I think you know this very well. The 2 men from Myanmar were convicted of murder with no physical evidence. A forensic report was provided regarding some of the evidence but the evidence itself was not available to the court. That in itself, should at the very least have lead to that report not being allowed to be entered into evidence Furthermore, as the evidence was not available the defence were not able to have it independently tested to verify both its authenticity and its accuracy. In most courts in civilised countries, that fact alone would mean the prosecution could not go ahead and the case would be thrown out. The conviction of the 2 men from Myanmar was not only an injustice, it was a disgrace on the country. More directly to your statements - I've read many reports across the media in the 20+ years I've been visiting Thailand where Thai's, usually rich and famous or the police, have indeed 'Got Away With Murder'. I'm pretty sure that you have also read the same reports. Its what is known as 'commom knowledge' so no, I'm not going to spend my time providing you with links to reports that you have almost certainly read. You are just trying to be difficult - I say trying because you are failing. Most members here, especially those that have been around for a while, will know of these cases. We know what we've read - we don't necessarily remember the full details.

They cover that in the labour laws with 'Manual Labour' - a catch all clause. But you have to consider this - many foreigners start businesses that would not otherwise have been there previously. Those foreigners provide jobs for Thai's and pay taxes - thus boosting the economy. I have no intention of owning a bar but if I did, I'd be pretty p'd off if I was providing jobs for Thai's but not able to serve my customers a beer. On many occasions a foreigner can do a particular job better than a Thai would - take the example of a tour guide. That guide, if they were a foreigner, would most likely speak the same language as the tourists fluently and therefore answer their questions and understand their requirements. That tour is bringing X amount of guests to Thailand - the authorities should be grateful for that. I've been on a tour of Khao Yai National Park twice - on the first tour the guide spoke excellent English and knew the area very well. We had an excellent trip and the guide was very knowlegable about the wildlife that were the objective of the tour. That prompted me to recommend the tour to some visiting relatives (even though its damned expensive). On the second tour the guide could speak only basic English and was clearly reading from a script. Guests were only given basic information - we were all very disappointed. I fully understand the reasons for protecting Thai jobs but common sense should be applied. Abuse is pretty easy to identify.

Possibly but it shouldn't matter. This should be taken in context. Its most likely that this woman got along well with or knew these guests and just said 'I'll give you a ride to the airport' - and why not? If she was/is taking guests to the airport regularly, that's a different matter. If it was just a one off, hopefully the authorities will apply some common sense - one ride does not = loss of a Thai job.

I quite often read tosh on here but that's the biggest load of tosh I've seen for a while. Define 'young girls' - if you mean underage, fair enough but the vast majority of young girls in the bars are of legal age. What is this 'illegal organisation' you are refering to Mr. Holier Than Thou temple-goer? The vast majoirty of the girls that work in the bars aimed at foreigners do so of their own free will. If you check on where the majority of trafficked and underage girl are found - you may note that its in the entertainment venues aimed at Thai and Asian customers, often in Northern Thailand.

Its been illegal to show a suspect's face in these arrest photos for about 3 years now.

Yes but don't you think it was pathetic of them to nick her for that? If she's managing hotels she's hardly likely to be taxi driving as a side job. More likely some customers she either knew or made friends with. I was once questioned when I dropped a mate off at Suvarnabhumi - the conversation ended when I told them to contact my lawyer. Let's get this straight, foreigners are not allowed to be a driver of any sort if its an occupation, paid or otherwise. Driving a friend to the airport is not an occupation. If that's the case then all those Thai's that take friends and family to the airport should have a taxi licence. The woman in this case made the mistake of taking the people to the airport in the hotel's car so it could be said that she was doing it on behalf of the hotel. However, being arrested for something and being convicted in court are two separate things - let's see. Its much the same as when someone on here stated that they were nicked for drilling a hole in the wall of their condo or those that say you can only paint the inside of your garden wall. Neither is an occupation and I've never seen anyone taken to court for such things - they were just stupid enough to pay the police that were just trying it on. I've yet to see anyone making these claims say that they were convicted in a court - its always the Thai police. I had a conversation with my lawyer about this so the above is not just my opinion - she confirmed to me that neither scenario could be considered as an occupation. The law is there to protect Thai jobs, not to punish people for carrying out DIY tasks or giving a mate a lift. My lawyer did however, state that if you painted a neighbour's garden wall, that's a completely different story. I've carried out a lot of the renovation work on my (Thai) home in full view of my next door neighbour who just so happens to be a police captain. I also drove a Thai friend's family members from Buriram and Korat to Hua Hin for her wedding in a rented mini bus. I passed through 2 checkpoints and nothing was said.

The land will not be in your name but your name (normally in Thai) will be in the entry on the rear of the Chanotte. The house itself (bricks and mortar) can be in your name and a specific deed to that effect can be issued to you. The difference between having a Usufruct on the land only or one on the land and buildings thereon is that if you wish to end the Usufruct, you can remove the house if its in your name. Although its doubtfull, the owner can insist you remove any buildings built on the land after the date of the agreement. If you wish to end a Usufruct that covers land and buildings the owner can insist that the buildings are in a condition similar to what it was when you took out the Usufruct unless the agreement specifically states otherwise. In other words, there is an obligation for you to maintain the property. If you (your wife) buy land that already contains a house, I'm not sure that they can be separated again - check with a lawyer. Although the chanotte will only refer to the land, Land Offices are now starting to include buildings in their valuation so they may have those details on file. It all seems very messy to me, I'd just take out a Usufruct on the lot, I wouldn't try to own the house but some do. The Usufruct agreement is not required to and does not contain any price you may have paid in consideration. Therefore there is no tax payable on the agreement. However, let's presume that what you are talking about is your wife buying the house/land and then granting you a Usufruct - the transaction between the then owner and your wife will be subject to the usual transfer taxes. Who pays them is usually agreed on sale and you should clarify that before your wife buys it.

Some nonsense being talked here as usual. OP, firstly a Usufruct is accepted in Thai law provided it is set out and worded correctly in accordance with the Land Code. It also must be registered on the title at the land office. To make sure that the clauses are accepted in Thai law, use a good Thai lawyer. You cannot transfer the Usufruct upon death or otherwise but you can take out a Usufruct jointly with your daughter when she comes of age - provided the Usufructor agrees. That usufruct would end upon the death of whoever dies last. There are people here advising you on the basis that you are building a house on family land in 'the village' when you clearly state that you want to buy a villa. Providing the land is nowhere near and not in any way connected to your wife's family or friends - you shouldn't have any problems in the event of a relationship breakdown.

Incorrect. A Usufruct is not a lease and unless specified only ends on death of the usufructuary.

To be fair I don't think you can blame Thai people for that. From a very young age they are not just taught to love Thailand, they are more or less told that Thailand is the most wonderful place in the world, never been invaded, etc. etc. Most, are taught very little about history on a world level. My ex thought that the industrial revolution began in Japan.

Isn't 'hooker' on the Resevered Occupations list then?

🤣🤣🤣 What's he on?

I don't know if anyone thinks they've fully integrtated but you'll never be fully accepted - even by your wife. When sh*t comes to bust, Thai's will always support another Thai even when its clear you're in the right. That said, I spend most of my time in country with Thai friends and I mostly go to Thai clubs and bars. Anyway, I refuse to eat stinking 100 year old fish and chicken feet.

Yeah right! That's a new one, never heard that before. Have you been smoking some of the evidence your honour?

I agree, however, they claim to have methods where customers can get help - often aimed at tourists. I guess they advertise these things in order to a). Simply make it look like there is help available - even though the reality is that there isn't and b). Part of the usual 'talking shop'. I remember many years ago getting very p'd off at a hotel that had booked an extremely loud wedding party in a hall directly under my room. The 'Thai Style' bass was literally making my floor shake - not a hope of getting any sleep. When I first went to complain they said the party would end by midnight - it was still going at 3am when I packed my bags and asked reception for a refund which was of course, refused. Instead of getting angry, I called the Tourist Police to ask for their help. I kid you not, they didn't speak English. The Tourist Police couldn't speak the International Language. I wish it was possible to get them to understand that its far better to say and offer nothing rather than advertise a service that either doesn't exist or does not in fact offer any help. They are clearly thinking that anyone who reads the notices in taxis will feel secure because there is a method of complaint but in fact they do the country more damage by not actually having things in place. Anyone who returned to Thailand under the 24 hour quarantine scheme will know exactly what I mean. You were supposed to get tested on arrival, download an app and wait until your results came through. Provided they were negative, you were good to go. There was a further self test at I think 7 days and the hotel were supposed to give you that and explain what it was about. I was just handed the kit, nothing was said and off I went. There was a 'helpline' number with the kit, I called them, they just said 'Upload, Upload' and put the phone down. After a lot of playing around I learned that you were supposed to upload a photo of your negative self test on the App - was it something like Thai Chana??? I tried it - the app wouldn't work and I gave up. For the rest of my stay I was sure someone would arrive at my door and arrest me or I'd be arrested at the airport when I left - nothing ever happened. Lots of people were posting about this at the time - all having similar problems. I remember some discussion on here when people realised that there were no checks - anyone could actually provide your second test sample. One member on here suggested swabbing your pet cat. 😁 I seem to remember a Thai minister being quizzed about problems with the App by the Thai press at the time (could have been Anutin). His reply was that everything was in hand, they'd set up a helpline where anyone having problems could get advice - yeah, 'Upload, Upload' - the extent of the advice! What his answer really was is exactly what we are discussing BS!!! The whole testing thing was just BS - they just wanted to appear like they were doing something.

Agreed - sometimes these things are because someone hasn't understood the rules. I remember reading some Thai rule or other that had been translated to English and saying to my then wife, this translation is terrible and it doesn't make sense. She took a look at the Thai original and said that the original was just as confusing. It could also be simply that they require photo ID and only trust a passport. Given that you are actually supposed to have your passport with you at all times (I have), producing it when travelling by bus shouldn't be a problem.