thaiwanderer

Why do you think you will get a bad exchange rate by transfering the money to Thailand bank to bank?

I have always found TT rates are much better than exchange rates at the money changers.

I bought a condo in Bkk a few years ago...dead easy when you TT the money over. The transaction document MUST show the reason for transfer and the exact condo (address) that you are buying.

It is impossible to buy a condo here with cash! (foreign owned) a friend of mine recently had to transfer his money to a Singapore bank and then re send it back to Thailand to buy his condo. It was a huge hassle for him. Believe me, he tried everything to buy with cash. He even had his money in US$ so don't believe posters here that say you can get the transfer documents from an exchange agent. You MUST show that the funds originated from another country.

Good luck.

you maybe right

There is a MUST about tranfered money (on the paper of law ) if buy condo in thailand

BUT thai banks also accept and give you the document to buy condo

if you change your foreign cash in their bank for sure,

there are many examples like that happened already

So what's this thread for then?

Shares rather than land is being transferred in the example.

OP - why is a second thread needed?

You cannot do what you are hoping - and (as said in the other thread) this is for good reason.

If it were me I'd want the company closed by the previous owners to resolve all liabilities. Then I'd purchase the property free and clear.

Understandable. However, many companies are set-up just for the acquisition of property in Thailand. Effectively, it can be very cost effective to simply transfer the names of those concerned as the buyer often pays the land transfer fees.

There wouldn't be any land transfer fees.

Even if the seller pays corporate transfer fees why would a Thai want an illegal nominee company?

For a foreigner relaxed with breaking the law they still might prefer their own company since they will know there's no debts etc.

cannot (and for good reason!)

plenty of threads on this in this section

better to transfer shares in offshore controlling company - but if as appears that isn't the case here then in general what you suggest will be required (at the very least)

if a Thai wishes to buy and that's how you are selling then for sure they may be required to do it that way but they must really want it - otherwise why not just own in their own name rather than taking on the company that was only used so a foreigner could circumvent the law?

Thanks! By signing the doc, the spouse is thereby consenting, no?

consenting perhaps but not really a great proof or protection

will of course need to register it and better to have a detailed and case specific usufruct contract drawn up

Using a Nominee just asks for trouble.

The only legitimate way to participate in the land/ property business is via debt mechanisms. If a farang finances property acquisitions for a Thai company or wife then it should be a simple matter of having a bonafide finance contract that recognises the lien over the property plus the payment of interest and/or profit sharing arrangement - as per a Sharia agreement.

Nothing ocmplicated about it unless you try to subvert the laws.

including wworking without a permit???

As I said, it technically expired. But the benefits in reality continue.

Thailand couldn't renew the treaty without extending the benefits to all WTO member states.

The solution, as is often the case, is a grey area.

It allows Americans to majority / totally own and operate companies in Thailand and not be limited by many FBA and other restrictions.

While this puts them on a par in many respects (but not all) with Thai companies they are still 'aliens'.

The treaty does not allow amity treaty companies to own land and if anyone can point out my error I'd more than welcome being corrected.

Take a look at the "Thailand American Treaty of Amity" the only online copy is on the Thailand Embassy web site in Washington D.C., and yes it is still in effect and no plans to cancel it.(read how the treaty can be cancelled)

Read it carefully, the treaty is between His Majesty The King Of Thailand and L.B J. President of the United States. So no government was involved in this treaty!

There are 2 copies English and Thai, both are legal translations for use of the treaty. You can download the copies and get them certified by the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok.

Yes there is a clause about owning,using land for the company, again read it, than read it again.

I own 91% of my company and enjoy many benefits especially from the U.S. in importation of "restricted items". There are people at the Embassy who will help you with the application and it is encouraged for U.S. Citizens.

Again read the treaty, remember the translation is also legal, so don't let anyone tell you otherwise. An added advantage is NO Nominees are needed, if something happens you are completely legal under the treaty.

The funny thing is that most government locations do not you are under the treaty, so bring the Treaty Registration paper with you, they usually will say it's no good or wrong government. A call to the Embassy usually opens the door to rights granted under the treaty.

So your amity company owns land? The treaty precludes land ownership.

Technically the treaty expired in 2005 (though FTAs in its place are slow coming).

IIRC the treaty benefits americans have do not extend to owning land.

With BOI approval any foreigner may own one rai but the criteria and restrictions make it unattractive.

Ther reason I say this is not to show off but to suggest that the neighbours from hell have a much better outlook than before.

I suspect their view may be entirely the opposite.

As to the tone of the rest of your post I'm reminded of pride coming before a fall.

It is hilarious that foreigners start from the premise that is it ok for them to flaunt the laws of Thailand by setting up an illegal structure to hold land unlawfully and then cry foul when the Thai authorities catch em!

If you don't want to lose what you have then start at the outset obeying the laws of the land.

There are legitimate ways to control land and property in Thailand, pay the minimum of tax and sleep comfortably at night.

However if you listen to your mates and shady characters, and if you are not prepared to pay for professional advice and assistance - do as Stevie Nicks sings ... "Go your own way" (and perish!)

P.S. PM me if you would like to meet in Bangkok for an initial obligation FREE consultation in a couple of weeks from now!

Are your methods entirely legal or just less grey?

You may wish to consider using a new foreign company solely for owning the condo unit.

another news source mentioned they may prepare a ' Special ' cell for him during the trail that meets with British or International Law ...

One of the 'secret' rendition sites then?

"We would like to remind our newly-elected MPs as they enter the opposition that their job descriptions call for assistance in the formation of national legislation and government policy – not involvement in the purely local issues, like the drug problem in Pa Khlok or traffic congestion in Phuket Town, that were the focus of their campaigns"

.....or infrastructure / sustainability of tourism in phuket?????

? the OP asked about expats and I was replying to your post.

Even on your further reply tourism isn't that important.

As regards what may or may not happen all foreigners don't fall into the same category and never have.

The prohibition is 'except where allowed by treaty' etc and the Bowring Treaty allowed for British enjoyment of property rights etc on a par with Thais.

I have no doubt this treaty is ineffective now but can anyone point me to the lack of renewal / act abolishing it or whatever that made it ineffective - just out of historical interest?

Many thanks.

Some interesting discussions, however, getting back to the OP:

1) What will happen to us?

I believe that the OP was referring to foreigners being allowed to stay in Thailand. From my take on Thailand, the Thai's are pragmatic. Foreigners = money. Tourists = MORE money. This country needs money. It needs tourism and it needs outside expertise. There is no doubt in my mind that the powers that be know this and there is no intention of changing the status quo.

2) Will the farang be driven out?

Why would they? Who would drive them out and for what purpose? If this happened, tourism would drop instantaneously. Foreign investment would dry up overnight. The country would be an economic basket case within a month.

I am not saying that without farang that Thailand would cease to exist, but that the world is now a much smaller place than it was a few years back and any action has a reaction....often unexpected.

Money seeks out opportunity and hates instability.

I couldn't imagine that Toyota and Ford would stay. They wouldn't be allowed to. Think of the other international companies with offices or manufacturing, or for that matter mining and exploration, who are now working and creating jobs and wealth FOR Thailand.

So sleep tight. All is fine in the land of smiles.....for now !

You overestimate the importance of tourism - check the GDP figures.

Also equating individual foreigners (expats, tourists or other two bit contributors) to corporate foreign investors and conflating the protections or tolerance either might enjoy is a mistake.

Every Thai has the same rights and being handicapped does not disqualify her rights to acquiring property. Since she is able to read and understand there would be no reason for her to be disqualified from owning land. If she was assigned a legal guardian during her minority then any guardianship would end upon reaching the age of majority.

You need to find out for certain what legal procedure was done at the age of 14 before moving ahead, but if it was a simple guardianship then it is no longer relevant and there should be no cause for her to not acquire land.

[sunbelt][/sunbelt]

On a related point, are you aware of any restrictions (legal or how shall we say, 'practical') on a foreigner acting as guardian / curator for a minor / incompetent's affairs, specifically relevant to land ownership?

OP - with regard to your wife you should refer to sections 28 to 36 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

This deals with persons being incompetent, quasi-incompetent, of unsound mind and being incapable of managing their own affairs (including due to physical infirmity amongst other things).

I suspect your wife would not fall into any of these but advice should be sought rather than asuming she does, having the land in the children's names and the consequent restrictions.

If a Thai wife were adjudged incompetent etc might it be possible for her foreign husband to administer her affairs as curator?

Most countries I have lived and worked in, foreigners can buy land. Usually they develop it ( and economicailly its not bad to have exapts splashing their cash about) and very few of them take the land back to their home countries when they leave.

Foreigners can buy land in Thailand too, they just can't own it!

Its a good system whereby stupid foreigners develop land and splash cash but are always kept in a grey area.

They seem happy (if only temporarily) so all sides win. Those that pontificate about it being a bad idea are unimportant non-investors.

Though the figures may well be wrong the titles haven't been properly investigated.

What I have read in this topic is not about land titles being genuine or not, it is about foreign ownership/control of Thai land in general.

Its kinda OFF to claim 1 billion out of 322 million RAI is owned by foreigners.

It is also kinda OFF claiming they are owned by foreigners, when investigations have revealed they mostly are owned by legal Thai co ltd

meant investigating who has title

merely checking owner is a thai company with majority thai shareholders etc is no real investigation - how many chanotes would anyone imagine would actually be held by 'Mr Foreigner'?

Mr Sriracha said foreigners had already acquired about one-third of all Thai land, about one billion rai.

either Mr Sriracha does not know what a billion is or the Phuket Gazette employs a misquoting journàsslist. according to the CIA factbook Thailand's land area is 514,000 km² = 321,250,000 Rai.

in addition he is basing his 90% phuket farang land on 2009 figures, already investigated and found false

no secret much beachfront in Phuket is owned by co ltd with foreign interests, just mention a few neighbors like Hilton, Holiday Inn, Marriot, Club Med, le Meridian. Even Thai controlled companies prefere to spread risks to offshore ownership, its taken 2 years investigation to conclude it is legal, and then blown up again

Though the figures may well be wrong the titles haven't been properly investigated.

One issue not raised regarding deportation is there is little reason for the foreigner's personal name to appear on the lease or anywhere within company documents accessible by the Thai authorities?