thaiwanderer

Not now, knowing how tenuous things can be. Just one, or a small group of Thai politicians can change the rules of the game.

I fail to see how your risk / reward assessment has been changed by the current chest beating (unless you didn't make such an assessment).

Despite what the offical says all they actually need to do is enforce current laws.

That was always a possibility.

Whether they will or not is another matter.

It never ceases to amaze me that when this subject arises from time to time, they always hurl the accusations at the purchasers of land and never the sellers.

Please note if you purchased your land using a Thai company, this company will have gone through an approval process. If approved it will have been stamped as approved by an agent of the Thai government and they will have accepted the fee.

Then when the purchase was carried through, the process would be stamped and approved by an agent of the Thai Govt. and they will have accepted the fee and any taxes due.

People who "mouth off" like this particular individual should start looking inwards at their own culpability in this matter and consider the can of worms they might stir up for themselves if they decide to do anything about it.

If they want to change the law now to affect future purchases that's up to them but they should not look retrospectively at past aquisitions where they have clearly been complicite by approval.

I used to in the past get upset by the fact that so many foreigners owned so much of England. Then I thought about it and recognized that they couldn't pack it in a suitcase and take it away. It's still England and they are just taking care of part of it for a while and paying for the privelege.

Cheers.

Ah sanity.

No sanity.

If you have actually read the documents you sign when you form a company and use a company to buy land you will know that you sign and promise that you have followed all the applicable laws. There is no signature by the government or their agents saying that they have checked and confirmed that all laws have been followed!! The government may or may not check that some conditions have been followed but it's up to you to make sure that everything is legal.

If you have used nominees and not real investors to form a company and this is found out at a later stage you will be responsible for the consequences.

....and no liability attaches for the mistake (intentional or otherwise) of government officials.

Nod's post is akin to childish finger pointing - 'everyone does it, officials were incompetent or complicit therefore I shouldn't be responsible for my own wilfull law breaking'

The whining here is quite ridiculous. Everyone understood that the intent of Thai law was to prevent foreigner ownership of Thai land. So, some foreigners cleverly set up their fake companies to exploit a supposed loophole allowing them to violate the expressed intent of Thai law. And, lo and behold, eventually the Thais get around to fixing the loophole and punishing the foreigners. Seemed inevitable to me. Foreigners don't have a right to own Thai land. Period. If you want to own land buy it somewhere else. The same thing happened in Mexico where foreigners were not allowed to own oceanfront land. But the law wasn't enforced. Americans loved buying up oceanfront property in Mexico because it was so cheap! Then one day the Mexican government confiscated it all. There were a lot of weeping gringos in those days.

If western countries would consider the well being of their most intelligent and driven citizens then none of this would be a problem. First off a lot of those foriegners wouldn't be living here in the first place, secondly, if western governments simply passed laws of "reciprocation" for the citizens of nations, then it would be easy to make Thailand's elite rule makers reconsider their views on foriegn ownership of land. The "reciprocity bill/act" would simply state the follow:-

"No citizen of a foreign land shall be entitled to rights or privelages that are beyond those afforded foreigners in their own country of citizenship"....just imagine how that would reshape the world!!!!

You jest? On the whole the standard of foreigners in Thailand leaves a lot to be desired.

All Thai people who currently own land need to realize that the value of their land is at stake in this situation. The resale value of their land would be slashed dramatically if a significant segment of the market was eliminated. It is simple supply and demand economics.

- Assuming the official wasn't just chest beating (he was) any fall in value would be from an inflated foreigner price anyway so who cares?

If it is really the case that a significant percentage of Thai land is controlled by foreigners and that segment of the market has their land confiscated or is forced to sell, then this will have the tragic consequences for all legitimate Thai owners. In order for property prices to remain stable and Thai investors to realize a gain on their real estate investments, the market needs the same or *more* buyers, and increased capital inflow, not the opposite. Thailand's Xenophobic, protectionist tendencies are archaic and actually hurt the Thai economy.

- Its actually corruption which hurts the 'Thai economy' most but those with the power are only interested in helping their own economies.

Investors are quite hesitant to invest in any asset unless they know they will have some serious degree of control over that asset.

- The foreigner section of the Thai real estate markets shows there is no such hesitancy.

Therefore, Thailand must seriously re-evaluate the outdated notion that foreigners should not be allowed to directly invest in Thai property. Why are Thai investors any better for Thailand than foreign investors? Does being born in this country somehow make them inherently loyal or lacking in corruption.

- It's protectionism for the sake of interested parties. There is no need to re-evaluate anything (seriously or otherwise) for as long as the right Thai pockets get filled.

Looking at certain recent Thai political leaders, it seems quite the opposite is true.

- Only recent political leaders and what about other types of leaders?

Yet, many foreigners chose to leave their home countries forever because they love Thailand and Thai people -- many of these people are fiercely loyal to Thailand.

- So loyal they break the law. Even if they were loyal who cares what they think?

Most all first world nations, including the USA have allowed direct ownership of land by foreigners for years; this has not hurt food production there at all. However, regardless, if that is a concern for Thailand, then they should have special protections for rice fields and farmland. But ownership of beachfront property in Phuket has no relationship whatsoever to food production.

- Sovereignty allows for differing and non-reciprocal laws. As to the mention of the USA they are hardly the paradigm.

Thailand made the right move a few years ago when the government created the condominium act, wherein foreigners can directly own up to 49% of the units in a condo complex with the other 51% owned by Thais.

- Unit floor space not units.

That has brought in countless billions of baht to Thailand from foreigners who otherwise would never have invested here.

- It's not 'countless' and is not that significant anyway. You overstae the importance of condos.

This is all good for the Thai economy. Why not offer additional special options for foreigners along these same lines in order to promote sales of larger, higher-end real estate. For example, why not allow developers who meet certain requirements to build communities of homes/villas for which 49% of those properties can be sold to foreigners directly in their own name, so long as the other 51% of those homes are sold to Thais.

- Because they can't be trusted, they already can't refrain from breaking the current law.

Additionally, the Thai legislature should enact laws to further protect Thai people's right to enter into long-term leases or renewals of a land lease. Currently, Thai leases are limited to just 30 years, which is much too short a time for any investor to be interested. Even 90 years is too short, because it means that once inherited by the lessee's children, their possession of the property may terminate in the middle of their life. Therefore, leases can only have approximately the same value as ownership if their length can be long enough to protect subsequent inheritance by the lessee's heirs. Leases should be protected by statute for as many terms as the Thai owner wants to offer -- this will have the effect of increasing the value of their property and increasing the capital inflow to Thailand. Since under a lease the property remains owned by a Thai person, there are no ownership issues, so the government needs to codify these inherent rights of the Thai land owners, providing a law which clearly states they have the right to renew their lease any number of times they wish, or more simply, offer a lease of any length they want. The Thai land owner's right to offer a lease of say, 180 years or whatever term they want, should be legislatively protected.

- Why 'should' they? Foreigners have bought without longer leases. Sure more could be sold but can you imagine the THB price given the already hyper inflated figures for dwindling assets. Set that off against the price of giving foreigners anymore rights and comfort and you'll see why it won't happen.

Well, well well .. if such new law is being drafted by the current government, if the current government allows this kind of ill-informed warmongering and hate-speech against the foreigners than ... as much as Mr. Thaksin appears dis-likable to me, I'm going to ask all my Thai "family" who still don't know who to vote for, to cast their votes for PT later today. Democrats didn't do anything for Farang's equality in their term, they didn't manage to heal, inspire and move the country and it may be time for them to go.

erm, there is no government currently?

this 'crackdown' will be no different than the last one or the one before that or the one before that etc

those whose structures are so weak as to be concerned by an investigation deserve to lose out when the time eventually comes

this thread is a classic example of how farangs often vastly over estimate their contribution to this country or any reliance of it on them

There is no way I will ever put money into Thai assets, because I think it's inevitable that a government will find an excuse one day to seize it in the name of nationalism.

Dodgy people, dodgy institutions, dodgy laws, dodgy governments and politicians = foreigner beware.

I find it incredible that people will invest in a country where the military always hold the trump card.

Precisely. Why add any more money than the vast sums the US has over the last 60 years?

I hope the TV massive will be similarily outraged at thai on thai land disputes, grabs and evictions.

Farang vanity purchases pale into significance against those real scandal.

Cracking down on this will be the same as the crackdown on foreigners in the share market: Foreign investors LEAVE, prices plummet and LOCAL investors scream blue murder because the value of THEIR properties gets flushed down the toilet.

Even if there is to be a crackdown (doubtful) I disagree. Foreigners' attempts to own via nominees has always been illegal but they still did it and continue to do so.

Any change just means different fools will be needed to drop their money.

There's a long line of these and always will be.

anyone who complied with the law has nothing to fear from enforcement (though i doubt anything substative will actually happen)

Tips for Thais:

1) Get a better education.

2) Get a better job / Create a real business (food carts don't count)

3) Learn what to do with the money you make and how to invest it.

4) Don't sell your land to foreigners in the first place.

5) Buy more land so foreigners can't. Aim for prime property.

6) Stop buying homes/land in other countries if you don't want foreigners to buy homes/land in yours.

7) If you can't make it happen, put a sock in it and move out of the way for those who can.

Problem solved.

.....or allow foreigners to 'buy' land they cannot own and always keep things grey?

tips for foreigners:

1) let go of the bitterness

2) don't assume the wealth of Thais you associate with is indicative

It never ceases to amaze me that when this subject arises from time to time, they always hurl the accusations at the purchasers of land and never the sellers.

Please note if you purchased your land using a Thai company, this company will have gone through an approval process. If approved it will have been stamped as approved by an agent of the Thai government and they will have accepted the fee.

Then when the purchase was carried through, the process would be stamped and approved by an agent of the Thai Govt. and they will have accepted the fee and any taxes due.

People who "mouth off" like this particular individual should start looking inwards at their own culpability in this matter and consider the can of worms they might stir up for themselves if they decide to do anything about it.

If they want to change the law now to affect future purchases that's up to them but they should not look retrospectively at past aquisitions where they have clearly been complicite by approval.

I used to in the past get upset by the fact that so many foreigners owned so much of England. Then I thought about it and recognized that they couldn't pack it in a suitcase and take it away. It's still England and they are just taking care of part of it for a while and paying for the privelege.

Cheers.

No change in the law would be necessary as the prohibition on nominees under the FBA and land code catches it already.

The extent to which government officials need to investigate those has varied over time but never reached the point of anything more than a cursory inspection.

And of course some structures involve a change in holdings after registration of ownership.

In any case no liability attaches to the mistake (genuine or intentional) of an official.

Of course the Thai sellers and to some extent Thai officials have at times been complicite but that is no defence morally, legally or otherwise for those attempting to control the land beyond what the law allows.

Whether anything substantive will actually arise from this offical sounding off is another matter entirely.

What's the build height of L'Orchidee Residences itself?

A usufruct can be cancelled but it must be on the agreement of both parties. In the event of a usufruct with a Thai spouse. the spouse cannot cancel the agreement without the consent of the foreign partner but may apply to the Courts to have it cancelled in the event of a divorce. If the Court orders the cancellation that does not necessarily mean the Thai spouse will gain full rights as, under Thai law, any assets gained during marriage are marital assets to be split 50/50 and the Court may order the sale of the land in order to divide the assets equally.

In cases of divorce where the assets are unclear or division is contested, it may be best to get a lawyer involved.

Making your dreams of being an entrepreneur a reality

26th Floor Fortune Town

CP Tower 2, 1 Ratchadaphisek Rd

Din Daeng, Bangkok 10400

(Phra Ram 9 MRT Station Exit 1)

Tel: 02-642-0213

Fax: 02-641-1995

Website: www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

Are you on Facebook or Twitter?

Receive Live Feeds and Expert Advice

Join The Conversation NOW!

This above comment from SUNBELT-ASIA is not in agreement with some posts here, that indicate that any USUFRUCT can be cancelled by the Thai-Spouse at any time as long the USUFRUCT was established DURING marriage.

I would hope, that SUNBELT-ASIA will step in at this point to issue a clarifiying and final comment as far as this is concerned.

Cheers.

This is your post.

I assumed the words I quoted were Sunbelt's not yours, hence my post above. Perhaps you could clarify?

Making your dreams of being an entrepreneur a reality

before any substantive issues, i really hope none of their correspondence includes that line

"Published by Andrew Drummond"

Very little more needs to be said in a story that is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese. There is probably an element of truth in it, like most of his reports, but they hardly justify being called "Thai News".

Point out hole and lets see what we can do about it. Its not under news on my site by the way

Interested in your distinction.

Its currently under 'other' rather than 'general news'.

What's the purported difference between this (story?) and those you consider news?

if Thailand receives them, thailand will be flooded with refugees if they are given refugee status ..

The better alternative would not result in that but as the cable makes clear that was unavailable. It remains unavailable as the required work still hasn't been done.

Should any UNHCR assessment of refugee status ever depend on the inconvenience it might cause?

Realpolitik aside, since when should an individual's refugee status depend on spurious floodgates arguments?

Read a cable today alleging UNHCR had no intention of assessing refugee status or otherwise.

A chanote obtained otherwise by yourself or a trusted lawyer on your behalf from the land office should not be relied upon for anything.

Even then the information it provides is only good for the moment at which it was obtained.

Due dilligence includes (but is not limited to) researching the title's history back to its first registration, uncovering any encumberances, private and public restrictions or affects on use.

Also 'Original' Chanotes offered as security for loans offer no real security.

The OP called his/her experience a nuisance and was interested in more serious mistakes.

IIRC complaints can be made to the Thai Lawyers Conduct Comittee but there are time limits.

Even then I suspect their powers may be limited to punishing the lawyer rather than recompensing the aggreived client who presumably would have to initiate a private court case?

Thankfully I have no experience of this.

Cancellation by accelerated death is also possible.

We have simply used a form available at land office, and no problem to drop payment dates or interest

Thankyou Kata

What do you mean by drop?

Things have really hotted up on this deal and the loan thing is pressing.

I discovered yesterday to my chagrin that the copies of the chanoot for the two neighbouring lots in question which showed it to be unencumbered must have been copied a year ago, because I learn she borrowed money against them and the chanoots are in the bank. I have reason to believe the first year may have just run out and the 220,000 borrowed needs 237,000 to pay off which sounds about right for a year.

At the same time to get the needed survey work done completely including splitting one of the lots one needs the original of the chanoot. This of course is in the bank and the bank would not allow that to happen without being paid off.

I have decided on a radical course.

With the agreement of the seller, I will take over the loan and a bit more for her expenses for 3 months, say 250,000 or so altogether. (The land price comes to best part of a million so even 300k safe)

I may give her 3 months interest free if the sale happens as hoped, for future goodwill.

It seems to me this helps me considerably.

1. She may likely feel I have dominant power and be less likely to find another buyer who doesn't demand an extra two lots I require which are causing a time delay of 3 months to process.

2. If anyone else did come into the picture she could never sell without my (the mortgagor's) knowledge......and within a week or two I should have a binding buy/sell contract to halt such a third party sale.

The worst that happens is I (presumably) don't lose my money, I get the problem of having to sue. I am willing to go the extra mile to get this lot, finding another would be just as much work........and hopefully we will both be very content.

Criticism gratefully accepted, but my real reason here is:

How does the chanoot get paid off and deregistered with the bank, and re-registered with me? Seems to me a bank official would have to go the land dept in question with the seller and I and do it all there, otherwise I am insecure at some time.

Anyone know about this?

Secondly....is a loan contract made separately and merely referred to by, say, date on the back of the chanoot next to the lender's name? Do I need my lawyer to do this or is it easy?

thanks a million

Hold on she's not been straight with you so tread even more carefully than normal.

Due dilligence should never be based on supplied copies of the title.

You say neighbouring plots - what DD have you carried out on the main plot?

A gift is not an agreement.

Claiming (in the above post) it is and is therefore voidable and then imposing non-gift conditions (agreement terms) on it that were never there initially is quite some convoluted reasoning.

A gift between husband and wife during marriage is or rather can be different not because of the voidability of agreements between husband and wife but because of the marital arena within which it occured.

The OP himself even seems unsure what it was (or rather what to call it now things have gone sour). The matter speaks for itself here - it plainly was a gift with no conditions (expectations perhaps but not conditions). The lack of the land office form waiving rights doesn't mean its a non-gift ('proving' a gift is like trying to prove a negative).

The OP needs to persuade a sympathetic Judge to sympatise with and inflate those expectations to a criminal conspiracy to cirumvent the general prohibition on him owing land which it was always intended would be 'his'. That's happened before and will again but depends on many factors that can't be openly discussed here.

The complicating factor for how best to proceed is whether his chances are better with this as a marital issue or not.

He possibly made the gift outside of Thai marriage. There may be benefits either way for him to try and make the land a divorce matter or just a straight up Thai lady nominee case.

Good legal advice onn both the Thai and Danish elements and overlaps should be obtained as there are so many variables here as to the best way to proceed.

Competent Official- The state officer appointed by the Ministry to enforce the Act

Splitting hairs, I'd say authorised rather than appointed and as per a previous thread those powers vest in different officials depending on the particular part of the act being enforced and how.

Luang, if as it appears you are merely renting your 'complaint' such as it is should be directed toward your landlord

- is that actually the condo juristic person or a third party owner of your unit?

This may (or may not) explain the lack of a direct response.

In any event I doubt very much that what you signed up for (with whoever) was so specific as to state 2 ACs rather than 1.

Its personal preference (i say AC in a gym at all is pathetic) and you could petition members for their views but might well antagonise them over something so petty (and which will actually be benefitting your workouts).

Tourists abused? If they are white, who cares - being perhaps the most incorrigible race i have ever encountered makes this and similar stories here so believable :jap:

Even if the OP could get a mortgage what difference is he/she hinting at if things go wrong?

As mentioned above, will depend on what protections you friend may or may not have put into place to illegally control the company.

As to the joint account I can't see that anything legally wrong has been done.

Preferred shares are not yet illegal in Thailand, the Thai nominee equity shareholder would be..

While not specifically precluded, to the extent it enables control here it would be difficult to avoid an illegal nominee structure under the FBA and Land Act.