thaiwanderer

i don't discuss the paintstroke of an old master and his selection of colours with a blind man.

Nice but irrelevant dig.

What's the difficulty, oh master?

(and since we are being picky how many building permits have you obtained from the Land Office rather than the Or Bor Tor?)

The restritions on nominees have absolutely nothing to do with an offshore company being a lessee.

It is not a gray area, distinction between letter or spirit of the law or theory and pratice.

Ownership of land or running a Thai company of whatever form (land owning or not) is where nominees are precluded.

Offshore companies can and frequently are lessees with no issues whatsoever.

Indeed it is an entirely prudent measure and can be better than the lease being granted to the foreigner's own personal name (for future transfer by sale, gift or inheritance).

In the OP's case despite having other existent offshore companies it may well be best to buy an off the shelf offshore company exclusively to be the lessee rather than mixing it with other business.

A potential issue is avoiding the offshore company / it's officers' illegally doing business / working in Thailand.

This can be avoided by the lease etc (officially) being signed offshore and a Thai lawyer being given an appropriately worded power of attorney for attendance at the land office.

Merely being a lessee and subletting doesn't of itself involve illegal in country activity though there will be tax issues.

Appropriate expert advice regarding all this should of course be obtained.

The building permit is more complicated.

I know of them being issued to offshore companies in the past but less so now.

Even where it is it gives rise to issues of ownership and transfer of the house to the OP / his company.

Again expert advice should be sought but I expect the building permit should better be in the name of wife or the builder / construction management company.

There are entirely valid reasons why a 30 day notice may be required.

What's the property (land, condo, apartment, house, agricultural, commercial etc), what's the title grade, what exactly is the previous purported 'transfer' and are there any town and country planning issues?

The issues giving rise to the need for the notice this time should be of greater concern to the OP than none being suggested in his/her previous acquisitions.

(Even if there isn't the pot and kettle point is also good.)

correct. but it is extremely difficult to separate ownership of house and land if not done before construction. the latter requires that building permit is in the name of the Farang and payment for the construction must not originate from company accounts.

It is my understanding that the Land Office will only issue the Building permit in the name of the entity (company) or individual on the chanote, and that prior to completion it can be changed so long as there is proof, via a building contract and payments, that an individual requesting the change in fact paid for the house, thus it can be re-issued in an individuals name

Not difficult at all after construction.

And what relevance the building permit and company payment issues you raise?

See my answer above

hate to think of the problems created from differing ownerships (house and land) when it is time to sell... and if you can find a buyer willing to go through the problems.

This is the Ponzi scheme aspect of what I first wrote. So long as everyone wants to continue the system it will continue. If you don't want to play the game, enjoy your fully legal cement box condominium and don't think about buying a house

Since it's unnecessary I don't understand the concern over the inability to change the name on the building permit after completion.

Separation of the land and house after completion is not anymore difficult than before.

On a thai website i saw a brand new modern home next to golf course and beach on north east.. 25 000baht per month. 1 rai land. Big pool. Modern furniture. House wasnt a moobaan. It's a real house that would make a westerner proud. Most walls are windows. No neighbors.

6hrs later it was rented.. People just need to leave their farang bar areas

.......via the internet

R.I.P and condolences to his family.

(Phuket office opened about 2 years ago - some mistake?)

I have flipped here for over 8 years. Yes it can be done. Yes you should have a good idea about Thailand, and the Thai systems. I do much of the work myself, and started as a side job. I have never lost. When you ad in rentals while I was waiting for it to sell, I have always made a profit. Do learn before you do. I have over 30 years of construction expereance. 10 in Asia. A good place to start is most banks have forclosures for sale at low prices and you offer them even less. You can do houses to, even though they say "can not". Remember if you turn a home before 5 years you will pay and extra 5% at transfer to the government as "Investment" tax I was told.

Good luck !

Not profitted from flipping then?

Why does the OP think the tenancy agreement is null and void? Frankly it is too assuming. The occupier could not provide the tenancy agreement.

Couldn't or wouldn't?

(You said null and void rather than non-existent, implying there was a tenancy agreement. If there was the tenancy doesn't die with the company's death).

The unit should have been disposed of before the company was shut down.

That is, if indeed it has been fully shut down (possible but unlikely).

If so it will need to be revivied in oder for this issue to be resolved.

Are you / the JP going to pay for that?

I'm unclear what power the JP has to evict since even without a paper agreement a verbal tenancy may have been given.

Owning a house by a proxy is illegal, whether it is another person or a juristic person.

Not true. Falangs can own a house, no problem. Owning LAND is not permitted by falangs in their own name. Many posts on this, just have a look.

correct. but it is extremely difficult to separate ownership of house and land if not done before construction. the latter requires that building permit is in the name of the Farang and payment for the construction must not originate from company accounts.

Not difficult at all after construction.

And what relevance the building permit and company payment issues you raise?

It's certainly covered by the penal (or 'criminal' code) and also separately by the land code.

What section/s of the civil code are of any great concern here?

The usufructuary is the manager of the property and is allowed to rent out the property without the consent of the real owner (unless restricted in the usufruct contract.) The usufructuary is a real property right where the owner of a real estate property (condominium, land and/or house) grants by agreement to another person the right of possession, management and benefits the property may produce for a limited period of time. Unless restricted by the usufruct contract, the right of usufruct grants all the rights of use and management of the property to the usufructuary as per the Thai Civil and Commercial Code sections 1417 to 1428.

Sorry I don't see the relevance here?

Many threads here on this issue.

Company ownership utilising nominee Thai shareholders is entirely illegal.

Essentially it comes down to appetite for risk for financial loss and possibly jail time.

No one can really say how likely a problem may arise for one individual unclear but it would be a mistake to assume a nationwide crackdown is necessary for that individual to come unstuck.

All it needs is an inquisitive official or jealous neighbour etc..

Why do you continue to insist that the Penal Code applies ?

Seems to me that this is a matter covered by the Civil Code

It's certainly covered by the penal (or 'criminal' code) and also separately by the land code.

What section/s of the civil code are of any great concern here?

Why does the OP think the tenancy agreement is null and void?

Amusing thread. Farangs drawing minor distinctions between themselves to show their superiority below the bottom rung.

Do you include yourself in that? Or do you see yourself, as the only one out of us that's above the bottom rung?

Why would I include myself in your 'us'?

Doesn't change the fact that the Thai girl friend is the owner of the house

A Thai court would simply uphold both ownership and lease

If the nominee relationship is affirmed by the court, the Land Department will compel sale of the property.

You are right, but I simply cannot believe that a court would ever order it

All the Thai girl friend have to say is that - Yes, he told me he wanted to put it in my name but keep control but I never accepted it. I decided to keep control even before it was signed over to me, the farang can think and say what he wants

and the Thai girl friend has never been a nominee

The courts have ordered this. Whether that will be the case for the OP is another matter.

(In defending it the Thai ex would be better claiming it was always a gift).

Amusing thread. Farangs drawing minor distinctions between themselves to show their superiority below the bottom rung.

bit late now to register a mortgage though?

"I did not give the land away"

You only paid for the land. It isn't yours (and never was).

Is this how do you normally 'like to do business' - hoping for a return on a gift?

The contract such that it is isn't binding on your girlfriend. Its potentially binding on her mother (though impossible for her to personally perform).

Your GF doesn't have to keep to it but will then likely lose that potential buyer (and maybe put off other potential buyers), cause problems with her mother and in the village.

While the only foothold you have here is persuasive powers over your girlfriend (hope they trump her mother and your girlfriend's desire to give you the money from the sale of her own land) what is it that you dislike about the deal?

Do you not want your girlfriend to sell to this potential buyer?

Do you think the mother will not return the full deposit to your girlfriend?

I know i can't own land in Thailand ( and maybe I never will) as you put it.

This is a business arrangement ( not a gift to anybody) so I am not looking for a return on a gift, but a return on a investment.

Yes i want to sell to the potential buyer, I just dont like the contract he made out.

repeat : 200,000 deposit he will lose if he does not complete but 10 x 200,000 if I dont complete

The question you asked about mother not returing the deposit I can't answer. (I think the deposit should have gone to me or my girlfriend)

I did not get the option to accept or refuse the contract

Buyer seems happy to deal with mother even thoe he knows she does own the land (he can't be that stupid)

Pat

If you want to sell to him, what's the problem?

It seems you are stamping your feet over somthing that's a non-issue?

Also something that's actually nothing to do with you - how exactly is 'your' 'investment' secured?

It's NOT a business arrangement.

Maybe read the current thread about nominees.

It's up to the OP to persuade the court that she was a nominee, apparently on the basis that he can prove direct payment for the sale but there was no payment for the lease.

A nominee doesn't require a thai company structure.

Persuading the court this is what happened and it wasn't a gift is one thing, getting them to sympathise is another - since he's essentially appealing to the law only because she's now not acting illegally.

Maybe I misread the OP. If the property is in the name of the ex-GF and she is Thai then its legally her property (maybe not ethically, but that's another story)and she is not a nominee.

Well she is no longer a nominee since she wishes to make her own decisions about the property that's in her name.

He needs to get her to bend to his will or satisfy the court that she was a nominee and get the order he wishes.

This of course involves establishing his own illegal activity.

People take from Phuket what they can.

Many locals financially profitted from tourism and continue to do so.

Concern for those who didn't so profit or for the effect on the island itself is a bit rich coming from anyone who came to the island for profit or enjoyment.

If you came for profit and are worried about that continuing then that's entirely selfish so let's not dress it up as something else.

And what separates businesses from 'greedy' businesses? jealousy and success

If you came for enjoyment your heart didn't bleed for the changes that occured before your arrival that made it appealing to you and those subsequent that continue in that vein.

But changes that reduce the appeal to you are somehow to be avoided as if you should have some right in determining the island's future or what others should take from it?

Vistors moaning about other vistors is galling.

"I did not give the land away"

You only paid for the land. It isn't yours (and never was).

Is this how do you normally 'like to do business' - hoping for a return on a gift?

The contract such that it is isn't binding on your girlfriend. Its potentially binding on her mother (though impossible for her to personally perform).

Your GF doesn't have to keep to it but will then likely lose that potential buyer (and maybe put off other potential buyers), cause problems with her mother and in the village.

While the only foothold you have here is persuasive powers over your girlfriend (hope they trump her mother and your girlfriend's desire to give you the money from the sale of her own land) what is it that you dislike about the deal?

Do you not want your girlfriend to sell to this potential buyer?

Do you think the mother will not return the full deposit to your girlfriend?

Cangetman,

You are both potentially liable for a fine and or imprisonment under both the land code and penal code.

Whether that will happen (to you, to her or to you both) has nothing to do with any concern over Thailand's image or at least not in the way you appear to think.

I wouldn't rely on what people claim has happened in other cases.

The problem with an enforced sale is retaining value.

You might want to consider having your lawyer explain what he/she thinks will happen to your ex and offering her a small percentage to avoid the need to go to all that trouble.

Disaster for who?

The boats have to pick up divers due to the inability of many so called instructors and dive masters to navigate.