thaiwanderer

indications on growing farang population in Phuket

1. Major car dealers like Toyota, Honda and Izu (85% of the total market) sells 4 times as many cars registered to foreigners as they did 5 years ago.

2. Finance companies increase in loans and creditcards to foreigners

3. Increase in property leases (compared to thai-thai sales) registered in land office past years

4. Increase in farang police volunteers

What would be interesting is any stats on work permits. Anyone? Most farang calling Phuket home does not have a work permit, but it would be interesting to see if there is an increase of those working here too.

Could not 2 explain 1 and 3?

As to 4, I truly hope they are not representative of anyone or anything.

Interested in the distinction the OP makes 'not only a lawyer but a barrister too' - care to expand on that please?

In an online phuket news source there is a list of various expat arrests.

Most are for drink driving or drug possession but there was 2 that piqued my interest as I've not seen them referenced anywhere else.

The report includes separate references to Errol Salih and Selwyn Casey apparently each being accused of bouncing a cheque.

There are no more details as to whether cleared, charged ongoing etc..

Has anyone seen any other reports about this?

As the situation envisaged is a resale the OP as new owner can't have the building permit in their own name or 'their own' new thai company's name.

A sale and purchase agreement will be required for the building backed up by a lease or other right to use the land.

There should of course be appropriate due dilligence and the contracts should apprpriately deal with all potential eventualities.

Payment for the use of the land would be expected by the land office (whether it actually leaves the OP's right pocket is another matter) and there will be tax issues for the landowner (essentially the OP's left pocket?).

There are of course multiple issues here concerning land ownership, control of company and rights of use over land.

Hopefully this is only the first (simplistic as requested) step in the OP's consideration of the issues.

Regardless of the relative monetary values that might be involved the penalties for illegal structures should not be disounted merely on previous selective enforcement.

I find this interesting, Re the 30 year lease,. So if a falang purchases a property in the name of his Thai partner and then contracts a thirty year lease in his name from the partner, the purchase price being the rental payment upfront (very common as we all know) Can the partner sell the property without the permission of the falang ? I always understood in was in writing on the back Chanote.

Not sure exactly what your asking.

Why would the farang's permission be needed? They are only the lessee afterall.

I have lived in Thailand for 43 years with a son of 43 years old. My family has been in legal field and property business for ages and have never run foul of Thai laws. I speak and write Thai fluently and read 5 Thai newspapers daily in addition to Bangkok Post, the Nation, Financial Times, International Herald Tribune and weekly, the Economist. I sit in various governmental committees for almost 30 years and now still involved with two committees.

And you're still not Thai?

Is there anything else I've overlooked?

......renting instead?

Clarification of corruption and 'certainty'. Are you serious?

Think he/she meant no real Thai partners as then says Thai directors and shareholders through law firm?

Yes I know they won't. As such, they have zero moral credibility. If this mob of violent thugs takes over the government and installs their dictator, it would be national tragedy of massive proportions. That some foreigners can't see this is really pitiful. Didn't you take history courses in school?

What moral credibility the current lot?

Ian nailed it. Those who don't get it, read some history books about how these type of movements turn out when they manage to succeed. It is no wonder that foreigners who are more educated than Thais on world history OVERWHELMINGLY oppose the mad red Thaksin led mob.

Does not history offer at least an equal number of lessons about military goverments?

A little melodramatic perhaps?

Control is only ever gained by seizing the airport - imagine the irony of any hand wringing if they did that.

Some strange ideas here.

Putting it in the lease doesn't alter anything.

Even (which isn't the case here) no one was ever getting paid for it - the labour laws include the notion of taking work off a Thai who could do it.

That the OP asks about the legalities suggests he/she has already discounted the 'get stuffed' approach.

Technically: It is work, a permit would be required but you are unlikely to get one merely on those facts.

The manager is trying to scare you because you would be taking money away from a Thai.

That will of course be the motivation for trying to make problems for you regardless of how ridiculous the law you would technically be breaking may seem or not having broken other laws that you may be found guilty over.

As with anything its for you to decide.

No such thing as a 30+30+30 year lease. Maximum is 30 years.

Loads of threads on TV that confirm this.

Whilst that is a useful shorthand it's actually incorrect.

A (residential) lease cannot be registered for more than 30 years.

30+30+30 can be perfectly legal if drafted correctly.

As to practical enforceability there are issues to be aware of (hence usefulness of the shorthand) and as you rightly say there are many threads in the real estate forum that discuss this but I for one have never considered something confirmed by appearance on TV.

Go to the land office and get a new one (police report required etc.) - or is the a reason taht cannot be done?

Check the title - the borders may well be submerged so to speak.

If so the roads / common land analogy doesn't work - 'land' can be water.

Whether that's so here depends on the title.

If aliens didn't insist on paying over the odds for leasehold (paying far more than anything even remotely near a fair freehold valuation) then only being able to own leasehold wouldn't be a problem.

Your continued occupation may be tolerated.

Upgrade in name only may be possible but is a meaningless paper shield.

An interesting contrast but perhaps not as sharp as you think. Black May?

A harsh penalty in consideration of the circumstances but one that is not unreasonable if one applies the applicable law.

Which you are unaware of?

In this thread you post in a confused and misleading manner - though I won't be so rude as to suggest you get someone to explain it to you.

I have dealt with the point as to why two identical contracts (Thai and English) MAY be registered at the Land Office but you avoid the crux - Why not have all the promises in one Thai contract which is registered at the Land Office?

Exposing oneself to massive future liabilities is just to make big noise if its all easily defeatable before then anyway - so why can't all these promises you are so keen to protect be 'public' and attached to the title to put anyone who may also be offered such a great deal on the same land to be put on notice about?

I am struggling to find reasons not to do so unless scrutiny is unwlecome, uneforceable promises are being made right from the start or to frustrate the future evidential burden.

......but never forget you aren't 'Roman'

Fables aside best of luck - i imagine starting point is good legal advice and then practical considerations of village life - shame / face can have a magical affect if played correctly.

The purpose of registering two identical leases (Thai and English) is to go some way to satisfy the concern that the Thai lease does not include all that the English lease does.

In reality the prospective lessee would anyway want to ensure their own independent translation but if the two registered leases actually differed significantly (on the basis of 'poor translation') they could then at least point to the English as an inducement to enter the contract despite any precedence of the Thai.

The crux however is that the Thai contract is all that's required IF it contains all that is agreed but (apparently) here you have the Thai lease for the basic 30 years only and the unregistered private English agreement for all the extra promises.

Subject to the Land Office occasionally being overzealous (itself not insurmountable) why other than poor legal advice or 'other reasons' (neither of which would allay a prospective lessee's concerns) would you not want the Land Office to see the extra promises?

Just because a renewal is not a registerable interest - does not mean the contract containing it cannot be registered and thereby satisfy the later evidential burden that it has been agreed.

So your reason for not having the entire agreement (with all the extra promises you are so keen to best protect) in one Thai contract that is registered at the land office is.........?

The OP fails to understand the prospective lessee's suspcion that the reason the private agreement is private is that it will not stand up.

On the basis of the OP's explanations thus far I can only imagine what explanations may have been given to the prospective lessee - and on the basis of that I think he/she would rightly be suspscious.

As regards the prospecitve lessee's conduct (as indicated by the aggrieved OP) it's by no means great BUT if the OP is wishing to maintain a long term business without being tarnished by the more dubious otehr characters that are certainly about or contributing to that impression of how things are done I see no valid reason just to keep the entire deposit.

Again I'm still at a loss to understand the role the OP plays in the transaction.

How is the deposit protected for the benefit of the contracting parties in any event?