thaiwanderer

A good friend of mine ( farang ) who is a resident in Bangkok for many years wanted to sell his condo. He married a Thai lady. He has many investments under BOI and gets a Thai ID because of his investments in Thailand and also for ease of investments. When he buy the condo he remitted the money from overseas and he buy under Foreign quota for the sales. Two weeks ago , he found a foreigner willing to buy his condo. When he wanted to do the transfer for the sales of the condo , the condo manager says he cannot transfer because he is now a Thai Citizen and he can only sell to a thai citizen or a Thai company. And his ownership now falls under the local Thai ownership rules. Any comments on this ruling.

Why would your friend take the word of the "condo manager" (juristic person manager?) in this? It certainly is not a ruling. If the condo building has not exceeded the foreigner quota, he can sell it to whoever he wants. He should engage a reputable attorney with experience in land ownership issues and go to the Land Dept and ask them.

Personally I think the "condo manager" is saying this because the deal does not get him any commission as one where he found to buyer would.

TH

if as appears its a resale the quota will most likely have been filled long ago

As the topic says, how about we compile a list of places that over charge or double charge for products and services? I do believe that this may help us and our friends to be aware of where to shop, stay and eat. Oh and yes, i created this 'new profile' just for this purpose. I personally, having lived here for many years and as one who pays Thai Baht in tax, am sick of being ripped off. Cheers.

Ok, you first - please post details of your wages and all tax paid.

Stop paying the guy, he will then re-appear, raise and deal with your genereal concerns and then together visit the land office to ascertain he is the genuine owner.

A good friend of mine ( farang ) who is a resident in Bangkok for many years wanted to sell his condo. He married a Thai lady. He has many investments under BOI and gets a Thai ID because of his investments in Thailand and also for ease of investments. When he buy the condo he remitted the money from overseas and he buy under Foreign quota for the sales. Two weeks ago , he found a foreigner willing to buy his condo. When he wanted to do the transfer for the sales of the condo , the condo manager says he cannot transfer because he is now a Thai Citizen and he can only sell to a thai citizen or a Thai company. And his ownership now falls under the local Thai ownership rules. Any comments on this ruling.

Rightly or wrongly it would appear to have been registered as Thai rather than foreign quota - whether this must be the case is neither here nor there (although i doubt it had to be so).

Assuming the foreign quota is already reached he's then in an argument with the condo jp - there hands are effectively tied as they cannot stretch the quota or take a foreign owned unit of someone (unless one is retained by connected company or whatever). So he will need to claim compensation for his loss if he wishes to.

I know that this is Thailand and anything can happen but I think that the nominee situation is a hands-off for any Thai government for two reasons.

First it is not part of the land code. The relevant legal provision is contained in the Foreign Business Act which regulates the types of "business" in which a foreigner may engage in Thailand. If you read the FBA carefully you will see that the "nominee" provision (the word is not actually used) is for the purposes of that act an therefore does not extend beyond the FBA. This is normal in legal drafting to define the extent of any particular provision.

Secondly the word business is not synonymous with the word company. A company is a separate legal entity from its directors and shareholders. If the land is owned by a company it is owned by a company - end of story. If it is owned by a duly registered Thai company the ownership is legal and it is Thai ownership.

Any attempt to define it otherwise would cause huge problems for the concept of limited liability in Thailand and the country would then be out of step with commercial practice throughout the world.

The "nominee" pitfall is often quoted but as it stands it is probably unenforceable in relation to land ownership by a Thai company. Why else would so many Thai lawyers expose themselves to complicity in that by creating such structures.

The land code prohibits holding land on behalf of an alien.

Non-trading sham companies with illegal purposes which breach the land code or other laws can nonetheless be be 'duly registered' and it would not be an unusual practice anywhere in the world to prohibit, investigate and proscute such practices.

Justification on the basis of 'Thai lawyers do it' is laughable to be honest.

It was effectively independent many many years ago but jet ski pirates would have been the least of your worries.

However the poor Phuket people will never see independence again as sovereignty has long been lost what with 95% of beachfront land being owned by farang and the like.

IIRC there's one that supplies beer mats, although I don't think they manufacture them.

My builder has let me down in that he is now more than 2 years overdue on the construction of my house. The business is English owned and managed. I am not Thai.

I have given him a deadline for next year, with the threat that if the work is not completed I will sue for the cost of the uncompleted work and compensation for estimated rental income I would have lost out on. I would rather not sue, however, I am out of options.

I am planning to use a major Bangkok law firm to do the suing.

Anyone got any advice or experience?

Have you mitigated?

Assume staged payments so delay up to you.

If he never completed would you expect to recover lost rental for ever?

You say big BK firm but where is the building?

Get another builder and use the money for next stages you have been waiting on him to do to pay them.

Unless i'm missing something.

Hi - you have missed the point here a bit. The builder has been paid for the final stage of construction and hasn't done it. The money to finish the house has been handed over to the builder already. If I get another builder I have to pay out twice. The claim for lost rent is a claim for the income I have lost out on because the builder hasn't done the work I have paid him for and he has signed a contract to do. the builder has continually told me he is just about to start .... Effectively my money has been used as a loan by the builder to pay to complete other jobs.

Thank you for clarifying.

I will try not to flame but at least you might learn from this (although for as long as you believe the accruing and continuing rent might be recoverable the lesson has not yet been learnt). Some thought needs to be put into staged payments, construction milestones and inspections before there is a problem (i.e. before you have committed to anything).

Even in a perfect world where you will get the justice you wish for you cannot expect that the builder is liable for the lost rental forever and a day.

You need to mitigate whether or not you pursue him in the courts. If that means borrowing money yourself to get it finished then so be it. There really is no point in sitting on your hands and moaning that he is in breach. You are an adult get on with it (I honestly say that in the nicest possible way) its a bonus if you recover anything from him but you are losing rental income and may or may not recover any, all or part of it from him.

My builder has let me down in that he is now more than 2 years overdue on the construction of my house. The business is English owned and managed. I am not Thai.

I have given him a deadline for next year, with the threat that if the work is not completed I will sue for the cost of the uncompleted work and compensation for estimated rental income I would have lost out on. I would rather not sue, however, I am out of options.

I am planning to use a major Bangkok law firm to do the suing.

Anyone got any advice or experience?

Have you mitigated?

Assume staged payments so delay up to you.

If he never completed would you expect to recover lost rental for ever?

You say big BK firm but where is the building?

Get another builder and use the money for next stages you have been waiting on him to do to pay them.

Unless i'm missing something.

I'm not sure that is the right point with Hopalong. he says we should have no interest and not get involved. I say we got involved when we came here, and not to have or want a stake in our new home is both lazy and negligent. Might suit some, doesn't suit me. The whole point about being a westerner is that we have a different culture and a different approach to life. The Thai may well see something wrong and think "Mai pen rai, not my problem", whereas the westerner will see something wrong and try to contribute to putting it right.

I won't be told I don't have a stake in my chosen place of residence, I won't be told that I should just accept what is obviously wrong and try to contribute to Thais making it better, if we all did that then the 3rd world would always be the third world and Thais would still be in the stone age because Thais haven't invented any of the things they use which have bought increased wealth to their country. People sharing and giving a dam_n is how 3rd world countries get out of the 3rd world.

Also, I won't be told what I should and should not think - all that stopped when I went out into the world and started earning my own living and it isn't going to change back. No matter how much Hopalong and his ilk thinks they know better.

So how exactly have you 'got involved' and 'contributed' to making things better?

Assuming a coherent and well thought out policy (for the moment) one might think the proclamation allowed 'them' to do something without doing anything.

1. nationalistic political points scored - check

2. making some farangs do the work for them by worrying them into instead using other structures which cannot have the same constitutional arguments (paper Thai company etc.) - check

3. continuing the general shifting of goalposts to stop farangs ever feeling entirely settled and always leaving the door open to persecute them if necessary (though probably only ever continue with pin pricks rather than the big knife) - check

Of course as I have said maybe I am too cynical.

Thaiwanderer, as far as I know the nominee clause is stated in the foreign business act and is applicable to companies only and not individuals. Therefore I believe there is no legal basis that an authority can ask for prove of funding from an individual based on the FBA's nominee clause, no matter if married to a foreigner or not. If they would base this request on the fact that she's "mai farang" we're back to the previous ruling stating a "mia farang" cannot own land is unconstitutional. If this is unconstitutional so would probably be any different treatment based on who they're married to. Besides that there is a common sense that all earnings made after the marriage took place are commonly owned if there aren't any agreements stating otherwise (and don't have to be made public anyway). So if I for example am married to a Thai wife, have earned 2 million Baht, put them in a joint account and buy a house for 1 million then how could the land department rule that none of these earnings can be used to buy a house? The comment that they're going after "mia farang" owned houses came from a single person, not even a MP and has caused so many discussion and fear for quite a few, but was nothing more than an opinion by somebody not really in charge (my opinion)

Firstly you are forgetting the number one rule above all else (constitution included)- that Thailand is for Thais (not for all Thais and even those with the power and interest to by accident or design affect anything you do may or may not realise the consequences of their decisions and actions but thats to do with 'logic').

Secondly invoking 'common sense' is a mistake tbh.

Beyond that FBA of course relates to corporate matters. With non-corporate mia farang and the like you should refer to the Land Code as to illegal ownership of land in place of an alien.

I am not disagreeing that its unconstitutional to debar a Thai lady from owning land. However regardless of that starting point if they are owning it in place of a farang the constitutional protection does not apply. Is it then unconstitutional to require evidence, declarations or whatever from a Thai woman (all or some however selected) to show that they are the genuine owner / buyer? I would say absolutely not (possible issues of over enthusiastic persecution aside for the moment).

The single offical's 'declarations' were wrong in law, but obviously scared a lot of people, including people who thought it was the safer option.

The land office can refuse to register any purchase and even if they err there is no liability for the negligent or deliberately incorrect or illegal actions of a government official.

If the majority of guys who buy land in their wives' names honestly feel they are gifting it to them and they have no moral or legal claim or beneficial ownership or practical control of the land I would have sympathy but I am afraid I doubt that is the case. I don't often hear of too many farangs who 'just want to give my wife some land' with no strings but maybe I'm too cynical.

Thaiwanderer, in case of a nominee situation you're right, but I was more thinking about the situation where a foreign spouse is financing the purchase of a piece of property for residual purpose. If they start asking for prove of funding from a Thai national there need to be a legal basis first, and I do not believe they want to provide such a basis as it could be used against "themselves" to speak so.

In case of purchasing land for profit (doing business) I agree with the Thai authorities that this must be somehow regulated. But I don't agree that this is happening to protect the poor lad in the ricefields but made to wipe out competition, there are a lot of very wealthy Thais inside Thailand doing property business.

I would never make the mistake suggest anything was done for the poor (reicefields or prime real estate or anything really)!

As regards mia farang I still don't see how its unconstitutional to selctively or 'randomly' require proof (of whatever scale or type) that a purchase does not offend a long established existing (and 'cherished') law purporting to protect national interests (holding land on behalf of an alien).

Would any 'crackdown' ever happen and even if it did would it be organised? Doubtful to be honest.

At tops levels, the US Government could give a rat's ass about the welfare of individual members of its military; thailand is a perceived as an ally and that relationship comes first. Never mind that the US was kicked out of Thailand after Vietnam...

Anyway, Thailand has several convenient ports and good good tourist infastructure, so its a natural R&R area. It would be nice to see the US Navy send a message of its displeasure over the jet ski incident and not return to the LOS so quickly, but lets refer to the first sentence.

So, at the end of the day, scams are a great way to make quick money and we just keep comming back for more. Why change?

FWIW, I'd like to hear the captain's pre liberty speech about renting jet skis

They never left Thailand anyway.

Jet skis are least important issue.

Registering displeasure maybe about Viktor Bout but then secret afcilities still needed?

As Arkaday posted (excellent post!) it has been deemed impractical to check for funding in case a foreigner's spouse is purchasing land. If they would go through with this then maybe every person has to provide such proof of funding. This could be easily possible as the regulation about foreign spouses not being able to buy land has been ruled unconstitutional already and this would somewhat be the same. Wouldn't it be great to see how some politician is struggling to provide such prove?

It would not be unconstitutional to require any Thai (or any Thai if requested) receiving ownership to establish to some degree that they are not a nominee.

But 'they' don't have to catch anywhere near everyone.

Indeed they don't even need to try to catch anyone just have one official say some things and it frightens some. Political Points are scored, the ones who were unsure whether to invest might decide otherwise, some farangs already illegally enjoying practical ownership might get nervous and the wheel of Thai life carries on spinning (as does some farang's paranoia).

If 'they' wished to catch anyone for political reasons that would be easy. Of the top of their head any land office official can give a long list of titles where the structure is likely illegal with minimal investigations required (whether mia farang or thai paper company).

Indeed any street Somchai can give a long enough list to more than get started.

(obviously 'they' assumes a single coherent policy in any event).

You wouldn't happen to be thai would you wonderer what a pathetic post you just posted. Let me assure you if there were no cameras about JJ and his thugs would have been waking up in Patong hospital. When was the last time 1 thai fought 1 farang a simple question, deserve's a simple answear thaiwander. We all know the thai way of bravery and showing balls.

Thank you for your racist presuppositions.

Please re-read my post and no where will you find I was cheering on either side like it was a schoolboy fight (unlike you).

I don't need to guess what might have happened if the cameras were not there.

They were there and the pups acted like foolish little boys in miserably failing to handle the situation.

Why did they need the MP to come and shout at the nasty man for them so he could then pay what he was offering even though they were 'scammed' and JJ was 'coorupt' according to them.

Stand your ground or deal with it gracefully would be my suggestion for them.

Not, looked scared, complain, try to weasel your way out of it, call for your daddy and then pay up anyway.

If they cannot handle that situation with more common sense or dignity (whether in a way you might applaud as macho or not) I wonder how they possibly fare elsewhere.

You will note I have chosen not to raise the race card unlike you.

They're not soldiers, they're Marines and they're not in the Army, they're in the Royal Navy.

No difference to me I'm afraid, i used it as a generic term

- does your distinction alter the falibility of the political arguments for their deployments?

Ironic it should be a water craft related incident then for these Royal Nav-ist marin-ists / frightened young pups.

I'm sorry - should that be frightened young water pups or something since you are so concerned with labels over content and meaning?

Tried to 'cut/paste' this before, but it was removed. Hopefully this link will remain, and anyone interested can reflect on H2oDunc's comments:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceN...ptember2009.htm

When i was in the Army, the catch-all clause was Section 69 of the queens regs. 'Bringing the Army into disrepute'

With a camera in your face, AND with the military police there, sorry, you can defend yourself, but you arent going to kick off.

Sure, us squaddies kicked off all over the place quite a bit, but not when there is a camera there!

really, the army just throw you in jail to cool off, fine you, reduce you in rank, or take away the prosepct of promotion.

Those Royal Marines handled the situation correctly under the circumstances.

Really? How so?

His mates running off?

Him getting caught?

Him allowing his brave self to be filmed openly filling his trousers?

Him offering his room details even though he'd checked out?

Calling the MP to come and shout at the nasty man and then give him 35,000thb anyway?

If they had either kicked off properly or quietly and politely paid they would have brought the army into far less disrepute.

Paying a few baht is unfortunately not the worst things these soldiers will have to do on the basis of an alleged lie.

.. Making much of the fact Jimmys not 100% Thai..

I did wonder when that would be raised.

IMHO there would be no problem if its a genuine transaction, market value actually paid and in the best interests of the company (which itself is a genuine trading company).

So, on that basis is there a problem?

Interesting. I have only ever heard good things about Areeya's erections.

That is correct. Under the Land Code there is no provision for seizure of property or even revocation of title deeds, as the director general of the Land Dept threatened in his charming talk in Phuket. The land must be disposed of and if this is not done in the timeline set by the court, the court can order it to be sold at public auction but the nominee owner will still receive the proceeds less administrative fees.

Fire sale of landpursuant to court order is not going to fetch a decent price though.

Correct, but the minimum time line allowed by the law is 180 days (and max. 1 year).

So that is 6 months to find yourself a Thai person or a Thai corporate entity with the financial means to buy your land/house (so that person/entity cannot be classed a nominee, but the actual rightful owner) and then write out a 30 year lease. Do I see a new business opportunity here?

It will cost, and you go from freehold to leasehold, but you should not lose your house nor the right to live in it in the very near future.

Who knows what new possibilities will pop up in the next 30 years.

From the point of view of a potential buyer, if he knows your nutz are in a 180-day or 1-year vise then he likely isn't going to meet the asking price or anywhere near to it, IMO.

..Or want to get involved in an apparent nominee structure with someone who has already had their hand slapped.

That is correct. Under the Land Code there is no provision for seizure of property or even revocation of title deeds, as the director general of the Land Dept threatened in his charming talk in Phuket. The land must be disposed of and if this is not done in the timeline set by the court, the court can order it to be sold at public auction but the nominee owner will still receive the proceeds less administrative fees.

Fire sale of landpursuant to court order is not going to fetch a decent price though.

Correct, but the minimum time line allowed by the law is 180 days (and max. 1 year).

So that is 6 months to find yourself a Thai person or a Thai corporate entity with the financial means to buy your land/house (so that person/entity cannot be classed a nominee, but the actual rightful owner) and then write out a 30 year lease. Do I see a new business opportunity here?

It will cost, and you go from freehold to leasehold, but you should not lose your house nor the right to live in it in the very near future.

Who knows what new possibilities will pop up in the next 30 years.

Fair risk there given already fell foul of scrutiny? X ordered to dispose so sells to y, y gives X a lease.

That is correct. Under the Land Code there is no provision for seizure of property or even revocation of title deeds, as the director general of the Land Dept threatened in his charming talk in Phuket. The land must be disposed of and if this is not done in the timeline set by the court, the court can order it to be sold at public auction but the nominee owner will still receive the proceeds less administrative fees.

Fire sale of landpursuant to court order is not going to fetch a decent price though.

Also, if under investigation and found not to be in order, the property will NOT be seized.

The owner will be given a time frame of between 180 days and 1 year (up to the judge) to dispose of the property!

There is however the legal possibility of the justice system filing criminal charges against you and the nominee(s) for fraudulently acquiring property.

Chances are the verdict will be a fine, and not jail time, unless we are talking about a developer with a big amount of propert to his name, all built/bought as a profitable business.

Just owning the property to live in with your wife will more likely not even see a criminal charge...

Understood and generally agreed, but however 'unlikely' seizure, fine and imprisonment are all available options - not exactly 'freehold investment in all but name' or a safe 'gift' to make is it?