thaiwanderer

Consumer prices can no longer be accurately compared with a year ago because they have (conveniently) changed the inidicator types, their relative weightings and method of calculation.

Fuel costs? That will be down to the Oil Fund subsidy.

They have a plan......to borrow. Well done.

'under control' is certainly correct but perhaps not in the way inferred in the article.

from Thai wife's perspective:

is there a problem? as certain as can ever be, NOPE

however if she is that worried what should she do?

- go to the land office and have farang husband file declaration now - IMHO (over reaction aside) would at the very least just be inviting a tea money request

or

- prepare a private deed - job done, not drawing attention to potential problem the potential consequences of which are whats (irrationally) worrying the person - this (or simply doing nothing) is IMHO the best way forward even if worried about potential consequences for Thai wife - does anyone in their wildest dreams honestly envisage the consequences of an (unlikely anyway) crackdown actually resulting in chanotes being revoked in these circumstances?

IMHO in the highly unlikely event of a crackdown the farang will be required to sign a declaration retrospectively.

(this all of course depends on the land official not being misquoted and or talking out of his backside in the first place - i don't understand why this should be a worry to anybody let alone a Thai who is accustomed to big false talk uncritically spewed in the media or a farang who has not just stepped of the plane - its a lot of fuss about nothing)

you are misunderstanding potential criminal activity associated with a dispute between legal persons and criminal charges filed by the police

(also of course even when it involves the police 'negotiation' is not entirely discarded )

regardless of mediation there are so many rich veins of pure gold stories in that piece but PG either doesn't want to explore them properly (so relies on blind dead end inference) or simply knows nothing juicy about them (probably the latter as they are very juicy)

this and another newly opened thread are running parrallel now

should you be worried - see the other thread - probably not

should you go to the land office and tell them you want to sign the form - sure - make sure you take your wallet

IMHO a private deed will cover it if you want to be sure

suggest no action is necessary

Journalism being what it is the official may have said it again or it may be a re-hash of his previous comments. Either way its irrelevant.

He is either being misquoted or is being provocative. In any case the position attributed to him is incorrect.

As explained eloquently above if the farang signs the declaration there is no problem. The Thai wife is the owner and the farang has no claim.

If the declaration was not signed (for whatever reason) what to do now?

Nothing. For the overcautious prepare a private deed confirming you have no interest but I would suggest it would be foolhardy to approach the land office on the basis of these news stories saying you want to file the declaration.

If (and its a very big if) you are investigated then declare you have no interest - no problem.

Unless of course you are a farang whose wife acquired land in your place - but that was illegal long before these attributed comments anyway. So the real worry would appear to be that they may actually enforce the law. ooops!

They are roughly the same size too.

Set up your own home office to do graphic design work. Pick up the language, pick up the cooking and hope for the best. Even on vacation, you can still plan your days for eating, movies, shopping & partying.

So errr....not exactly sure what you are looking to do.

size is the beginning and end of any similarities

There is NO magic trick to circumvent / avoid the (general) prohibition on farangs owning Thai land.

No matter how clever you think you are being or how layered / at arm's length you make the ownership structure the simple fact is that to the extent that a farang (correctly or otherwise) belives they are the beneficial owner and or controller of Thai land they are to the same extent technically in breach of the law as are the Thai/s holding the land on their behalf.

It is of course feasable to use a Thai (girlfriend, wife, friend, lawyer, gardenener, professional nominee, company) to hold the land on a farang's behalf and such mechanisms can be strengthened and or disguised to varying degrees.

The recent BS proclamation that a mia farang could be stripped of property bought with her husbands money is simply incorrect so there is no need to avoid that particular element (for that reason anyhow).

If you wish to benefit from Thai land choose the mechanism that you understand and are comfortable with but do not kid yourself that you have solved the issue and 'own' it. Certainty is not for sale, and long may that be so.

Just to put a bit of perspective into house prices I was just looking at some Islands on Queensland's Sunshine coast on a TV program. You can buy a nice island for as low as $1 million Aust. which is about 26 million baht.

Turtle Island is for sale and they were open to any offer. This is the island Julia Roberts tried to buy but was outbid by some Aussie who is now trying to offload it. It was $4 million or 100 million baht so you'd probably get it for $80 million baht.

I was in Nai Thon Beach and saw a sign saying villas for sale starting from 85 million baht and you cannot even own it if you are a farang.

but thats not Thailand

with the best will in the world and a copy of standard documents to compare am i the only one thinking this is nowhere near the best (or any) way to confirm whether its freehold or leasehold, to what property it relates to, whom the owner / lessee is and more importantly whether the documents actually reflect what is currently recorded at the land office?????

maybe my english is off

if you understand what you are buying none of it is questionable

whats not to understand?

and where a Thai wife buys or owns land (having cleared hurdle of 'her money'), the land office may refuse to register a lease to the farang husband

The only way it can be freehold in Thailand if it is registered under the Condominium Act. If it has "Apartment" in the name, chances are it is a leasehold.

not strictly true

OP - does your girlfriend not know what she bought?

and where a Thai wife buys or owns land (having cleared hurdle of 'her money'), the land office may refuse to register a lease to the farang husband

What real-estate venture in Thailand is not questionable?

none of it is questionable unless you are confused or wish to believe that it is not what it is or wrongly compare it to different things abroad

obviously real estate agents and some legal advisors encourage over reliance on shaky legal structures but a buyer cannot really say they were duped if they choose to rely on nothing more than sales patter

If there was no development there would only be fish and rubber...... they would rather be wealthy than survive as fisherman and rubber collectors ...otherwise we wouldn't be where we are. They had the choice and chose development.

.....and chose to retain self determination

money can be invited and accepted without conferring any rights, and why not?

Still I see various developments being advertised with a 'guarantee' of 5/6/7% per annum return

alot of these returns are built into the price

of course,

and even if they weren't if it was 'guaranteed' why would a developer need a number of individual investors?

in any event often the return is gross, is only 'guaranteed' under a contract with perhaps a 2 million baht company, you would have to try and enforce and recoup it through the courts and many other issues

consumer 'investments in parasite'(sic) are not for the even slightly sophisticated 'investor'

10 pages and counting of much richeous indignation and outrage about 'inequality' (appealing to equity demands your hands are clean)

is this purely selfless support for Thai women's rights to spend foreign gift money as they please or perhaps really some are a little worried about their 'non-nominee' nominee girlfriend / wives?

if any are worried by this report about losing whatever measure of control or interest they (thought they) had in Thai land through girlfriends or wives then they are already falling foul of the law, so stop moaning

if any are instead worried about Thai wives or girlfriends losing land they essentially received as a gift (as the report suggests) don't be, even if he meant what he is quoted as saying its unlikely to mean anything in reality anyway

for good or bad ~

1. If I buy my wife/girlfriend (depending on your situation) land which she (or the children) will keep when I am gone and if she does not come from the landed Bangkok elite, haven't I just helped expand the middle class

no

- maybe she starts a small business. What a great idea but apparently illegal. Are the rights of Thai woman who marries a foreigner less than those of one who marries a Thai? See 2007 Constitution, sec. 30: All persons shall be equal before the law and shall enjoy equal protection under it. Femails and males shall enjoy equal rights.

yes

typically those who in the future become mia farang have few substantive rights to begin with

upon becoming such their lot does not improve and it is often viewed as a backward step even for them (compared with other Thai females let alone Thai males)

farang money makes no real difference - and a particular farangs money means even less when there is a queue of others with open wallets behind

social mobility is pretty much non-existent in Thailand and anyone 'tainted' by over involvement with farangs is further hamstrung

many farangs over-value their worth and contribution

not sure about google earth - for google maps (maybe same i don't know) copy and paste just the (entire) 2 numbers as they appear into the search line and click return so for the first one copy and paste the following as it is here:-

7.995699863951309, 98.30740213394165

potentials:

lat / long 7.995699863951309, 98.30740213394165

or

7.888962500832605, 98.37159276008606

or

7.86642138899287, 98.39666604995728

or

7.772747380936634, 98.30893635749817

or

7.912735081312246, 98.3856475353241

also depending on exactly what you want - maybe chalong pier?

IMHUO

The distinction between making this for 30+30 instead of 30+30+30 (or multiples of 30 ad infinitum) would of course appear to be political only. And fundamentally it is for political reasons that i believe this route cannot be relied upon despite any registration.

Registration of the additional lease (although I doubt its widespread) is a fundamental step nonetheless and is a missing link from renewals to a certain extent because the lessor's co-operation in 30 years time is apparently not needed (the whole argument in favour is of course that these are not a renewal rather separate leases).

However the unlawful / impossible actions of a lessor are voidable and error by a competent official is always subject to reversal and carries no liability. Also supreme court judgements are not binding precedent (and the actions of land office officials are certainly not binding on the supreme court). That such a situation is not specifically addressed (nor perhaps 'anticipated' in full, when land is involved ) in legislation makes this all a weakened protection.

The supreme court has considered multiple leases effectively aimed at rolling periods and their view was that such entered into at the same time were not enfoceable in the way anticipated. Separating them by a day (contracting and or registering) would apear not to provide sufficient separation in time or circumstance in my view as it is absolutely clear what the intention is.

As to the letter of the law it can of course be argued (successfully or otherwise) that it does not offend if it is accepted as a seperate lease rather than a renewal.

Without a doubt it offends the spirit of the law and (for political reasons alone) a ministerial announcement that this must not be done may well be expected if it becomes widespread.

No matter any deficiencies in or 'clever' interpretations to Thai law there will always be some who tout farang false hope.

of recent matters i wonder? (puts a drunk aussie woman's whingeing into perspective)

James Nixon

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Condo-Owner-...it-t252532.html

Peter Scharmach

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Zealander-Ar...es-t229863.html

Francis Alex Degioanni

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Expat-Develo...ng-t244502.html

Khun Chid ''Kit'' Raknang

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Phuket-resta...ed-t236129.html

whether a particular plot is *DEEMED* to be above or below *80m* is a matter of public record and there is no great secret to this - the land office can identify your plot and their records will confirm above / below 80m and other zoning restrictions - there is no greasing to be done at this stage its simply obtaining existant records

(* however this was decided and whether it is 'actually 80m' is irrelevant so anyone can measure it with any system they want and it makes no difference whatsoever)

if the records show the land is (*deemed* to be) below 80m - its ok to build (and for total building height then to exceed 80m subject to any other zoning restrictions)

once you are involved in measuring the height and arguing, persuading or greasing an official (any more than usual!) its because the land is clearly (as *deemed* by public record) above 80m

that is not to say that you cannot get permission to build there or that there will ever be a problem

there is a hill creeping effect where people talk of borderline, alternate 'more accurate' measurement and point to existing structures ignoring the fact that much of the building further down from the hill from them (or even further up the hill) is plainly illegal and has been permitted or tolerated incorrectly - it is not about shades of grey

there is no liability for the incorrect (negligent or otherwise) actions of a government official or department

- this of course goes for anything including the drawing of the existant boundaries but is far more readily (in comparison) #likely# to be applied to permission to build

(exactly how 'likely' is a matter for debate as to whether attitudes will change, whether it will always be tolerated or whether it remains expedient to allow it)(or whether more grease will be requested years down the line)

edit:....bringing it back to the thread's topic

would not a good developer have such basics as permission to build and as certain of no problems there as possible BEFORE selling anything?

For your info, I am not fat at all.

where did you buy your mirror?

Right. I take it back. I am a "fat disgusting slob" and "Mr.Marshmellow." Mea culpa.

I didn't realize the Marines kept obese people on their roles, but luckily I am retiring June 1 after 34 years of service, so I won't be around to embarass the Corps with my soft body.

very precious aren't we dear

fatties are the least of the embarrassments of the us military

as to shirtless - fat or not its no good

you can find out from the land office whether a plot is DEEMED by public record to be above or below 80m (how that was decided and whether it is or is not actually correct is wholly irrelevant)

there is no need for site inspections and arguing the case of how high it is unless land office say its over - you might then get approval BUT are opening yourself for potential problems

Land office decisions get over-turned.

Best you check that the land is of suitable height yourself.

i was referring to existant land office records not decisions (i accept these themselves are based on previous various decisions and are subject to possible reversal without liability as with anything a government official or department does BUT they are far far more certain than just 'getting the nod' on a plot or having your own independent survey - its independence is its undoing)