Pattaya firms raided in foreign nominee probe

58 minutes ago, Jim Blue said:

I would imagine a foreigner setting up multiple companies,

and in effect a property developer is no doubt in

trouble but a single family owning their own house or

pool villa ?

Surely it makes no sense to go after them

and treat them the same ?

they are the same

56 minutes ago, JerryM said:

The OP does not say that the lawyers or accountants may be nominees. It says:

Officials alleged that staff from the law office had been named as shareholders on behalf of the company's real foreign owners.

Yes, they are nominees. A person or entity named to hold legal title to shares, property, or securities on behalf of the true owner, often to handle transactions or keep the owner's identity private.

That's how it works. See my earlier posts about my dodgy 'Thai company' that my buddy and I set up in Pattaya over 40 years ago. Shareholders are nominees. If the company has been set up solely to circumvent the law, these nominees are breaking the law.

I am actually surprised that the law office and companies in question have all been named. These are significant allegations considering the heavy-handed defamation laws here.

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Yes, they are nominees. A person or entity named to hold legal title to shares, property, or securities on behalf of the true owner, often to handle transactions or keep the owner's identity private.

Yes but saying a lawyer him/herself is a nominee and saying the STAFF member is a nominee is not the same thing.

Comments on here suggest that the foreign nominee structured owner and the ancillary Thai support are like 2 sides of the same coin.

They are not. And going after all these convoluted structures is in part possible because they are using the computer horsepower initially developed for narcotics and money laundering schemes.

Edited August 22Aug 22 by JerryM

From what my Thai lawyer friend tells me, there's seems to be a general blitz on all foreign owned and foreigners who use nominees to own properties and business, whereby said properties will be confected and sold in auctions to Thai people who suddenly has the the many millions to buy properties,

once the property sold, half of the proceeds from the auction will be paid back to the foreigners and the rest to the government coffers or at least theese are the plans,

now, there's a mad rush to find Thai people, preferably lawyers, to transfer said properties to them and to arrange for 30 years lease'

They have started in the southern island and now the aim is to visit the Pattaya area, according to the government pulications, to prob 28,000 business and properties owned by foreigners there,

Happy Days.

3 minutes ago, ezzra said:

From what my Thai lawyer friend tells me, there's seems to be a general blitz on all foreign owned and foreigners who use nominees to own properties and business, whereby said properties will be confected

to the above typo = confiscated

Section 94 of the Land Code B.E. 2497 requires foreigners who have acquired land unlawfully or without permission to dispose of it within 180 days to 1 year. If they fail to do so, the Director-General of the Department of Lands has the power to conduct a forced sale, with net proceeds returned to the former owner.

A proposed legislative amendment under active study would replace this forced-sale mechanism with outright state forfeiture without compensation, removing any financial recovery for illegal nominee structures.

https://lexbangkok.com/nominee-land-ownership-thailand-confiscation-risk/

NB The rationale is that under current Sec. 94 regs the nominee owner can sell the property and often realize a tidy profit from his illegal activities.

Edited August 22Aug 22 by JerryM

18 hours ago, riverhigh said:

Most probably because Israelis have been in Thailand longer than the Chinese. From the article most of these Thai nominee businesses were set up decades ago when Thailand was looking for foreign investment and willing to turn a blind eye. The law existed then but not enforced.

Could it be that the Thai government needs the money to all of a sudden wake up and realized that : hey, we have been duped by all those farangs all those years, who now own all those prime properties preventing for Thai people a fair go''?

7 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Could it be that the Thai government needs the money to all of a sudden

That could be part of it. It is also for the reason that they are now receiving formal complaints from "injured parties" which are not the same as "tips" and that they now have the computer horsepower to go after these convoluted structures.,

As a Bangkok-based research head at one the large int'l real estate firms put it:

... such (nominee) structures are not new and remain widespread because investigations are complex, document-heavy and time-consuming.

16 hours ago, TimBKK said:

I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think statute of limitations comes into play for ongoing concerns, even those set up decades ago.

Yes, the liability gets refreshed annually when the accounts are submitted.

8 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

People have been getting busted for this now and then for as long as I can remember.

It is nothing new.

Not as bad and comprehensive as now, they are out there to really try and ''clean'' the rort,

what all this also caused, almost a severe decline in the real estate market and in people who were planning to buy properties.

37 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Yes but saying a lawyer him/herself is a nominee and saying the STAFF member is a nominee is not the same thing.

Comments on here suggest that the foreign nominee structured owner and the ancillary Thai support are like 2 sides of the same coin.

They are not. And going after all these convoluted structures is in part possible because they are using the computer horsepower initially developed for narcotics and money laundering schemes.

Being a nominee, proxy holder or shareholder in a business or company isn't illegal. Being a nominee, proxy holder or shareholder in a business or company whose sole purpose is to circumvent property and land ownership laws is illegal.

AI probably cares even less about the semantics of shareholders or proxy holders or nominees.

OOPS early morning goof

Edited August 22Aug 22 by JerryM

1 minute ago, ezzra said:

Not as bad and comprehensive as now, they are out there to really try and ''clean'' the rort,

what all this also caused, almost a severe decline in the real estate market and in people who were planning to buy properties.

If foreign investment in Thailand's property market was booming mainly on the back of illegal activities, then it's their own fault if that collapses.

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Being a nominee, proxy holder or shareholder in a business or company isn't illegal. Being a nominee, proxy holder or shareholder in a business or company whose sole purpose is to circumvent property and land ownership laws is illegal.

But the quote you referred to suggested the lawyer himself is a possible nominee not just his staff.

6 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Yes, the liability gets refreshed annually when the accounts are submitted.

How does that work for the companies that never, ever filed annual accounts, or had fake accounts submitted by the companies legal representatives?

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Setting up companies and keeping books is not illegal.

It would have to be proven that the bookkeeper knows that they are participating in an ongoing illegal activity.

the bookkeeper can see if there is no trading and who the shareholders are and who money is paid to

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

How does that work for the companies that never, ever filed annual accounts, or had fake accounts submitted by the companies legal representatives?

Here's my hypothetical for the day: If the statute of limitations under Section 36 of the Foreign Business Act is 10 years (and it is) and the lawyer set up the nominee company 11 years ago but he spent 2 years orbiting the earth in the space station, is the time frame of the actual criminal act now 9 years?

Edited August 23Aug 23 by JerryM

5 hours ago, Jim Blue said:

I would imagine a foreigner setting up multiple companies,

and in effect a property developer is no doubt in

trouble but a single family owning their own house or

pool villa ?

Surely it makes no sense to go after them

and treat them the same ?

At 47,000 Thai companies suspected of using nominees, it appears they will be eventually getting around to all of them, and why shouldn't they. The same laws have been broken, whether it's a large plot of land or a small plot of land.

The single family with their own home will simply have more time to fix up the mess they are in. The people with businesses on the land, I suspect are going to have to take big risks, or accept a heavy loss.

It's selective enforcement that allowed this issue to get bigger and bigger to where it is today.

In any case, the party is over. The Thai government has certainly made it loud and clear, "foreigners can not own land in Thailand."

43 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Here's my hypothetical for the day: If the statute of limitations under Section 36 of the Foreign Business Act is 10 years (and it is) and the lawyer set up the nominee company 11 years ago but he spent 2 years orbiting the earth in the space station, is the time frame of the actual criminal act now 9 years?

There may be a statute of limitation on the crime/s committed, but what's stopping the Department of Business Development closing down the company, after all, it's not really a company, thus causing a foreigner to have no legal right of usage?

I'm sure there's ways around any statute of limitation.

2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm sure there's ways around any statute of limitation.

It's nice to know you are sure.

Littering has 1-year statute limitations

Edited August 23Aug 23 by JerryM

25 minutes ago, JerryM said:

It's nice to know you are sure.

It's nice to know that you think it's nice to know I am sure.

26 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Littering has 1-year statute limitations

I hope the people with dodgy Thai company nominees don't litter as well, as that would compound their problems.

2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's nice to know that you think it's nice to know I am sure.

I hope the people with dodgy Thai company nominees don't litter as well, as that would compound their problems.

Littering my be the only thing they can get on the lawyers.

5 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Littering my be the only thing they can get on the lawyers.

Or, they may be held accountable and subject to jail time.

Kinda pointless to speculate about something that is so out of our depths, the intricacies of the Thai legal system.

hypotheticals are silly, eh @JerryM ?

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

the bookkeeper can see if there is no trading and who the shareholders are and who money is paid to

In fact, the bookkeeper creates the fake trades and expenses the nominee company files

3 minutes ago, TimBKK said:

hypotheticals are silly, eh @JerryM ?

Yah almost like the hypothetical that when some says DISCRETION! the Walls of Jericho come a-tumlin' down

Edited August 23Aug 23 by JerryM

5 hours ago, ezzra said:

Could it be that the Thai government needs the money to all of a sudden wake up and realized that : hey, we have been duped by all those farangs all those years, who now own all those prime properties preventing for Thai people a fair go''?

I agree where you are going on this but I think you are being extremely generous on their motives. The more cynical view is "We needed your money then but not now. Now hand back our land." The beneficiaries of this crackdown will be the elite hi-so Thais in power not the average Thai on the street.

14 hours ago, NanLaew said:

It's been widely used ILLEGALLY in Thailand...there sorted it for you.

The same is true of prostitution, as has been pointed out many times.

43 minutes ago, Guderian said:

The same is true of prostitution, as has been pointed out many times.

And everyone knows prostitution is illegal too.

1 hour ago, Guderian said:

The same is true of prostitution, as has been pointed out many times.

Hookers aren't much of a threat to national security.

The real issue here is despite the laws and regulations being there already, people have become inured to the corruption to the point that it is accepted or even sought out. It's this normalisation of illegal behaviour that prevents Thailand moving forward so, although it's not going to stop overnight, especially in very high places, I believe that some aspects are beginning to get reined in. And what better and easier place to start than the low-hanging fruit of the elderly foreign squatters, the ones doing the "when in Rome" bit.

Edited August 23Aug 23 by NanLaew