Possible to own land in Thailand as a foreigner

[jackdd]

Usually everybody says it's not possible to own land as a foreigner in Thailand.

But i just stumbled about this:

http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/land-act-2497-limitations-religious-purpose-sections-84-85/

http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/land-act-2497-limitations-of-foreigner-rights-sections-86-96/

So according to these laws, at least in theory, it is very well possible to earn land as a foreigner.

So if i say i'm moslem (or a church or christian foundation) as mentioned in Section 84 i could request to own a Rai of land as mentioned in section 87 / 1 for living there.

Did anybody here ever do this, or has ever heard of this?

[smutcakes]

You can own all the land you want 100% foreigner if you want to live in an Industrial Estate.

As you say yourself, there are obvious exceptions to the rules as you post, so in theory it is possible, but for all practical purposes it is not.

[KittenKong]

The word "Moslem" looks like a mistranslation. They mean "Mosque". That part of the law applies to official religious buildings, not residences. I suppose that you could create the Holy Church of Jack and ask permission to build a place of worship for your followers. Good luck with that.

As for the second part, I suspect that you would have to be under the US Amity treaty to benefit from it, or would have to invest a suitably large amount in some Thai business which anyone can do.

[jackdd]

39 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

The word "Moslem" looks like a mistranslation. They mean "Mosque". That part of the law applies to official religious buildings, not residences. I suppose that you could create the Holy Church of Jack and ask permission to build a place of worship for your followers. Good luck with that.

Yes, you are right, it's mosque in the Thai original

I probably could not create the "Holy Church of Jack", because they say (also in the Thai original) that it has to be a roman catholic church. I could imagine that there are some rules in Thailand how a temple has to look like and what it has to offer (and maybe even for mosques, because of the many muslims in Thailand), but i doubt there are any rules / laws in Thailand on how a church has to be, so who says the church can't be my living room...

So if i wanted to buy land i would request to be allowed to buy land to build a church. In the worst case they don't grant it, so what, could just give it a try.

Am i really the first person to think about this? I'm not planning to buy land, so i will probably not the first one to try this here

 

[Raymonddiaz]

Set up a company and buy in its name. That's a practical way to own a land in Thailand.

[jackdd]

23 minutes ago, Raymonddiaz said:

Set up a company and buy in its name. That's a practical way to own a land in Thailand.

But that's an illegal way to own land in Thailand, and that's also not what i asked in the starting post

[AlQaholic]

Section 86:

"Aliens may acquire land by virtue of the provisions of a treaty.....".

I think this refers to an international treaty between two countries, I know there is one between USA and Thailand about US citizens doing business in Thailand (Companies), but I am not aware of any other treaties? Anyway, the Minister must give permission as well. The Holy Roman Catholic Church; you need to become a priest, to begin with, I think:). Christian foundation, on the other hand, is more obscure...

[mrmrmr]

Yes it is (or was) possible under BOI. We invested 10,000,000 THB and established a Thai company (Ltd.) with 100% foreign ownership. And additionally BOI granted the right to purchase 1 Rai Land in the shareholder/Investors name. This was 5 years ago so you would need to check whether this is still possible now. 

 

A normal Thai company cannot (Legally) buy land if any shareholder is a foreigner. If all shareholders are Thai then I dont see how this can be useful to the foreigner to keep his investment safe... 

[johng]

What happens when/if you close , sell or go bankrupt can you keep the 1 rai of land ?

[chrissables]

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

But that's an illegal way to own land in Thailand, and that's also not what i asked in the starting post

You set up a company, you control the company (if set up right) The company can buy the land, and sell it.

[jackdd]

Just now, chrissables said:

You set up a company, you control the company (if set up right) The company can buy the land, and sell it.

Yes, but that's illegal, as i said before already. Here have been multiple threads about this in the past, even some reports that people did really lose the land that they acquired this way.

This was the first thing that popped up on Google: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/expat-money/9413075/Expats-warned-of-illegal-home-crackdown-in-Thailand.html

[chrissables]

1 minute ago, jackdd said:

Yes, but that's illegal, as i said before already. Here have been multiple threads about this in the past, even some reports that people did really lose the land that they acquired this way.

This was the first thing that popped up on Google: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/expat-money/9413075/Expats-warned-of-illegal-home-crackdown-in-Thailand.html

My company did it, all papers signed at the land office for buying and selling. No bribes were paid,  a normal business transaction. 

 

[jackdd]

12 minutes ago, chrissables said:

My company did it, all papers signed at the land office for buying and selling. No bribes were paid,  a normal business transaction. 

This doesn't help you if your company is illegal in the first place, because this would just mean the buying / selling contract could be declared void at any time, and you could theoretically even face jail for this, and so could the nominees. But it seems that if it's a "real" company (running a real business, and not just for the purpose of owning land) it's tolerated.

 

 

Now back to the topic: Anybody who did request to be allowed to own land to build a church and a residence?

[chrissables]

2 minutes ago, jackdd said:

This doesn't help you if your company is illegal in the first place, because this would just mean the buying / selling contract could be declared void at any time, and you could theoretically even face jail for this, and so could the nominees. But it seems that if it's a "real" company (running a real business, and not just for the purpose of owning land) it's tolerated.

 

 

Now back to the topic: Anybody who did request to be allowed to own land to build a church and a residence?

As you have no idea of how the structure of the company is set up, what it does or does not do, you are in no position to say it is illegal or not.

 

 

[RickTik]

13 hours ago, jackdd said:

But that's an illegal way to own land in Thailand, and that's also not what i asked in the starting post

It's not "illegal". It's business. Give "Caesar" his/her fair share and you are OK. 

[smutcakes]

15 hours ago, mrmrmr said:

Yes it is (or was) possible under BOI. We invested 10,000,000 THB and established a Thai company (Ltd.) with 100% foreign ownership. And additionally BOI granted the right to purchase 1 Rai Land in the shareholder/Investors name. This was 5 years ago so you would need to check whether this is still possible now. 

 

A normal Thai company cannot (Legally) buy land if any shareholder is a foreigner. If all shareholders are Thai then I dont see how this can be useful to the foreigner to keep his investment safe... 

It is still possible, but it is for business use not for people to set up the structure to acquire land for house etc, you obviously would not get approval for that. The only way a foreigner can acquire land is with BOI approval (exclu industrial estates). In your situation you would of received two BOI packages, one for your business plan and one to acquire land. This method is only available to business, and mostly manufacturing business. I believe their is a stipulation that if the business ceases to operate, the land needs to be disposed off within a couple of years.

[Lacessit]

18 hours ago, chrissables said:

As you have no idea of how the structure of the company is set up, what it does or does not do, you are in no position to say it is illegal or not.

 

 

My guess is this poster will appear on Thai Visa in a few year's time asking for crowdfunding for his emergency hospital treatment.

[chrissables]

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

My guess is this poster will appear on Thai Visa in a few year's time asking for crowdfunding for his emergency hospital treatment.

What are you talking about? If you have a point to make, make it.

[Lacessit]

21 hours ago, chrissables said:

What are you talking about? If you have a point to make, make it.

If my memory serves me correctly, you posted quite some time ago passionately defending your "right" to ride a motorbike without a helmet. So between that and losing your shirt on a dubious "ownership",  my guess does not look too far off the mark.

[chrissables]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

If my memory serves me correctly, you posted quite some time ago passionately defending your "right" to ride a motorbike without a helmet. So between that and losing your shirt on a dubious "ownership",  my guess does not look too far off the mark.

I believe it is nobody's business except mine if i wear a helmet or not, yes. It is a victimless crime.

 

Again, as you know nothing about my business set up, you are not qualified to to leave an educated remark.

 

Crowd funding, i doubt it very much, again making stupid statements based on no facts. 

[Lacessit]

18 minutes ago, chrissables said:

I believe it is nobody's business except mine if i wear a helmet or not, yes. It is a victimless crime.

 

Again, as you know nothing about my business set up, you are not qualified to to leave an educated remark.

 

Crowd funding, i doubt it very much, again making stupid statements based on no facts. 

BS. Your relatives and friends become victims when you become a paraplegic or vegetable through your own decisions. I am assuming you have friends, although if your attitude to other posters is any guide, unlikely.

I am educated enough to know when someone is sailing close to the wind.

[chrissables]

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

BS. Your relatives and friends become victims when you become a paraplegic or vegetable through your own decisions. I am assuming you have friends, although if your attitude to other posters is any guide, unlikely.

I am educated enough to know when someone is sailing close to the wind.

You know nothing at all. Educated enough? You don't even understand the meaning of victimless!

 

Close to the wind? In what regard? It's very easy to make yourself look a fool if you have no idea of the facts when discussing a person. 

[Lacessit]

20 minutes ago, chrissables said:

You know nothing at all. Educated enough? You don't even understand the meaning of victimless!

 

Close to the wind? In what regard? It's very easy to make yourself look a fool if you have no idea of the facts when discussing a person. 

It's also easy to make yourself look like a fool by refusing to accept anyone's opinion but your own. I've explained it to you. I can't understand it for you.

[MikeyIdea]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:36 PM, chrissables said:

As you have no idea of how the structure of the company is set up, what it does or does not do, you are in no position to say it is illegal or not.

 

 

This is boring, it has been discussed over and over and the ones who believe in this way wont stop until land use comes under scrutiny

 

Yes of course it can be perfectly legal, as long as the company use it for business and no foreigner lives on the land

[GroveHillWanderer]

Is anyone aware of any recent changes to Land Office policies or practices in this regard?

 

I have heard a report (just the one, mind you - and hearsay at that) that some Land Offices are not accepting the company ownership method any more.

 

Can anyone corroborate or refute such a change?

[tacoofthehillpeople]

I did not follow the link for church use. As it does not pertain to me. But the link concerning Article 86 treaty provisions would. As I am a citizen of the US. And the US and Thailand maintain a treaty.

 

Under section 96 subsection bis 3rd addendum says property in Bangkok Metropolitan area, Pattaya City area, or area designated. Anyone have an idea of where to find "areas designated"? Pretty sure I do not want to live the city proper. I would like the suburbs. Where it is generally nicer. 

[janclaes47]

On 2/19/2018 at 5:07 PM, chrissables said:

My company did it, all papers signed at the land office for buying and selling. No bribes were paid,  a normal business transaction. 

 

Because you did it and all papers were signed doesn't make it legal.

 

You most probably have read about the many Thai elites that have bought forest or national park land, with all papers signed at the land office, and now they lose it because it was illegal.

 

I indeed don't know you company construction, but I guess you are aware the double voting rights is illegal in Thailand.

 

There are a few threads about that.

[janclaes47]

13 minutes ago, tacoofthehillpeople said:

did not follow the link for church use. As it does not pertain to me. But the link concerning Article 86 treaty provisions would. As I am a citizen of the US. And the US and Thailand maintain a treaty.

Maybe you should start with looking up the treaty rules,

 

There are a few restrictions, and one of them is that the US citizen or the company that is registered under the treaty can not own land.