Thai Partner, Tax And Buying A Condo - Legal Issue

[s1214215]

Hi

A Thai friend of mine living and studying in Australia, went to Thailand with his farang partner of 1 month for a holiday. A few days ago the farang partner and condo agents in Bangkok coerced/forced my friend to sign papers regarding the joint purchase of the condo, then refused to give copies of the papers to him.

Other than such coercion being illegal, would the farang partner get some tax breaks by having a Thai as a partner when buying a condo? My friend wants to get out of this purchase. He has been told he will have to pay tax if he transfers his share of the property to his farang partner.

Can you give any information on this. I have suggested my friend get a lawyer involved as I am sure this act was illegal. I also suggested he contact the condo agent and notify them of his intention to persue legal action regarding the forced signing and their role in it.

Many thanks

[backflip]

How did they coerce your friend into signing papers for a condo? Not only do you need to "sign papers" you need to "pay money". Did they force him to "pay money" too? The biggest question is why are you involved at all? Too, I have never read any post where a Thai was hoodwinked by a farang. Amazing!

[s1214215]

My friend had no money to pay. He is a Thai student in Australia. His partner is paying for his study. His partner threatened to stop paying for his study unless he did this. I am still unsure why the partner wants this. Does he get a tax break if he has a Thai partner?

The reason I am asking these questions is this is my friend who has been forced into this. His partner is a dodgy piece of work and more than a bit mad in my opinion. My friend wants out of this deal but is unsure what to do. Any advice on how he might get out of this situation would be welcome.

I disagree that Thais dont get screwed over by farang. I have seen a number who have been economically coerced into bad situations by their farang partner. One only has to look at he case of people trafficking out of Thailand for a prime example.

Edited February 4, 2007 by s1214215

[backflip]

Your Thai friend wasn't threatened by bodily harm so, in my opinion, an assertion of coersion is tenuous. Your friend entered into a "quid pro quo" - something for something - situation. He was free to return to Thailand with no strings attached. The fact that he has misgivings about what he did is unfortunate, but that does not mean anything illegal has occurred. If the condo falls within the 49% constraint for foreign ownership, I don't see any financial incentive to do what he did. On the other hand, if there are already 49% non-Thai owners, the Thai partner's ownership would allow the purchase of the condo. In my opinion, you are trying to dance around the nature of the relationship but, you are not that good of a dancer. Your "coerced" friend should return to Thailand and find a supportive relationship, but I don't think he's wearing the pants...

Your friend's relationship has nothing to do with smuggling of humans and, raising that example as an assertion, is in poor taste.

[piersbeckett]

This sounds like a homo-sexual squabble to me - "Ooh, the muck in here, shut that door"

[backflip]

Bingo. My thoughts exactly. The poor student signed some papers, and now he wants his share of the dealings. Rather than worry about the alleged violation of his human rights, he's interested in the tax consequences.

[GuestHouse]

If the Australian guy doesn't live in Thailand then how is the contract going to be enforced?

[wpcoe]

Although the OP mentions "joint purchase" of the condo, I wonder whether the condo is, in fact, in the Thai friend's name. Why else would he need to sign papers, especially if he's not contributing financially to the deal? The 49% farang-ownable allocation being sold out is one very likely scenario.

If the condo is in his name, the last laugh could be his....