Crackdown on foreigners using Thai nominees: DSI raid offices of law firm in Bangkok, Phuket and Samui

[greenchair]

There are thousands of these companies all over thailand. Could it be this one is special because it's 2 billion baht would be a nice sum to confiscate. 

[anon789561]

27 minutes ago, bristolgeoff said:

many have brought houses or land thru this way.they must have known now  for years.closing this one as well now.

   my friend brought a house in cm not in his name the girlfriend only. if they come down on this  she can not afford to pay the mortage  either.but i imagine many in the same  boat 

don't worry about the article or the comments. no ones taking anyone's houses away. same old. it's nothing to anyone. well except that law firm in the OP and they'll be carrying on as normal too no doubt.  when you say they are closing this one now as well, what do you mean? they aren't closing anything. i'm sure about that

[JLCrab]

In Thailand as anywhere else, a pre-nuptial agreement is only as good as the court willing to enforce it.

[Happyman58]

The big joke ain't no joke I tell ya. He wants the top job and he will get it  That is no joke. Then he may look at the police in a different way then,

[Happyman58]

1 hour ago, TunnelRat69 said:

soooooo  wonder why they skipped Pattaya???

Dare I mention RUSSIANS in control or they found out they have no lifeguards there in case they wanted a midday dip Who knows but it is a good reason  I am sure,

[theguyfromanotherforum]

To all people who claim government will never do this and it would be a disaster, I agree.

 

However, this is not about the government screwing expats. If you deal in grey area of the law then you can expect there will be lawyers, wives, friends, family who will try and separate you from your property. And becaause it's a grey area no one will care if you lost it to a criminal. This has already happened and has been documented many times.

 

It's a carte blanche for criminals. 

 

I'll stick with my Canadian property.

 

 

[huberthammer]

4 hours ago, ukrules said:

I'd like to see something like a 'reciprocity proclamation' declared whereby all Thai people are banned from buying property in foreign countries.

 

Owning a house in Thailand should be as simple as it is for a Thai to own a house in other countries.

 

This has nothing to do with immigration. You can own and manage buildings in pretty much any country in the world through lawyers / rental agencies. Not in Thailand though.

 

Thailand is apparently special in some way, or so they would like to think.

 

The fact that they (Thai Government) have been getting away with this for such a long time shows how slack the other governments of the world have been on the subject of reciprocity.

 

You make it sound like in any other country it is perfectly legal for foreigners to buy land. This is by no means the case and many countries have very similar restrictions. 

[cyberfarang]

I often read posts on TV where posters are openly boasting about owning property, land, farms and businesses in Thailand. But we`re alright they say, it`s in my Thai wife`s name.

 

If I were them, I`d keep quite and keep a very low profile.

 

 

[Franko666]

20 hours ago, jvs said:

You are over reacting!!This comes around every once in awhile.If they would really go after every company set up buying houses for foreigners it would be really really big!!!

There is absolutely no way the would take your property away from you.They would give you a certain time in which you would have to sell or put in some other name.I do not believe in these panic reactions.

Yep it comes around every few years, thing is the sanctimonious types indicate people who take this route are silly, stupid or ignorant. Well let me tell these people Thai law is build around fudging and brown paper bags and deception and while ever property is being sold to foreigners in Thailand and money is to be made by the astute Thais this practice will continue. Ever wondered why illegal prostitution does great business out in the open on Beach Rd!!!!  And there ends the first lesson for newbies and the head in the sand farangs!!

[CARLO BALDASSARRE]

6 minutes ago, Patriot said:

Similar situation here except the cars are in my name. I once discussed with my wife that I have no real security, one can never really walk away having “won” over here. She replied that all I have to do is to keep my mouth and zipper shut and all will be okay ?. So what have I got to worry about!!!!!!!!!!!

Oihhhhh!!! ,i forgot to mention the 10 buffalo are in my name , but really don't know how thats documented ..an never really asked .....LOL!!!!!!...

[KittenKong]

17 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

'I can introduce you to a thousand farangs"

Waow! You know personally thousands of farangs, and those thousands bought properties to their Thai wives and those thousands lost everything.

I dont remember saying that I knew them personally. I expect that just by looking back at old posts on here one could find that many victims.

 

Besides which, a little hyperbole never did a discussion any harm.

[jvs]

1 hour ago, Franko666 said:

Yep it comes around every few years, thing is the sanctimonious types indicate people who take this route are silly, stupid or ignorant. Well let me tell these people Thai law is build around fudging and brown paper bags and deception and while ever property is being sold to foreigners in Thailand and money is to be made by the astute Thais this practice will continue. Ever wondered why illegal prostitution does great business out in the open on Beach Rd!!!!  And there ends the first lesson for newbies and the head in the sand farangs!!

Can't wait for the second lesson!!!

[transam]

Blimey, there's a lot of interest in this thread, wonder why....?

 

Oh, regarding trusting a legal bloke in LOS...?

[badjoke]

4 hours ago, CARLO BALDASSARRE said:

why is he stupid ???, why ....give me your reasons for your statement ....

1.The rubber tree plantation is in my wifes name.

2.The house in pattaya is in my wifes name .

3. The house in chang mai is in my wifes name .

4. The 2 cars are in my wifes name .

5. We have a prenuptial agreement ...makes it so so easy doing the wheeling and dealing with the wifeeeeey's name on all deeds an documents......??.......

You have placed your self in a position of being worth more dead than alive 

[Damrongsak]

20 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

You cannot legally sell something you do not legally own.

You want to buy 100,000 tons of rice?  I'll give you a good deal.

[Dogmatix]

Americans should petition Trump to wade in on the land ownership issue. Before the amity treaty with the US was renegotiated by the Thais in the early 70s to exclude land ownership rights, Smericans who came from states that permitted Thais to own land were permitted to own land in Thailand on a reciprocal basis. Unfortunately the US got too pally with the corrupt military government that was in power at the time and gave up Americans’ Land ownership rights in Thailand for no benefit except the right to continue pouring dollars into the generals’ offshore bank accounts. Four years after the current treaty was signed all US military bases were unceremoniously kicked out of Thailand.

 

Trump could easily demand an immediate reversion to the terms of the old treaty which was more fair to Americans and impose 100% tarrifs on Thai exports until it is done and dusted. That would get Uncle Tu on the first flight to DC. Land ownership is obviously more important than some obscure American vicar for whom he is quite happy to trash the currency of Turkey, a fellow NATO member, whereas Thailand has nil strategic importance to the US since the waterboarding centre got closed down.

 

Turkey and S Korea already have sensible laws on reciprocity of land ownership rights. That means that Thais and Thai companies cannot own land in those countries but most farangs can. The US has maintained its right to businesses in Thailand for decades in spite of opposition from Thai Chinese business owners. None of the attempts to cancel the treaty have succeeded due to terror of US sanctions. Now it’s time for Trump to restore the US rightful land owning privileges in Thailand and make America great again. Either that or sign an executive order to ban Thais from owning land in the US until their government gives reciprocal rights.

[metisdead]

Some inflammatory posts and the replies have been removed. 

[stud858]

5 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

Americans should petition Trump to wade in on the land ownership issue. Before the amity treaty with the US was renegotiated by the Thais in the early 70s to exclude land ownership rights, Smericans who came from states that permitted Thais to own land were permitted to own land in Thailand on a reciprocal basis. Unfortunately the US got too pally with the corrupt military government that was in power at the time and gave up Americans’ Land ownership rights in Thailand for no benefit except the right to continue pouring dollars into the generals’ offshore bank accounts. Four years after the current treaty was signed all US military bases were unceremoniously kicked out of Thailand.

 

Trump could easily demand an immediate reversion to the terms of the old treaty which was more fair to Americans and impose 100% tarrifs on Thai exports until it is done and dusted. That would get Uncle Tu on the first flight to DC. Land ownership is obviously more important than some obscure American vicar for whom he is quite happy to trash the currency of Turkey, a fellow NATO member, whereas Thailand has nil strategic importance to the US since the waterboarding centre got closed down.

 

Turkey and S Korea already have sensible laws on reciprocity of land ownership rights. That means that Thais and Thai companies cannot own land in those countries but most farangs can. The US has maintained its right to businesses in Thailand for decades in spite of opposition from Thai Chinese business owners. None of the attempts to cancel the treaty have succeeded due to terror of US sanctions. Now it’s time for Trump to restore the US rightful land owning privileges in Thailand and make America great again. Either that or sign an executive order to ban Thais from owning land in the US until their government gives reciprocal rights.great 

great info. If there is a chance reciprocal agreement can occur. Trump is the man. Send him a tweet.

[Damrongsak]

20 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

Americans should petition Trump ...

Wow, interesting info. 

[onekoolguy]

13 hours ago, garyk said:

Could not agree more. 100% agree.

When you can rent a 4 million baht home for 15k a month it makes no financial sense to own, even if it were legal. Rent in Thailand. Invest in something that you can legally control with no gimmicks!

 

[jvs]

2 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Problem is, those days will come to an end eventually in an ever more conservative and middle class Thailand. You'd be an complete idiot to assume that nominee companies will never be looked at in the future. They most certainly will and that time will come, as it has with other laws that were ignored because they were inconvenient. 

 

 

Many other laws that were routinely ignored because of graft and corruption are now vociferously  enforced, an example is overstay, treated at one stage as just a joke by immigration, can now net you a stint in the IDC and a ban from returning to Thailand for up to 10 years. 

 

I have no doubt in my mind the day will come when we will see many nominee companies that own land fall foul of new and enthusiastic enforcement of the current laws much to the chagrin of those that have not been able to anticipate due to their lack of understanding of how Thailand's future is taking shape.

 

 

 

 

I am sure you are right,that day will come.

I will cross that bridge when i reach it and i am not going to worry about it too much.

I know some people can't wait for the goverment'to take it all away from us'but i am quite sure that is not going to happen.

Like most things here the company route wil most likely be phased out slowly ,no new ones and the excisting once will die out soon.

I do agree with most people who are saying this will end but i do not believe in the scaremongering.

To use your example about overstay,those who did got plenty of warning.

Please see post Number 93.

[mogandave]

You make it sound like in any other country it is perfectly legal for foreigners to buy land. This is by no means the case and many countries have very similar restrictions. 

Yes but if he says it over and over enough times it will be true, yes?

[jvs]

3 hours ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

I'll stick with my Canadian property.

Do you really own property in Canada?I mean is it 100% yours?

[JLCrab]

Just to note maybe there's been a big run on supply and these bags at Thai OfficeMate are now OUT OF STOCK.

https://www.officemate.co.th/en/Product/5006365/DARLING-SG-2202-MX50-Craft-Paper-Bag-50-Pack

[jippytum]

You notice once in a while not all but certain bars or companies are singled out for police action .Most times the media  are well briefed in advance . Meanwhile other businesses in the area continue avading the same  laws with apparent immunity from the authorities.

 

[monkfish]

Loop holes were built in the law on purpose because they actualy want foreign investors but they will use it when needed. I'm guess they passed some bigwig off. Keep your head low and you wil be fine dont pass anyone off.

 

Oh and it dont matter what law says its up to the Judge at the end of the day.

[Horace]

14 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

The approach of interpreting law can be seen in the Thai Civil and Commercial Code (TCCC) under Article 4 para 1 which provides that 'the law must be applied in all cases with the letter or the spirit of any of its provisions.' This indicates that the literal and purposive techniques are permitted for use in interpreting codes or written law. It is questionable whether the letter should be considered first, or have to be considered together with the purpose of the law. Both literal and purposive approaches have to be used together because the text itself is ambiguous and it needs to be considered in the context, and also look beyond the text to find the purpose of the law. One should consider the letter and the spirit of law together in order to interpret the law and if the outcome of both approaches is different, the meaning of purposive approach is more important than the meaning of the text itself.

 

So it's legally possible for the Thai government to allow foreign controlled Thai majority companies to operate in Thailand, while at the same time crack down on companies set up solely or predominantly to own property and which are controlled by foreigners, as this goes against the purpose of the law that foreigners cannot own land. 

 

Several problems here:

 

1.  First, you are citing the Civil and Commercial Code.  The prohibitions we are talking about here are criminal.  You therefore need to look at how criminal laws are interpreted.  We will come back to that in the end, but the point is that you are applying a principle of legal interpretation that doesn't apply here and, as explained in the next point, you are even applying the principle for interpretation of civil laws incorrectly.

 

2.  Second, how do you know what spirit of a law is?   These laws, as written, say nothing about control or economic benefit.  Those specific issues were debated when the laws were enacted, and it was decided that control and economic benefit would not be included in the definition of an alien.  This was done intentionally after deliberation and debate.  And done on multiple occasions.  Doesn't that tell us that the spirit of the laws is to exclude control and economic benefit?

 

If not, this means that law-makers can deliberate and debate in detail over a definition (here, the inclusion or exclusion of control and economic benefit), specifically decide against including control and economic benefit, but the law can still be interpreted to include control and economic benefit because that was the underlying "spirit" of the law?  

 

If that is true, we cannot rely on Thai laws as written.  That means someone can argue that even though the law uses the word, "white", they are able to Devine that law's spirit prefers "black", and the law should be read to say black even it actually says white.  In other words, if what you are saying is true, the language used in Thai law is irrelevant.

 

And who decides what the spirit of a law is?  Obviously not the legislature or an appointed assembly (these days), since you are claiming we can put control and economic benefit back into the definition of an alien even though the legislature expressly decided against this.  Do we consult a maw-doo (fortune teller) to tell us what the law's spirit prefers?

 

If you go down this route of legal interpretation, you end up with these sorts of absurdities.  You turn the law into something mystical where you need to consult with witch doctors to communicate with a law's "spirit".  Is that how Thai law should be interpreted?  By ignoring the language of the law and instead deferring to decisions by witch doctors?

 

3.    You mentioned how laws should be interpreted.  These laws are criminal in nature because they provide for criminal penalties.  Where criminal penalties strict construction must be applied.  This means that a criminal statute may not be enlarged by implication or intent beyond the the language used,

[Horace]

16 hours ago, xylophone said:

Horace: Signing a document saying you are holding shares on behalf of a foreigner to make a company appear Thai is no brainer.  That is obviously an illegal nominee relationship.  

 

You yourself stated the above, so you are saying that there are such things as illegal nominee relationships, and that's all that I and others are saying with regards to setting up a company whose specific purpose is to acquire a property and land. 

 

 

If you sign a document saying you are a nominee, and the law criminalizes nominees, then of course you have violated the law.

 

But this does not allow someone to add provisions to the law that doesn't exist, such as foreign control or economic benefit, to make a company an Alien that is disqualified under the Land Act from owning land or under the FBA from conducting business in various areas.

 

When these laws were enacted and several times after they discussed, debated and considered adding these conditions (which are excluded from the law as written), and decided against adding these conditions.  If they can put them back in now because its convenient to do so, take property from foreigners who relied on the law as it was written, Thai law is meaningless.

 

In other words, the law does not mean what it says.  It means what I want it to say.  This is like something out of Alice-in-Wonderland.  Its unfair and it will scare the crap out of prospective investors.

[smotherb]

23 hours ago, jvs said:

You are over reacting!!This comes around every once in awhile.If they would really go after every company set up buying houses for foreigners it would be really really big!!!

There is absolutely no way the would take your property away from you.They would give you a certain time in which you would have to sell or put in some other name.I do not believe in these panic reactions.

And is that time given to sell based on wishful thinking or specific knowledge?  

[Destiny1990]

Interesting to see what will happen with all the properties of foreigners who bought pricey villas in a company structure tailor made by DFDL.

Furthermore what will happen with DFDL?