The Fba And Farang Ownership Of Houses

[Mobi]

An British/Thai Law firm took out a full page ad in the Pattaya Mail saying the following:

ATTENTION: ALL FOREIGNERS WHO OWN PROPERTY IN THAILAND

We recommend that ALL FOPREIGNERS who own property in Thailand to contact a professional Thai Lawyer immediately in regard to exit strategies and the Foreign Business Act:

1. Change of Thai Nominees to full voting rights

2. Selling the property

3. Voluntary liquidation of the company.

NON COMPLIANCE WILL RESULT IN FINES FROM 250,000 BAHT - 5 MILLION BAHT & IMPRISONMENT!!!

Sunbelt, FBA experts out there - any comments?

Is it time to act?

[Arkady]

Is a Thai wife as a shareholder in a company regarded as a nominee? In most countries it is normal for couples to own businesses jointly and, as common property is common, who is to say whose money was used to pay for her shares? I am assuming that the authorities would say that a Thai wife would have to show salary history etc to prove that she had earned enough money independenty to pay for the shares, although they would no doubt see it differently in the case of a Thai man married to a wealthy foreign woman. Taking it a step further would it make sense to transfer all shares to trustworthy Thais and resigning as authorized director as an alternative to the absolute step of transferring the land to a wife? I am assuming here the case where the foreigner has another reason to want to keep the company going but prefers to keep it below the radar screen without foreign shareholders.

Re the ad. Lawyers can expect a last bonanza from this. Then their business of helping foreigners buy houses will inevitably dry up. Fees generated from condo purchases and Thai wives buying land are much less. Leases on landed property will only appeal to the most determined.

[jing jing]

An British/Thai Law firm took out a full page ad in the Pattaya Mail saying the following:

ATTENTION: ALL FOREIGNERS WHO OWN PROPERTY IN THAILAND

We recommend that ALL FOPREIGNERS who own property in Thailand to contact a professional Thai Lawyer immediately in regard to exit strategies and the Foreign Business Act:

1. Change of Thai Nominees to full voting rights

2. Selling the property

3. Voluntary liquidation of the company.

NON COMPLIANCE WILL RESULT IN FINES FROM 250,000 BAHT - 5 MILLION BAHT & IMPRISONMENT!!!

Sunbelt, FBA experts out there - any comments?

Is it time to act?

Mobi,

I'm not an expert, and I understand that you've already taken action #3, but IMHO this advert is fearmongering of the first order on the part of the law firm in question. There has yet to surface a single instance of any foreigner holding land through a majority Thai corporation being prosecuted in any way, shape, or form. Please let me know when the first foreigner gets fined and/or imprisoned under these new ordinances.

It's obvious who stands to profit from hordes of panicked foreigners looking for "legal" representation...

BTW my house sits on my wife's land with a usufruct, so I really have no dog in this fight.

[solo siam]

Yes, business is probably down for the property law firm involved so they are using this tactic to bring in more business.

[Phil Conners]

At least half of the houses in my village is owned by Brits through companies, most are not married to Thais, in fact seems most of them are right out of Spain for some reason. I am very curious to see what they will do when the manure hits the fan, and what that will do to house prices here

So far it seems the ostrich-solution is applied....

[stevieff]

Yes, it's probably pandering on the part of the law firm, however that does not dilute the content of the warning, since the warning was issued by the government. IMO. this latest approach by the government has much more teeth legally than their previous approach, that of simply investigating the nominees. The new approach is much more expedient and far less messy in terms of bureaucratic approach. A prudent foreigner would be wise to listen this time. Yes, it's true to date no land has been confiscated (though the government claims to have 12 cases pending). In fact, I started a thread about that a few months ago. This time though, I believe it's a whole new ballgame.

[johnnyk]

And are the alleged 12 cases pending against individual falang with their little retirement home or against development companies who have obtained land through bribery, fraud, encroachment, intimidation and other classic means? see: Samui, Koh (n.) an island in the south of Thailand)

There is a difference.

[Rinrada]

Could be a lot of CHEAP gaffs on the market...soon....

....right nice little 12 bedroom pied a terre avec the usual kidney shaped swimming pool and western cludgy ..used to belong to an ex rich Non T who is now on his Uppers....opps who wishes to divest into other business projects......

so wot am I offered?...anyone start the ball rolling at say......... ...surely .......?

[stevieff]

And are the alleged 12 cases pending against individual falang with their little retirement home or against development companies who have obtained land through bribery, fraud, encroachment, intimidation and other classic means? see: Samui, Koh (n.) an island in the south of Thailand)

There is a difference.

'

Hard to say who they were against, Johnny K,. the government wasn't specific. The new government tact of having nominees have equal voting shares is more dangerous to the farang than the previous approach, IMO, big company or small owner. The nominees can simply take control of the company, game over, no embarassment or cost for the government.

[Arkady]

Yes, it's probably pandering on the part of the law firm, however that does not dilute the content of the warning, since the warning was issued by the government. IMO. this latest approach by the government has much more teeth legally than their previous approach, that of simply investigating the nominees. The new approach is much more expedient and far less messy in terms of bureaucratic approach. A prudent foreigner would be wise to listen this time. Yes, it's true to date no land has been confiscated (though the government claims to have 12 cases pending). In fact, I started a thread about that a few months ago. This time though, I believe it's a whole new ballgame.

It's a tough call because it is unclear how all of this will play out. This government will not be in power for very long but there's no telling who will be power next. Thai politicians have for a long time favoured the Thaksin approach of keeping strict anti-foreigner laws on the statute book but not enforcing them properly where there is a chance to make money from foreigners. The possibilities are to continue with the Sarayud government's holier than thou approach whereby every one loses - Thai and foreign; a Democrat Party style approach whereby the FBA is reviewed by scrapping Annex 3 completely which would take the Commerce Ministry out of the equation and put the onus solely on the Land Dept; or back to the Thaksin approach but maybe things have gone too far to go back to this now. Some people may end up losing security over their property by transferring it to a Thai partner or friend who ends up being a nuisance and long leases are not very secure compared to Western countries. Their heirs may also lose all rights to inherit any interest in the property. On the other hand the downside for not restructuring may include hefty fines and even imprisonment followed by deportation in a very worst case scenario. But note that even the worst case scenario doesn't involve confiscation of property. It involves forced sale. However, after fines, legal fees, legal execution fees and paying your Thai nominees their 51% plus share, there may not be much left and you may not be able to get it out of the country if you don't have the original TT3 forms.

Some cases are clear cut. Foreigners who do not have Thai partners or very close long standing Thai friends and either live abroad or are retired and have no ability or interest in actually doing any business through their company should look to sell their property. They are in danger both from the authorities and their nominees shareholders and will be very vulnerable during the 90 amnesty period for nominees after enactment of the new FBA in anything from 3 to 12 months' time. If they can find a reliable way to sell it and lease it back, so much the better, but it should probably be a genuine sale for cash. Otherwise they can still be accused of buying through a nominee. Those with inactive companies who have Thai partners should strongly consider selling to their Thai partners and leasing back through a lifetime usufruct agreement. Those not married to their Thai partners should consider doing so first to avoid their partner being classified as a nominee. The Thai spouse should will the property to the foreigner in this case. Otherwise he will have to share it with her relatives, if she predeceases him.

At the other end of the spectrum are substantial foreign controlled businesses with Thai shareholders that have either genuinely invested or can pass muster as having enough income or assets to have invested. In future there may be issues about whether they have received dividends from the company or not but, if the comany is large enough, its ownership of a house on a plot of less than one rai will probably never be challenged.

In a grey area are companies that have either nil or small operating income currently but have the ability to establish a modest business and either have or are confident of obtaining a work permit for the foreign director. BTW rental income from the foreign director is classified in the accounts as "other income" and does not count as "operating income". What should they do? Is their position hopeless or is it worth trying to build up some more business? If so, what is the optimum shareholder structure: 51:49; 61:39; 100:0; or other? Are Thai wives acceptable to hold all or some of the Thai shares, even if not wealthy in their own right? Should the foreigner continue as a director/ authorized signatory? These are questions that I and some others are pondering. Any constructive suggestions (but not told you so posts) gratefully received.

[Heng]

....right nice little 12 bedroom pied a terre avec the usual kidney shaped swimming pool and western cludgy ..used to belong to an ex rich Non T who is now on his Uppers....opps who wishes to divest into other business projects......

Might be interested... what's a pied a terre avec, cludgy, and uppers?

[lannarebirth]

Could be a lot of CHEAP gaffs on the market...soon....

....right nice little 12 bedroom pied a terre avec the usual kidney shaped swimming pool and western cludgy ..used to belong to an ex rich Non T who is now on his Uppers....opps who wishes to divest into other business projects......

so wot am I offered?...anyone start the ball rolling at say......... ...surely .......?

This may be the trend in farang ghettoes like Pattaya, but here in Chiang Mai, it has been my observation of the past few weeks, that farang purchases of both land AND houses is accelerating. I do not know what ownership method they are using but I know plenty of deals are getting done; and not only are they not at discounts, they are pushing the top end of valuations. Chiang Mai is relatively cheaper than other populated areas in Thailand, so that may have a lot to do with it. Don't know.

[Arkady]

This may be the trend in farang ghettoes like Pattaya, but here in Chiang Mai, it has been my observation of the past few weeks, that farang purchases of both land AND houses is accelerating. I do not know what ownership method they are using but I know plenty of deals are getting done; and not only are they not at discounts, they are pushing the top end of valuations. Chiang Mai is relatively cheaper than other populated areas in Thailand, so that may have a lot to do with it. Don't know.

Perhaps they are being bought by Thai wives and/or people who don't read Thai Visa and listen to shyster developers and lawyers.

[lannarebirth]

Perhaps they are being bought by Thai wives and/or people who don't read Thai Visa and listen to shyster developers and lawyers.

That's possible (edit: The TV poll here says about 2/3 of property is owned through Thai family). The three sales of which I'm aware in the past few weeks ranged from 8.5mil to 22.5 mil, with the cheapest(a house) being bought by a farang couple. The more expensive ones were land only. Don't know the ownership details only what the puyai ban told me they sold for.

Edited February 12, 2007 by lannarebirth

[HenryB]

At least half of the houses in my village is owned by Brits through companies, most are not married to Thais, in fact seems most of them are right out of Spain for some reason. I am very curious to see what they will do when the manure hits the fan, and what that will do to house prices here

So far it seems the ostrich-solution is applied....

I am sorry for these criminals they shall be in the monkey house for breaking the law. The houses will be selling at 40 per cent of todays prices if they are lucky to get any money as it may go to pay the fine.

I have never meet a smart Frang in Thailand.

[Prudent_rabbit]

At least half of the houses in my village is owned by Brits through companies, most are not married to Thais, in fact seems most of them are right out of Spain for some reason. I am very curious to see what they will do when the manure hits the fan, and what that will do to house prices here

So far it seems the ostrich-solution is applied....

I am sorry for these criminals they shall be in the monkey house for breaking the law. The houses will be selling at 40 per cent of todays prices if they are lucky to get any money as it may go to pay the fine.

I have never meet a smart Farang in Thailand.

so, dont get out much then?

[cclub75]

Marketing trick ?

Anyway.

It seems reasonable to wait for the "final-final-final" version of FBA version 2...

I agree that the spirit of FBA 2 is very clear, despite the gvt's denegations... It's a move against foreign businesses.

However, the legal process is and could be very long :

-the draft must be reviewed by Council State (and may be changed)

-then the project is resubmitted to the Cabinet

-then the draft will be sent to NLA (National legistlative Assembly) for vote

Meanwhile, you'll notice that the pressure is mounting on the gvt (many foreign embassies have started a rather strong lobbying work and disagree with the project).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/02/10...es_30026486.php

Add the airport scandal, that is growing every day, the THB issue and capital control, plus the internal politics (Thaksin), the South etc... The whole picture is pretty upside down and the government could decide that... FBA 2 well... is not an "urgent" issue anymore.

Or, on the contrary, because of this very climate, it could be a perfect way to reassess "thainess" and "national pride" and lead to a fast vote with an even stronger version...

That's the charm of the cocktail : third world country, face and highly volatile politics...

So once again, wait at least for the text that will be voted (if any...).

[Sunbelt Asia]

An British/Thai Law firm took out a full page ad in the Pattaya Mail saying the following:

ATTENTION: ALL FOREIGNERS WHO OWN PROPERTY IN THAILAND

We recommend that ALL FOPREIGNERS who own property in Thailand to contact a professional Thai Lawyer immediately in regard to exit strategies and the Foreign Business Act:

1. Change of Thai Nominees to full voting rights

2. Selling the property

3. Voluntary liquidation of the company.

NON COMPLIANCE WILL RESULT IN FINES FROM 250,000 BAHT - 5 MILLION BAHT & IMPRISONMENT!!!

Sunbelt, FBA experts out there - any comments?

Is it time to act?

The Foreign Business Act will depend on what the company objectives are, if they need to change the voting rights.

The Land Act will look at, is the company active? How did the Thai shareholders invest?

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[Dupont]

At least half of the houses in my village is owned by Brits through companies, most are not married to Thais, in fact seems most of them are right out of Spain for some reason. I am very curious to see what they will do when the manure hits the fan, and what that will do to house prices here

So far it seems the ostrich-solution is applied....

I am sorry for these criminals they shall be in the monkey house for breaking the law. The houses will be selling at 40 per cent of todays prices if they are lucky to get any money as it may go to pay the fine.

I have never meet a smart Frang in Thailand.

Whats a Frang? Oh great wise one?

[Arkady]

Marketing trick ?

Anyway.

It seems reasonable to wait for the "final-final-final" version of FBA version 2...

I agree that the spirit of FBA 2 is very clear, despite the gvt's denegations... It's a move against foreign businesses.

However, the legal process is and could be very long :

-the draft must be reviewed by Council State (and may be changed)

-then the project is resubmitted to the Cabinet

-then the draft will be sent to NLA (National legistlative Assembly) for vote

Meanwhile, you'll notice that the pressure is mounting on the gvt (many foreign embassies have started a rather strong lobbying work and disagree with the project).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/02/10...es_30026486.php

Add the airport scandal, that is growing every day, the THB issue and capital control, plus the internal politics (Thaksin), the South etc... The whole picture is pretty upside down and the government could decide that... FBA 2 well... is not an "urgent" issue anymore.

Or, on the contrary, because of this very climate, it could be a perfect way to reassess "thainess" and "national pride" and lead to a fast vote with an even stronger version...

That's the charm of the cocktail : third world country, face and highly volatile politics...

So once again, wait at least for the text that will be voted (if any...).

Ah but foreigners don't understand our sufficient economy.

[Cyberstar]

Ah but foreigners don't understand our sufficient economy.

Turn back time to when Ayutthaya was capital and start all over again without the French and those that came later?

[Paul MBMG]

An British/Thai Law firm took out a full page ad in the Pattaya Mail saying the following:

ATTENTION: ALL FOREIGNERS WHO OWN PROPERTY IN THAILAND

We recommend that ALL FOPREIGNERS who own property in Thailand to contact a professional Thai Lawyer immediately in regard to exit strategies and the Foreign Business Act:

1. Change of Thai Nominees to full voting rights

2. Selling the property

3. Voluntary liquidation of the company.

NON COMPLIANCE WILL RESULT IN FINES FROM 250,000 BAHT - 5 MILLION BAHT & IMPRISONMENT!!!

Sunbelt, FBA experts out there - any comments?

Is it time to act?

I think that professional advice at this stage is a good idea (I would say that wouldn't I) but I thn that taking action until the FBA changes become ratified is counter-productive and, without having seen the ad in question, I don't think that the excerpt shown here is terribly professional. Just to recap

1) there are 7 ways for foreigners to take a financial interest in property in Thailand (6 of these remain unaffected by the proposed FBA changes)

2) of the one that is relevant, professionally set-up companies shouldn't be affected and companies that have been set up improperly can be brought within the law in a reasonably straightforward way. The advert doesn't offer that solution but assumes that all foreigners who own property in Thailand have used nominees in some form.

To that extent I would say that this is scare-mongering, which may well be counter-productive.

I can't foresee any situation where a foreigner should need to contemplate liquidating a company or selling a property. I think that there are enough solutions here that we should focus on those rather than the problems.

[stevieff]

An British/Thai Law firm took out a full page ad in the Pattaya Mail saying the following:

ATTENTION: ALL FOREIGNERS WHO OWN PROPERTY IN THAILAND

We recommend that ALL FOPREIGNERS who own property in Thailand to contact a professional Thai Lawyer immediately in regard to exit strategies and the Foreign Business Act:

1. Change of Thai Nominees to full voting rights

2. Selling the property

3. Voluntary liquidation of the company.

NON COMPLIANCE WILL RESULT IN FINES FROM 250,000 BAHT - 5 MILLION BAHT & IMPRISONMENT!!!

Sunbelt, FBA experts out there - any comments?

Is it time to act?

I think that professional advice at this stage is a good idea (I would say that wouldn't I) but I thn that taking action until the FBA changes become ratified is counter-productive and, without having seen the ad in question, I don't think that the excerpt shown here is terribly professional. Just to recap

1) there are 7 ways for foreigners to take a financial interest in property in Thailand (6 of these remain unaffected by the proposed FBA changes)

2) of the one that is relevant, professionally set-up companies shouldn't be affected and companies that have been set up improperly can be brought within the law in a reasonably straightforward way. The advert doesn't offer that solution but assumes that all foreigners who own property in Thailand have used nominees in some form.

To that extent I would say that this is scare-mongering, which may well be counter-productive.

I can't foresee any situation where a foreigner should need to contemplate liquidating a company or selling a property. I think that there are enough solutions here that we should focus on those rather than the problems.

Typical realtor, long on hyberole, short on specifics. "Nothing to see here folks, move along, continue to invest in dodgy companies that make me rich", blah, blah, blah. Look at his point in section 2. The reality is most foreign land-holding companies are held by simple pensioners who did use nominees offered up by their local attorneys. They were not nominees who had substantial net worth and these nominees would easily fall under any scrutiny from the government.

[Dupont]

My thoughts are with the elderly couples who own through this route.

I agree with Paul (even though I don't normally agree with property people). Should concentrate on the positive threads and kick these trolls back out into the cold.

Many on TV are just hoping (yet again) for a chance to say told you so! Its sour grapes from those too poor, too spineless or too unadventurous to have engaged in anything other than drinking and womanising. Life goes on out here and we have businesses, income, holidays and places to live, just like many in the west do.

If you are planning on going back to where you came from, at least respect those of us that have lived here a long time, have families and jobs here, and intend living out our years here. Set up a "told you so thread" where you can go with the other trolls and nobodies and make yourselves feel better.

If the time came, most people would not lose their land, the worst case is to have to transfer and rent it back or sell it to a Thai Nataional.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Dupont

[quiksilva]

An British/Thai Law firm took out a full page ad in the Pattaya Mail saying the following:

ATTENTION: ALL FOREIGNERS WHO OWN PROPERTY IN THAILAND

We recommend that ALL FOPREIGNERS who own property in Thailand to contact a professional Thai Lawyer immediately in regard to exit strategies and the Foreign Business Act:

1. Change of Thai Nominees to full voting rights

2. Selling the property

3. Voluntary liquidation of the company.

NON COMPLIANCE WILL RESULT IN FINES FROM 250,000 BAHT - 5 MILLION BAHT & IMPRISONMENT!!!

Sunbelt, FBA experts out there - any comments?

Is it time to act?

I think that professional advice at this stage is a good idea (I would say that wouldn't I) but I thn that taking action until the FBA changes become ratified is counter-productive and, without having seen the ad in question, I don't think that the excerpt shown here is terribly professional. Just to recap

1) there are 7 ways for foreigners to take a financial interest in property in Thailand (6 of these remain unaffected by the proposed FBA changes)

2) of the one that is relevant, professionally set-up companies shouldn't be affected and companies that have been set up improperly can be brought within the law in a reasonably straightforward way. The advert doesn't offer that solution but assumes that all foreigners who own property in Thailand have used nominees in some form.

To that extent I would say that this is scare-mongering, which may well be counter-productive.

I can't foresee any situation where a foreigner should need to contemplate liquidating a company or selling a property. I think that there are enough solutions here that we should focus on those rather than the problems.

Typical realtor, long on hyberole, short on specifics. "Nothing to see here folks, move along, continue to invest in dodgy companies that make me rich", blah, blah, blah. Look at his point in section 2. The reality is most foreign land-holding companies are held by simple pensioners who did use nominees offered up by their local attorneys. They were not nominees who had substantial net worth and these nominees would easily fall under any scrutiny from the government.

I agree, the vast majority of farang's who own homes here, have received bad advice and used dodgy company structures, that wouldn't have been recommended in the first place by professional outfits.

Now these ambulance chasers are scaremongerring to generate fees by undoing the mess they caused in the first place - this is what makes my blood boil more than anything else!

Ps. Paul is not a realtor. IMHO He along with Sunbelt and others here are exactly the type of people one should seek out to provide real solutions to the problems that have arisen as a result of these revisions.

[Arkady]

I think that professional advice at this stage is a good idea (I would say that wouldn't I) but I thn that taking action until the FBA changes become ratified is counter-productive and, without having seen the ad in question, I don't think that the excerpt shown here is terribly professional. Just to recap

1) there are 7 ways for foreigners to take a financial interest in property in Thailand (6 of these remain unaffected by the proposed FBA changes)

2) of the one that is relevant, professionally set-up companies shouldn't be affected and companies that have been set up improperly can be brought within the law in a reasonably straightforward way. The advert doesn't offer that solution but assumes that all foreigners who own property in Thailand have used nominees in some form.

To that extent I would say that this is scare-mongering, which may well be counter-productive.

I can't foresee any situation where a foreigner should need to contemplate liquidating a company or selling a property. I think that there are enough solutions here that we should focus on those rather than the problems.

Limited company; lease; usufruct; buying in name of wife. I am not sure what the other 4 ways are but they may be variations on these.

I would think that to be reasonably sure that the company could stand investigation you need substantial Thai shareholders and a visible core business. It would be best if the value of the property is not overly large in relation to the assets and revenues of the comany and if the company is not too burdened with debt. I think it must be very hard for the average retired couple who bought a Baht 10-40 million villa with Baht 2 million paid up capital to comply with all this but I would certainly like to see constructive suggestion from Paul and others. He should certainly not be flamed for it. As far as I know he is a financial adviser and is not involved in selling property of any way.

[Arkady]

Bangkok Post 15 February 2007

More documents sought in nominee hunt

KANANA KATHARANGSIPORN

Inspections of land holdings by companies suspected to be foreign-owned must await documentation from the Business Development Department, according to the Lands Department. Sub Lt Khantachai Vichakkhana, the deputy director-general of the Lands Department, said it was the responsibility of the Commerce Ministry unit to determine the nationality of companies and whether illegal shareholding structures were used.

Thai law sharply restricts foreign ownership of land. Corporate entities doing so must be majority controlled by Thais. But nominee structures are commonly used to bypass the law, particularly in tourist areas such as Phuket and Pattaya.

Sub Lt Khantachai said that since last year, provincial land offices have had the authority to inspect companies suspected of having illegal nominee structures.

If violations are found, provincial governors have the right to direct the companies to sell off the land within 180 days.

But Sub Lt Khantachai said that before an inspection could be made, information was needed in co-operation with the Business Development Department, which is responsible for corporate registrations.

''We cannot check potential nominees until a prosecution is made. In any case, there must be evidence from the Commerce Ministry as well,'' he said.

The Lands Department directed its provincial land offices last June to submit information on companies that had purchased land or properties in their jurisdiction to the Commerce Ministry for verification of their status.

To date, no formal report of an illegal nominee structure has been made to the Lands Department.

Sub Lt Khantachai said Foreign Business Act reforms and tighter enforcement of existing land laws were unlikely to result in a slowdown in the property market.

''Actually, what these reforms will do will be to help clamp down on asset laundering in the country,'' he said.

Kanissorn Navanugraha, the director-general of the Business Development Department, agreed that greater co-operation with the Lands Department was needed to improve enforcement of the law.

He said the department only forwarded information on various juristic entities to the Lands Department on request, but did not have the right to stipulate whether a nominee structure existed or not.

''If a company is suspected of using an illegal nominee structure, we are obligated to report the case to the police and await a formal court ruling,'' Mr Kanissorn said.

He said the Lands Department was empowered to investigate on its own whether a foreign entity used nominees.

[Arkady]

Re today's Bkk Post article above. Can anyone help explain what this piece of typically Thai officialese double talk means? It was no doubt taken out of context, then misquoted, mistranslated and finally mashed about by the subeditor. But the Lands Dept seems to lamenting the fact that the Business Development Department is not automatically hunting down nominees and reporting them to the Lands Dept and the BDD is saying that they need a specific request from the Lands Dept. The BDD forwards cases to the police, not the Lands Dept directly. On the other hand athe Lands Dept has the authority to investigate and prosecute by itself but perhaps finds this difficult without cooperation from the BDD. Perhaps this was in response to a question as to why no one has so far been pro prosecuted. The Lands Dept then throws in a strange comment that the crackdown will somehow not affect the property market but will help stop asset laundering (presumably this is only done in Thailand by evil foreign criminals not by corrupt government officials and other Thais).

The BDD may be waiting for the new FBA to gear itself up, so that it doesn't have a problem with prosecuting a lot of foreign businesses that it may have to drop, if the government flip flops again and loosens up on the FBA under pressure from foreign governments. If this actually happened (although I am not too hopeful), and for example Annex 3 were significantly loosened up or dropped completely, then the onus would be on the Lands Dept to track down nominees of formerly Annex 3 companies.

The bottom line is, however, that, if they get their acts together, things could become very nasty. Even though there may be some hope that there might be some concessions on the FBA from this or a future government, it is unlikely that land ownership willl be freed up within a generation. The best might be some sort of amnesty, suggested somewhere in TV, whereby land could be put into a governemnt entity and leased back for 30 years (for a fat fee).

[Naam]

"I am sorry for these criminals they shall be in the monkey house for breaking the law. The houses will be selling at 40 per cent of todays prices if they are lucky to get any money as it may go to pay the fine.

I have never meet a smart Frang in Thailand. "

*****

a comment from an obvious "have-not" who envies those who "have".

[Phil Conners]

"I am sorry for these criminals they shall be in the monkey house for breaking the law. The houses will be selling at 40 per cent of todays prices if they are lucky to get any money as it may go to pay the fine.

I have never meet a smart Frang in Thailand. "

*****

a comment from an obvious "have-not" who envies those who "have".

... and vice versa :shrug: