49% Company Ownership

[khunPer]

2 hours ago, Delight said:

Every lawyer and every Farang that I have spoken with-usually in relation to condos-says that what happens.

Are you confusing it with a building property including X-number of condos, where it's looked upon like a company limited structure, and 49% of the condos can be freehold owned by a foreigner like 49% of the shares – the foreigners actually owns up to 49% of the land, under the building – provided that 51% of the condos are owned by Thai nationals..?

[Delight]

1 hour ago, khunPer said:

Are you confusing it with a building property including X-number of condos, where it's looked upon like a company limited structure, and 49% of the condos can be freehold owned by a foreigner like 49% of the shares – the foreigners actually owns up to 49% of the land, under the building – provided that 51% of the condos are owned by Thai nationals..?

Are you saying that the construct of a company to allow a  foreigner to buy into the 51% Thai area allocation of a condo is somehow different than the construct of a company to allow a foreigner to control land such that a house  can built.

If that is what you believe -the please explain the difference.

[khunPer]

5 hours ago, Delight said:

6 hours ago, khunPer said:

Are you confusing it with a building property including X-number of condos, where it's looked upon like a company limited structure, and 49% of the condos can be freehold owned by a foreigner like 49% of the shares – the foreigners actually owns up to 49% of the land, under the building – provided that 51% of the condos are owned by Thai nationals..?

Are you saying that the construct of a company to allow a  foreigner to buy into the 51% Thai area allocation of a condo is somehow different than the construct of a company to allow a foreigner to control land such that a house  can built.

If that is what you believe -the please explain the difference.

Please read again.

I'm saying that the allotment of up to 49% of the condos can be owned by foreigners – i.e. if there are 100 condos in the building, then 49 of the condos can be freehold owned by a foreigner, provided the 51 other condos are owned by Thai nationals – just like up to 49% of the shares in a Thai company limited can be owned by foreigners...????

[Delight]

2 hours ago, khunPer said:

Please read again.

I'm saying that the allotment of up to 49% of the condos can be owned by foreigners – i.e. if there are 100 condos in the building, then 49 of the condos can be freehold owned by a foreigner, provided the 51 other condos are owned by Thai nationals – just like up to 49% of the shares in a Thai company limited can be owned by foreigners...????

 You need to get out more!

The condo building where I live has 39 apartments. 3 are in the names of Thai -the rest are foreign owned or in companies (17 company ownership).   All 39  were financed by Farang

Every condo (outside Bangkok and other major cities) is like this.

If the condo building trade relied on sales from Thai nationals -to fill the 51% -then most of that trade would have to do something else.

There would simply be no condo building in the regular tourist regions.

For that reason the government does not close down the company 'loophole'. That has to be my opinion.

This also applies to houses.

[khunPer]

14 hours ago, Delight said:

 You need to get out more!

The condo building where I live has 39 apartments. 3 are in the names of Thai -the rest are foreign owned or in companies (17 company ownership).   All 39  were financed by Farang

Every condo (outside Bangkok and other major cities) is like this.

If the condo building trade relied on sales from Thai nationals -to fill the 51% -then most of that trade would have to do something else.

There would simply be no condo building in the regular tourist regions.

For that reason the government does not close down the company 'loophole'. That has to be my opinion.

This also applies to houses.

Thanks for your reply.

 

I think you misunderstand – I'm explaining the legal procedure for foreigners ownership of a condo, and comparability with a company limited.

 

I'm however not talking about any foreign held property outside the legal foreign quota of 49% in condo building or complex. Lots of property in Thailand is presumable owned with through a company limited model, and if you kindly read my post #60 again, you will see that I'm explaining the change from the older model, to how it is today. It's still used, but your so-called "loop hole" is little more complicated today, than it was before, but will probably not be scrutinized for private homes.

 

And by the way, some condo projects hold a number of condos in names of one or more Thai company limited to establish the legal 51% Thai ownership, and they use these company-owned condos for renting out, or long-term lease; whilst the remaining 49% of the quota are sold to foreigners.

 

So you own you condo in the name of a company limited..?

????

[Delight]

2 hours ago, khunPer said:

presumable owned with through a company limited model, and if you kindly read my post #60 again, you will see that I'm explaining the change from the older model, to how it is today. It's still used, but your so-called "loop hole" is little more complicated today, than it was before, but will probably not be scrutinized for private homes.

 

So you are  stating that the older model should not be available. Farang should use the newer model.

However a  modified version of the older model is still used-and the authorities are,for the time being,turning a blind eye.

Out of curiosity -why are the authorities turning a blind eye?

(Note my personal circumstances are not relevant to this debate. You have asked twice -Please do not ask a third time)

 

 

[xylophone]

Some very interesting debates on this point and it's been fascinating to read the different points of view, and maybe I'm being a little simplistic here, but there are a couple of other points that surely come into play (of course I could be wrong!).

 

The OP says that he bought the house before he was married, so in doing so he would have (probably) gone down the company and the Thai nominee route, which is illegal, so if he is challenging his wife for a portion of a property which he wants to sell, then she could surely stay put and threaten to spill the beans on this setup if ever he pushed things too hard?

 

And following on from that, if she simply decides to keep on living there and do nothing about selling it, then he is absolutely stymied.

 

Finally, if she does think that selling this house is a good idea and wants some money from the sales process, I do believe she has the complete upper hand in this and he may well get nothing.

[khunPer]

2 hours ago, Delight said:

So you are  stating that the older model should not be available. Farang should use the newer model.

However a  modified version of the older model is still used-and the authorities are,for the time being,turning a blind eye.

Out of curiosity -why are the authorities turning a blind eye?

(Note my personal circumstances are not relevant to this debate. You have asked twice -Please do not ask a third time)

"However a  modified version of the older model is still used..." – isn't that what I'm saying in post #56..?

"...-and the authorities are,for the time being,turning a blind eye." – and in post 65 you quoted above: ...but your so-called "loop hole" is little more complicated today, than it was before, but will probably not be scrutinized for private homes.

 

Thank you for kindly sharing your opinion with me, however I stop here, as I think we cannot get any further...????

[Delight]

 In terms of the marital split of assets.. To my mind the situation is simple

If the OP can prove that the money to purchase the house was his prior to the marriage –then the property is 100% his.

The only way that he can prove this is via a money audit trail.

Banks do not keep records very long . However he still has in his possession the bank book showing the money coming in –and that the purchase of the house is within the same timeframe . Then he keeps everything .

A good lawyer will have to persuade the judge.

A local to me lawyer has used this technique many times-He has never failed(he tells me)

 

I mentioned earlier that the sale of a company has 2 parts

Part 1 the OP receives ‘gift’

Part 2 the OP transfer his shares and voting rights to a foreigner

 

If he cannot show any evidence of an audit trail then  the value of the ‘gift’ is split 50/50

The wife gets 50% of the value of the ‘gift’ i.e. 50% in effect the value of the house

Her share ownership is irrelevant

 

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, Delight said:

If the OP can prove that the money to purchase the house was his prior to the marriage –then the property is 100% his.

He bought the house before the marriage...…………..and if it was through the Thai nominee company route then this was illegal and the property could be taken from him. Also if he loaned the money to his then girlfriend, then that is illegal.

 

This whole thing is a can of worms and I don't think it is going to end happily for him.

 

Last resort is that his wife refuses to sell or leave the property, then he can do nothing.

[Delight]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

He bought the house before the marriage...…………..and if it was through the Thai nominee company route then this was illegal and the property could be taken from him. Also if he loaned the money to his then girlfriend, then that is illegal.

 

This whole thing is a can of worms and I don't think it is going to end happily for him.

 

Last resort is that his wife refuses to sell or leave the property, then he can do nothing.

 Thanks for the corrrection. Therefore the property /house is his.

The question then becomes -does she have a legal right to live there. Only a lawyer can advise on that.

if it turns out that she has no legal right to live there-then it's just a matter of finding a legal way to evict here.

If there is no legal path to fix this then she just stays there.

[mikebell]

Could I thank all the respondents for their comments.  I am sorry to see my post engendered some hostility between members.

I have sought asylum in BKK with my son (farang) for a couple of days so was unable to contribute.

 

A further update:

my house agent called me back from BKK to say she had a possible buyer & could I accompany her.  (She had been threatened with death on her last visit.)

I phoned my wife and explained we would be viewing the house.  When we arrived an ambush lay in wait.  There were three unruly neighbours; my stepdaughter; my wife's lawyer and farang 'helper'.

The agent was verbally & hysterically abused into leaving.  The family (of Indians) allowed to walk uncomfortably round the house then made a sharp exit whilst I faced the lawyer.

My wife decreed she will accept nothing less that a 4.2 million offer for the house; she demands a 50/50 split.  I offered 1.2 million in vain.

I will be seeing a lawyer soonest and need to put some questions to her.  I have no idea of voting/preferential shares etc.

It looks like my wife holds 48%.  A shady audit company has changed the share holding  by deleting my sympathetic stepdaughter and inserting an office employee friendly to my wife.  I had no idea this had taken place.  I will be asking my lawyer about this & any other questions members can think up - please.

eg:

If I replace my Honda BRV with a cheaper car can she still abstract 50% of the expensive car or claim on my bank account if I put the car money there?

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited October 18, 2018 by mikebell
omission.

[mikebell]

11 hours ago, Delight said:

A local to me lawyer has used this technique many times-He has never failed

Could you PM me his contact details?  Delight of my Life.

[xylophone]

7 hours ago, Delight said:

 Thanks for the corrrection. Therefore the property /house is his.

The question then becomes -does she have a legal right to live there. Only a lawyer can advise on that.

if it turns out that she has no legal right to live there-then it's just a matter of finding a legal way to evict here.

If there is no legal path to fix this then she just stays there.

I think you missed my point...……..IMO he has a very tenuous claim on the house if he bought through the Thai nominee company route, or through loaning the money for its purchase, as those methods of purchase are not legal for a farang. So he could end up owning nothing.

 

But after reading the OPs latest update, it seems like his wife is prepared to offer a 50/50 split and again IMO that would be a good outcome for him.

[baansgr]

42 minutes ago, mikebell said:

Could I thank all the respondents for their comments.  I am sorry to see my post engendered some hostility between members.

I have sought asylum in BKK with my son (farang) for a couple of days so was unable to contribute.

 

A further update:

my house agent called me back from BKK to say she had a possible buyer & could I accompany her.  (She had been threatened with death on her last visit.)

I phoned my wife and explained we would be viewing the house.  When we arrived an ambush lay in wait.  There were three unruly neighbours; my stepdaughter; my wife's lawyer and farang 'helper'.

The agent was verbally & hysterically abused into leaving.  The family (of Indians) allowed to walk uncomfortably round the house then made a sharp exit whilst I faced the lawyer.

My wife decreed she will accept nothing less that a 4.2 million offer for the house; she demands a 50/50 split.  I offered 1.2 million in vain.

I will be seeing a lawyer soonest and need to put some questions to her.  I have no idea of voting/preferential shares etc.

It looks like my wife holds 48%.  A shady audit company has changed the share holding  by deleting my sympathetic stepdaughter and inserting an office employee friendly to my wife.  I had no idea this had taken place.  I will be asking my lawyer about this & any other questions members can think up - please.

eg:

If I replace my Honda BRV with a cheaper car can she still abstract 50% of the expensive car or claim on my bank account if I put the car money there?

 

Thanks in advance.

I hope it eventually  turns out OK.  I personally  would take whatever I could and move on rather than the gut wrenching you will incur over the next months/years to get a settlement,  not to mention lawyers fees which will surely be a big chunk of anything  you get. Yours is just yet another  example that foreigners  can not own property in Thailand and can lose everything they worked so hard for,  also how nasty and vindictive Thais can become when money is involved. Not a day passes now without reading about or meeting someone that is in a situation  similar to yours. Although  easy to say, Keep positive and don't think too much about it. 

[KittenKong]

1 hour ago, mikebell said:

It looks like my wife holds 48%.  A shady audit company has changed the share holding  by deleting my sympathetic stepdaughter and inserting an office employee friendly to my wife.  I had no idea this had taken place.

Probably at the request of your wife and in return for a gift. This sort of trickery is widespread here.

[Delight]

4 hours ago, mikebell said:

Could you PM me his contact details?  Delight of my Life.

 I am Pattaya based and so his he.

In essence he owns a law company -manages a law company -but does not practice law. Lawyers are a protected profession. He hires Thai lawyers as necessary.

Since I made the comment -I have been corrected /reminded.

You purchased the house before marriage.

The house is 100% yours . Plain and simple.The 51 % owners of a Thai company (used for land control). Get nothing.

If they did -the tactic of using company for property related purchases would be dead.The after market for properties using the company approach would not exist.

It seems to be alive and kicking

 

Your wife is embarking on a policy of scare tactics . You seem to be buying it-don't

It is just  a  matter of evicting your wife.

He is a English man . He was a lawyer in the UK

He will offer free advice.

Can you try to contact me via Line

 

My i.d is

dtikalan

My name is Alan  D Light

 My email is registered with TV. Maybe that will work

My senses tell me not to reveal the name of this law company in open forum

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Delight
Spelling

[xylophone]

45 minutes ago, Delight said:

The house is 100% yours . Plain and simple.The 51 % owners of a Thai company (used for land control). Get nothing

I will say this again, I believe you are wrong on this because...........

 

1). If the house and land was purchased by the farang before he was married, using the company route (Thai nominee company) then he has a problem inasmuch as the court can call his "purchase" null and void and he will lose the property (as has happened to a friend here in similar circumstances).

 

2). If he gave the money to buy it to his girlfriend (later wife) then that is also illegal and the same thing can happen.

 

The company owns the whole property (not just the land) and he is a minority shareholder in that company.

 

He is in a difficult situation and to a certain extent I sympathise with him, but on the other hand buying property through the Thai nominee company route is fraught with danger and taking risks like that in Thailand is something many have warned against...…...however I do hope he gets 50% out of it.

 

[jvs]

5 hours ago, mikebell said:

f I replace my Honda BRV with a cheaper car can she still abstract 50% of the expensive car or claim on my bank account if I put the car money there?

 

If the car is in your name and you are legally married and you bought the car after themarriage 50% is hers.However!If she pulls a stunt on you what does she expect you to do?Keep the money somewhere else,so it can't be found and see what happens.

[Delight]

2 hours ago, xylophone said:

I will say this again, I believe you are wrong on this because...........

 

1). If the house and land was purchased by the farang before he was married, using the company route (Thai nominee company) then he has a problem inasmuch as the court can call his "purchase" null and void and he will lose the property (as has happened to a friend here in similar circumstances).

 

2). If he gave the money to buy it to his girlfriend (later wife) then that is also illegal and the same thing can happen.

 

The company owns the whole property (not just the land) and he is a minority shareholder in that company.

 

He is in a difficult situation and to a certain extent I sympathise with him, but on the other hand buying property through the Thai nominee company route is fraught with danger and taking risks like that in Thailand is something many have warned against...…...however I do hope he gets 50% out of it.

  

1). If the house and land was purchased by the farang before he was married, using the company route (Thai nominee company) then he has a problem inasmuch as the court can call his "purchase" null and void and he will lose the property (as has happened to a friend here in similar circumstances).

Can you quote your source for this . When I say a source I mean an official government source.

 

If you cannot then your statement is irrelevant

If you can –then every company in Thailand  where a foreigner used  the company ‘work around ‘ to acquire property –is illegal.

So what is the government doing about this –Nothing.

There is no guarantee that this  circumstance will remain as is forever.

To continue:

In fact the OP organized a lawyer to  set  up of a Thai company . He has minority share holding but 100% of the voting rights

He did not purchase the house –the company did.

 

2). If he gave the money to buy it to his girlfriend (later wife) then that is also illegal and the same thing can happen.

He did not give his then girlfriend any money. He gave her 48% of the company shares.3% went to other Thais. No actual  Thai money involved

 

The company owns the whole property (not just the land) and he is a minority shareholder in that company.

Correct. When it comes to the’ sale’ he transfers his shares and his voting rights.-to his buyer. The buyer receives these shares and voting rights for free. Not illegal

His now wife still owns 48% of the company . Nothing has changed with respect to her. She still owns 48%

48% with zero voting rights.

If the company was truly sold  at a market price that reflected the value of the house-then for certain the 51% Thais would legally be entitled to 51% of the proceeds.

However the company is NOT being sold.

 

A separate ,and initial  transaction, will occur. The buyer will deposit money into the sellers bank account.

From a legal perspective   these 2 transactions are not in any way connected. I am not in a position to quote Thai  law in this respect. However it is my guess that the transfer of this money can be regarded as a gift. Not illegal

[xylophone]

30 minutes ago, Delight said:

can you quote your source for this . When I say a source I mean an official government source.

 

 

 

If you cannot then your statement is irrelevant

 

If you can –then every company in Thailand  where a foreigner used  the company ‘work around ‘ to acquire property –is illegal.

There was a long thread on this very subject and the laws pertaining to it were published and discussed at length so if you wish to update your knowledge on this subject, find it, read it and learn.

 

And yes, EVERY house bought by a farang through the Thai Nominee Company route, where the sole purpose of that company is to own a property, is in fact illegal. That is why the law was tightened recently so that every Thai shareholder could be investigated and had to show their actual monetary investment in that company, from whence that investment (money) came and what dividends or interest they were receiving from that investment......which of course a Thai nominee cannot do because there is no monetary investment from them.

 

Much on ThaiVisa about this and about a few crackdowns already, and published examples.

 

Much like another poster here has said/done...…...no more from me on this or discussion with you. The information is out there so I need not comment further.

[Delight]

13 minutes ago, xylophone said:

 

 

.no more from me on this or discussion with you.

I am very pleased to read this