Farangs Holding Property Through Thai Companies

[Mobi]

Assuming the latest amendments go on the statute book, is this the end of the line for farangs who own property in Thailand through companies?

Is it time to dump the companies, and if so what specific options remain for farangs in such situations?

The penalties seem to be frightening.

Legal opinions anyone?

[solo siam]

Usufruct

Renewable Leasehold (with buyout clause)

up the Thai Shareholders/voting + perhaps Operate the House as a business properly (ie pay "Rent")

Own the Building, Lease the Land

Sell it to a Thai or Thai company

[Mobi]

Usufruct

Renewable Leasehold (with buyout clause)

up the Thai Shareholders/voting + perhaps Operate the House as a business properly (ie pay "Rent")

Own the Building, Lease the Land

Sell it to a Thai or Thai company

Fair enough.

I know from personal experience that it is not that easy, cheap or quick to do any of those things.

I wonder if all the thousands of farangs who currently own property are now going to take action or will they still sit and wait and hope it all goes away? And if they do sit tight, will the authorities come after them and start fining them and throwing them in jail?

I know for a fact that Pattaya lawyers, who aught to know better, are still setting up companies with 100% Thai shareholders, registering land transfers at the land office,and then putting farangs on the company as shareholders, post property sale. I just find this kind of activity at the present time mind boggling - or am I missing something?

[ThaiGoon]

Assuming the latest amendments go on the statute book, is this the end of the line for farangs who own property in Thailand through companies?

Is it time to dump the companies, and if so what specific options remain for farangs in such situations?

The penalties seem to be frightening.

Legal opinions anyone?

All I know is that hotel business will be exempt from the FBA (taken out of List or Annex 3.) No idea if it applies to just a regular land or hourse ownerhip.

Here's the original FBA (from cclub7's post in the other thread):

http://www.dbd.go.th/eng/law/fba_e1999.phtml

And add the new five (or six?) changes to this one (as being reported), you might get a rough idea of what's being proposed by the current gov't.

[solo siam]

Usufruct

Renewable Leasehold (with buyout clause)

up the Thai Shareholders/voting + perhaps Operate the House as a business properly (ie pay "Rent")

Own the Building, Lease the Land

Sell it to a Thai or Thai company

Fair enough.

I know from personal experience that it is not that easy, cheap or quick to do any of those things.

I wonder if all the thousands of farangs who currently own property are now going to take action or will they still sit and wait and hope it all goes away? And if they do sit tight, will the authorities come after them and start fining them and throwing them in jail?

I know for a fact that Pattaya lawyers, who aught to know better, are still setting up companies with 100% Thai shareholders, registering land transfers at the land office,and then putting farangs on the company as shareholders, post property sale. I just find this kind of activity at the present time mind boggling - or am I missing something?

That doesn't even sound illegal if the Thai shareholders can prove that they have enough money to actually purchase land and if the Foreign ownership doesn't go above 49% (or voting rights).

[Mobi]

Usufruct

Renewable Leasehold (with buyout clause)

up the Thai Shareholders/voting + perhaps Operate the House as a business properly (ie pay "Rent")

Own the Building, Lease the Land

Sell it to a Thai or Thai company

Fair enough.

I know from personal experience that it is not that easy, cheap or quick to do any of those things.

I wonder if all the thousands of farangs who currently own property are now going to take action or will they still sit and wait and hope it all goes away? And if they do sit tight, will the authorities come after them and start fining them and throwing them in jail?

I know for a fact that Pattaya lawyers, who aught to know better, are still setting up companies with 100% Thai shareholders, registering land transfers at the land office,and then putting farangs on the company as shareholders, post property sale. I just find this kind of activity at the present time mind boggling - or am I missing something?

That doesn't even sound illegal if the Thai shareholders can prove that they have enough money to actually purchase land and if the Foreign ownership doesn't go above 49% (or voting rights).

Um......

Farang wants to buy house

Farang goes to lawyer

Lawyer sets up company with 100% farang money, and 100 % Thai share holders

Lawyer arranges purchase of land with Thai company as the owner, using farang money.

Lawyer transfers some shares back to farang - maybe 409 %. Balance held by Thai lawyer, or Thai wife/girl friend, with farang holding their signed, undated stock transfer documents.

There are a number of variation on the above - some even involving holding companies, but they all amount to the same thing - the farang buying the house is providing 100 % of the funds.

Illegal or legal?

BTW - I don't have, never did have, and never have any intention of having any business connection whatsoever with Sunbelt, save to use their services as a paying client.

I resent intensely the snide insinuations which seem to have been removed from this thread.

I am happily retired, and spend my days blissfully unemployed, unencumbered by any business worries or dealings in peaceful Pong.

[solo siam]

AFAIK Thats Legal as long as the Thai's can prove they had the money to buy the land/start the company in the first place, Its not so different to this scenario....

Thais form a company

Company buys some land

Company decides to build house/hotel/guesthouse

Company brings some Farang Investors in (49%)

Company builds house/hotel/guesthouse

It's not illegal for a Thai company to buy land

It's not illegal for Farangs to buy into a Thai company (49%)

It's not illegal for that company to build something

What is illegal is if the Thai's with the original ownership of the shares within the company are all poor, have no money and therefore could never afford to start the company or buy land in the first place or if it's obvious that the Thais are just placeholders for the farang. Then from what I understand that is obviously a nominee set-up and hence illegal.

[Mobi]

AFAIK Thats Legal as long as the Thai's can prove they had the money to buy the land/start the company in the first place, Its not so different to this scenario....

Thais form a company

Company buys some land

Company decides to build house/hotel/guesthouse

Company brings some Farang Investors in (49%)

Company builds house/hotel/guesthouse

It's not illegal for a Thai company to buy land

It's not illegal for Farangs to buy into a Thai company (49%)

It's not illegal for that company to build something

What is illegal is if the Thai's with the original ownership of the shares within the company are all poor, have no money and therefore could never afford to start the company or buy land in the first place or if it's obvious that the Thais are just placeholders for the farang. Then from what I understand that is obviously a nominee set-up and hence illegal.

But we're not talking about a hotel or a guest house.

We're talking a one off, single house, to be occupied by a farang.

We're not talking about Thais with money who invite a farang to invest in their company.

We're talking a farang who wishes to buy a house to either live in permanently or to use as a holdiay home, and is the sole source of money for the company and the purchase of the property.

Thousands have already done so, and no doubt may more would like to, laws permitting.

If such a farang sets up a company to buy a house in the manner I have previously described - is it, or isn't it legal?

Because it's still happening, aided and abetted by the Thai legal profession.

[solo siam]

As long as the Thai Lawyer can prove that he willingly started the company and purchased the house in good nature, and then sold teh farang the 49% - I'm not sure if it is illegal, However from what I heard the government were cracking down on Lawyers as shareholders in land-holding companies.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Ben@H3-Digital

[Mobi]

Well, I think you have to go back to original crackdown way back last year when one of the key elements was that the land office was requiring documentary proof of the source of funds from Thai shareholders in such arrangements. From memory, if such proof could not be provided, then such shareholders were deemed to be nominees and would be subject to legal proceedings.

I too am not a lawyer, but I have been advised that this ploy of buying land with a 100% Thai company and then transferring some of the shares to a farang is a deliberate, illegal circumvention of the law and is a very questionable practice.

I don't think much has changed with the latest proposed amendments, but I suppose what I am trying to say - probably badly - is two things.

1. Many farang property owners have been adopting a 'wait and see' policy. Well if, the waiting is now over, and the latest announcement is the final say on this matter, then what are they going to do, as their hoped for re-think on these laws in their favour has not materialised?

2. What are these lawyers up to, and are they culpable if the authorities go after their clients?

[solo siam]

I personally can't see them going after people who own property this way, What are they going to do investigate every stockholder for 10-20,000 properties? The way I see it is they have closed the loophole and will spend their time chasing down lawyers etc... that still try do it this way.

Personally my property will be in the wifes name with money from her bank account, although obviously this option isn't open to all.

The government could make a fortune if they simply allowed foreign ownership of up to 1 rai only, and charged a yearly fee on it of say 10,000-20,000 baht.

[dsfbrit]

To answer your question Mobi, I dont think its time to dump the company yet. Those of us who decided to wait and see what happens are still waiting.

The FBA is still in a state of flux and until it is implemented and a farang is actually taken to court and had his land confiscated, then who knows what the outcome will be.

Even then there may be some sort of outcry or appeal and the government may back off - would not be the first time they have changed their mind when they have problems.

Its been a year since the so called crackdown and nothing has happened to anyone yet. No farang has had his land confiscated ??

Sure I could be the unlucky first farang to be taken to court - what a 'b**mer' if I am - still not very likely is it?

Then there are the elections later this year - the new government may lose interest in all this - or could get really motivated and start grabbing land.

I think though its still best to wait and see.

Edited April 12, 2007 by dsfbrit

[cdnvic]

I personally can't see them going after people who own property this way, What are they going to do investigate every stockholder for 10-20,000 properties? The way I see it is they have closed the loophole and will spend their time chasing down lawyers etc... that still try do it this way.

Why do you keep giving real estate advice based on hunches and guesses, combined with hopes that the law won't be enforced?

People are talking about investing a significant amount of money here, and with crackdowns on this sort of thing showing up less than a year ago, along with a general tightening of rules regarding foreign business, visas, and investments, why would any responsible person give advice to circumvent the law? By doing this he not only risks trouble for himself, but for the Thais who get in on the scheme too.

It's no fun always worrying when the hammer is going to fall. Always hoping that the dodgy trick you pulled to get around the law might be discovered and result in you losing your home and investment is no way to live.

My opinion is that you should follow the law, get a 30 year lease on the land, and consider anything you build on it to be a disposable item that's good till the end of the lease. If you can work out a deal at the end of it then consider yourself lucky. You can still sell the building and the remaining term of the lease should you decide to leave before the 30 year term expires.

This also saves you from the madness of trying to keep a shell company made up of phoney investors together and quasi legal. Do you think that is going to last longer than 30 years without a falling out with, or among these people? Legal problems aside, do you really want the hassle? It's not like you can keep a company on the books without paperwork, tax filings, and all the other assorted headaches that go along with them.

Personally my property will be in the wifes name with money from her bank account, although obviously this option isn't open to all.

The government could make a fortune if they simply allowed foreign ownership of up to 1 rai only, and charged a yearly fee on it of say 10,000-20,000 baht.

Unfortunately dreams and wishes don't protect you from the law. Neither will reckless and unqualified advice.

As always, a reputable lawyer is your best bet here. They know, rather than guess.

[LaoPo]

I personally can't see them going after people who own property this way, What are they going to do investigate every stockholder for 10-20,000 properties? The way I see it is they have closed the loophole and will spend their time chasing down lawyers etc... that still try do it this way.

Why do you keep giving real estate advice based on hunches and guesses, combined with hopes that the law won't be enforced?

People are talking about investing a significant amount of money here, and with crackdowns on this sort of thing showing up less than a year ago, along with a general tightening of rules regarding foreign business, visas, and investments, why would any responsible person give advice to circumvent the law? By doing this he not only risks trouble for himself, but for the Thais who get in on the scheme too.

It's no fun always worrying when the hammer is going to fall. Always hoping that the dodgy trick you pulled to get around the law might be discovered and result in you losing your home and investment is no way to live.

My opinion is that you should follow the law, get a 30 year lease on the land, and consider anything you build on it to be a disposable item that's good till the end of the lease. If you can work out a deal at the end of it then consider yourself lucky.

You can still sell the building and the remaining term of the lease should you decide to leave before the 30 year term expires.

This also saves you from the madness of trying to keep a shell company made up of phoney investors together and quasi legal. Do you think that is going to last longer than 30 years without a falling out with, or among these people? Legal problems aside, do you really want the hassle? It's not like you can keep a company on the books without paperwork, tax filings, and all the other assorted headaches that go along with them.

Personally my property will be in the wifes name with money from her bank account, although obviously this option isn't open to all.

The government could make a fortune if they simply allowed foreign ownership of up to 1 rai only, and charged a yearly fee on it of say 10,000-20,000 baht.

Unfortunately dreams and wishes don't protect you from the law. Neither will reckless and unqualified advice.

As always, a reputable lawyer is your best bet here. They know, rather than guess.

Very good advice, cdnvic !

One question always crossed my mind though, especially to the sentence above -in bold-

Example: if someone leases land for 30 years and build a house, and, let's say, stays there for 20 years....what price (percentage wise) could the house still be sold for ?

Meaning: the new buyer would know there's just 10 years left.....and loses his 'leased' land + house (!) to the original land-owner after those 10 years.

WHO on earth would buy an expensive house, knowing he's going to lose all of his money in 10 years....?

Is that correct, or am I wrong ?

IF it's correct why would ANYBODY still be buying a nice villa after all....................in Thailand ?

LaoPo

[cdnvic]

You see this quite a bit when looking through the business for sale listings. A guesthouse or restaurant mat have a low price tag, but when you look closely you see that the lease is expiring in a year or two. At that point its a matter of what someone thinks having the contents of the property for that remaining period of time is worth.

[Mobi]

I personally can't see them going after people who own property this way, What are they going to do investigate every stockholder for 10-20,000 properties? The way I see it is they have closed the loophole and will spend their time chasing down lawyers etc... that still try do it this way.

Not that hard if you think about it.

All they have to do is write to every company with a substantial farang shareholding, and request the Thai shareholders to provide documentary proof of the source of their funds. The onus would then be on the companies - not the authorities - to carry out the investigations. In fact they wouldn't have to do many of these before panic sets in.

So the advice is wait and see - with the chance you might end up in jail - to say nothing of the worry and sleepless nights? Not in my book.

I completely agree with cdnvic on this one.

and further:

cdnvic... This also saves you from the madness of trying to keep a shell company made up of phoney investors together and quasi legal. Do you think that is going to last longer than 30 years without a falling out with, or among these people? Legal problems aside, do you really want the hassle? It's not like you can keep a company on the books without paperwork, tax filings, and all the other assorted headaches that go along with them.

You may not believe this, I had already decided, way before the crackdown last year, that I was going to dump my 'phoney' company, for all the reasons that cdnvic says in the above quote. The crackdown was simply the spur to get off my arse and do it.

I'm not a 'told you so' merchant, and have a great deal of sympathy for all those affected, and still hope that this problem can be solved in a way satisfactory to all concerned.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Mobi D'Ark

[solo siam]

You see this quite a bit when looking through the business for sale listings. A guesthouse or restaurant mat have a low price tag, but when you look closely you see that the lease is expiring in a year or two. At that point its a matter of what someone thinks having the contents of the property for that remaining period of time is worth.

Thats because a business lease is generally registered for 3 years, most of the time theres no problem re-negotiating a lease without paying any sort of key money - but its best to check.

You sound very negative in your posts, I don't get your dreams and wishes part to be honest, there will always be naysayers.

I didn't at any time recommend ANYONE to go the company ownership land route at any time, I agree that a 30 year lease with superficies and building ownership is probably the best bet, but you're only guessing at what could happen after the 30 year lease is up seeing as its yet to ever happen in Thailand.

I'm not giving LEGAL ADVICE, I'm stating my OPINION - which is what a forum is for, you want legal advice, go to a lawyer.

[Mobi]

Very good advice, cdnvic !

One question always crossed my mind though, especially to the sentence above -in bold-

Example: if someone leases land for 30 years and build a house, and, let's say, stays there for 20 years....what price (percentage wise) could the house still be sold for ?

Meaning: the new buyer would know there's just 10 years left.....and loses his 'leased' land + house (!) to the original land-owner after those 10 years.

WHO on earth would buy an expensive house, knowing he's going to lose all of his money in 10 years....?

Is that correct, or am I wrong ?

IF it's correct why would ANYBODY still be buying a nice villa after all....................in Thailand ?

LaoPo

If you hold a ufustruct on the land, you can give a 30 year lease at any time during your lifetime to a third party. Even if you are on the point of death, and you die shortly after you have granted the lease, the lease will still be good for it's 30 year period.

Having said all that, and while I appreciate that farang house owners like to know that they have equity in a property that one day can be realised - the main point of the game is to have somewhere to live, or to holiday at. The resale value of the house should be secondary, unless the farang is a speculator.

The simplest way to solve all the problem would be to lengthen the legal lease period to 50 years or more - but I'm afraid that is wishful thinking.

[patongpanda]

I personally can't see them bet here. They know, rather than guess.

How can one know if a lawyer is reputable or not? The lawyers were the ones advising to set up phony companies. It seems they are still doing so!

Also there is no comeback in Thailand if a lawyer gives bad advice?

I think a lot of crooked lawyers will be making a lot of money taking over the phoney companies in the future.

[Mobi]

I personally can't see them bet here. They know, rather than guess.

How can one know if a lawyer is reputable or not? The lawyers were the ones advising to set up phony companies. It seems they are still doing so!

Also there is no comeback in Thailand if a lawyer gives bad advice?

I think a lot of crooked lawyers will be making a lot of money taking over the phoney companies in the future.

Good question.

IMHO this species does not exist in Pattaya, and is not easy to find in BKK.

One thing's for sure, if you are buying, or seeking legal advice on a property in Pattaya, don't use a Pattaya lawyer.

Similar advice would go for those in Phuket, Koh Samui, Hua Hin etc. (i.e don't use local lawyers - they are all infected/compromised/looking for business any which way they can.)

[solo siam]

Exactly which is why a forum is useful to discover others experiences, There are some good lawyers out there, but they are few and far between - I've heard of people doing due dilligance on land to be told 3 very different things by 3 different lawyers i.e its Good, Its OK, Its Very Bad.

[Maigo6]

I'm glad I never went the Company route way.

I just bought some land in my wifes name, and built a house. Many people scoffed at the time, but I will tell you one thing, I have not had one sleepless night worrying about the future of the house or indeed my own future.

The house is not mine to worry about and if I was afraid that my wife would take it all, I would never have built it in the first place.

I understand that other people are in a different situation to me, and have pretty much thrown their lot into a house that they are now afraid they could somehow lose, and I sympathise with them.

I have a good house in Loei province that did not cost much more to build than my Toyota Fortuner cost me, if I was in a 15 - 20 Million baht house under a company name, I might have a few sleepless nights myself.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Maigo6

[BL4u]

I personally can't see them bet here. They know, rather than guess.

How can one know if a lawyer is reputable or not? The lawyers were the ones advising to set up phony companies. It seems they are still doing so!

If your lawyer says I can offer you or help you or know some Thai people who want to be shareholders in your company there is a very good chance he is dodgy.

If the lawyers say only if you can find real shareholders in your company the shareholding structure 49/ 51 is possible, and explains that nominees are illegal and what nominees are the lawyer is probably ok.

The solution I like for foreigners owning land with co.ltd’s and have enough of it is to take a lease (not a usufruct) from your co ltd and the dissolve the ###### thing. Ministry of Commerce will have no record of the company anymore and the Land office still has the name of the company as the owner. In the worst case you must and it will be co-ownership between Thai shareholders who do not know each other and probably do not even know they are shareholder in your co.ltd. And you are backed by the 30-year lease. Drawback is you will never be able to sell or transfer your lease (anyway better than leasing from a Thai GF or spouse).

Overall foreigners with co.ltd’s should relax, the government will give you time should they go after you. Problem is really not simple for them as it is a practice that is allowed by the previous government and not something they can simple turn back.

[Maigo6]

Overall foreigners with co.ltd’s should relax, the government will give you time should they go after you. Problem is really not simple for them as it is a practice that is allowed by the previous government and not something they can simple turn back.

There you have it lads, you can sleep easy now.

[larvidchr]

Unfortunately there is no doubt that the practice with company ownership of property is illegal, if there was a case in court, the court would not have to investigate wether the Thai owners had money enough to form the company, but solely investigate wether the company was formed to cirkumvent Thai law and allow a foreigner to have control ower a property, that would in the case of one man one house not be very difficult for the court regardless of the affluency of the Thai co owners, and the way Thai courts work this would largely be left to the discretion of the judge.

I do not belive however that will be a problem, I would really be massivly damaging for Thailand if they startet to fine and reposses property from foreigners, just look how much trouble Spain have had with the landgrabbing laws from the Valencia region, but individual cases might crop up now and again for one reason or other.

I is a gamble and the realestate people and lawyers should state that in no uncertain terms to prospective buyers, many dont do that now and that is pretty lousy of them.

The Thai wife ownership is likewise a gamble you dont know what the future brings, it would to some greater or smaller extent be a gamble anywhere in the world allowing for different divorce rules in different countryes.

The lease thing is fine if you have bought your house as the last place of recidence and you dont care what happens after that wich is quite fine and up to people to decide for themselves.

In the end it has got to be up to the individual what suits them best, and we can only hope that nobody has bad luck and will live long and happy lifes with their choices.

[stevejones123]

just look how much trouble Spain have had with the landgrabbing laws from the Valencia region,

As most foreigners buying property in Spain are EU nationals with no legal problems (in fact even non EU nationals have been able to buy and sell doing all business in their own country including transferring the deed and paying the cheque) I doubt the case you mentioned is comparable.

I presumed what happened is that the appropriate authority decided to knock down properties that had been built in contravention of planning regulations, or alternatively that the property had been built on government land and the land title forged. The action does not even seem to have made a blip in the Spanish property market.

[Mobi]

just look how much trouble Spain have had with the landgrabbing laws from the Valencia region,

As most foreigners buying property in Spain are EU nationals with no legal problems (in fact even non EU nationals have been able to buy and sell doing all business in their own country including transferring the deed and paying the cheque) I doubt the case you mentioned is comparable.

I presumed what happened is that the appropriate authority decided to knock down properties that had been built in contravention of planning regulations, or alternatively that the property had been built on government land and the land title forged. The action does not even seem to have made a blip in the Spanish property market.

You're right - in many ways it's completely different.

But there are some similarities, in as much as the Spanish lawyers, estate agents, property developers and civil servants all conspired to sell land illegally to naive Brits for illegal development.

It is also similar in as much as the expatriate community was up in arms, the British embassy was up in arms, and many representations were made to the Spanish authorities to have some 'heart' and not deprive aged Brits of their only remaining asset.

It is also similar in as much as the Spanish government effectively told them to get lost, and that the law would be applied and the Brits were evicted.

Now if this can happen in the EU, how much more likely is it to happen in Thailand, where farangs have no rights whatsoever beyond their one year 'extension of stay visa' and some don't even have that?

It is similar in as much as governments don't like being told what to do when non- nationals break their laws.

[Gary A]

I'm glad I never went the Company route way.

I just bought some land in my wifes name, and built a house. Many people scoffed at the time, but I will tell you one thing, I have not had one sleepless night worrying about the future of the house or indeed my own future.

The house is not mine to worry about and if I was afraid that my wife would take it all, I would never have built it in the first place.

I understand that other people are in a different situation to me, and have pretty much thrown their lot into a house that they are now afraid they could somehow lose, and I sympathise with them.

I have a good house in Loei province that did not cost much more to build than my Toyota Fortuner cost me, if I was in a 15 - 20 Million baht house under a company name, I might have a few sleepless nights myself.

I simply don't understand why a guy goes to all the expense and hassle to set up a bogus company to protect himself. He files tax returns and pays an accountant year after year and if it all falls apart he most likely wouldn't want to live there alone anyways. The exceptions would be guys who built houses in the farang areas. In that case a condo in his name BEFORE marriage is a MUCH better bet. I have bought several properties for my Thai wife, in HER name, simply because she is worth it. I want her to still have something after I check out. I'm still a cynic and realize that many marriages don't last. In that case, I'd be headed back to MY condo and my (ex?) wife won't starve.

[larvidchr]

just look how much trouble Spain have had with the landgrabbing laws from the Valencia region,

As most foreigners buying property in Spain are EU nationals with no legal problems (in fact even non EU nationals have been able to buy and sell doing all business in their own country including transferring the deed and paying the cheque) I doubt the case you mentioned is comparable.

I presumed what happened is that the appropriate authority decided to knock down properties that had been built in contravention of planning regulations, or alternatively that the property had been built on government land and the land title forged. The action does not even seem to have made a blip in the Spanish property market.

The Landgrab law in Valencia i refer to was the governments right to take land rightly owned by somebody else Foreigners or Spanish alike without compensation, and if they build a road on that land they would forward the bill to the original owner of the land, many got bills of 50.000 euros or more and quite a few had to leave their properties, it did stop almost all buying of homes from foreign investors in the Valencia region, the rest of Spain was not affected.

The problems you refer to with illigal building of homes is a problem affecting all of Spain but is a enteryly different problem, and it has nothing to do with the landgrab law from Valencia.

Edited April 15, 2007 by larvidchr

[stevejones123]

The Landgrab law in Valencia i refer to was the governments right to take land rightly owned by somebody else Foreigners or Spanish alike without compensation,

It would be useful if those complaining about events in Valencia could give a link to a Spanish source regarding the law. It is quite unconstitutional in Spain to take land without compensation, and no autonomous community can pass a law that does this.

and if they build a road on that land they would forward the bill to the original owner of the land, many got bills of 50.000 euros or more

When a builder builds a block of flats or housing estate he is responsible for the infrastructure, roads, power lines, sewage facilites and so on. This is standard in much of Europe (in the UK the requirements can be even more rigid). If the builder doesn't do this then the government can require him, or those who have inherited his liabilities (in this case the new owners) to do so, or pay the cost of such work in lieu. This is, I presume, what you are referring to.

Now if this can happen in the EU, how much more likely is it to happen in Thailand, where farangs have no rights whatsoever beyond their one year 'extension of stay visa' and some don't even have that?

What it seems happened in Valencia was that buildings built without planning permission were either demolished, or the owners were required to pay the cost of the missing infrastructure required to make them legal. This has nothing to do with the owners being foreigners. There have been many high-profile cases of well-known Spaniards having their houses demolished because they exceeded planning permission limits. If you think things are different in the UK take your profit from Thailand and built a block on flats on some farmland of yours in a Green zone and then see how far you get. The main problem is both Spain and Italy, is that the crackdown comes too late, and also that often one layer of government (normally the local council is colluding), but the illegality of building without planning permission has been known for twenty-five years at least and it is clear the buyers did not exercise due diligence - I suspect the typical British belief that Johnny Foreigner does not have laws like civilized Anglo-Saxon civilizations had something to do with it.