Thai company formation for purchase land - recommendations

[NRek]

Hello,

 

Can anyone recommend good, established legal firm/other in Pattaya/Jomtien that will setup thai company for land purchase.

 

Have been quoted around 80k for setup and 17k annual costs.

 

Ideally the best respected firm at the most affordable price, but that is always the dream ????

 

Thanks

[Pilotman]

Magna Carta Law,  or Siam Legal seem to have the best reputation. 

[Kerryd]

DMC Inter Law (Pattaya Solicitors). I've been using them for over 10 years now.

English speaking staff and they (more or less) specialize in that kind of business. Located right behind the TukCom building in South Pattaya.

http://www.pattayasolicitors.com/

[Leaver]

It's illegal for a foreigner to set up a Thai Company for the purpose of owning land.

 

Yeah Yeah, I know.  Everyone else does it, so it must be ok.  ????

[Pilotman]

4 minutes ago, Leaver said:

It's illegal for a foreigner to set up a Thai Company for the purpose of owning land.

 

Yeah Yeah, I know.  Everyone else does it, so it must be ok.  ????

Here we go again.  No its not illegal to do that.  It is illegal for the company to have proxy shareholders so that the faring effectively holds more than 49%. Our family company, which owns our house and land, has two Thai shareholders, my wife and my daughter, who between them  hold 51%, i hold the other 49%.  The company has been audited by the DBD and was given a clean bill of heath . I do wish members of this forum would stop making up the rules themselves. 

[Leaver]

1 minute ago, Pilotman said:

Here we go again.  No its not illegal to do that.  It is illegal for the company to have proxy shareholders so that the faring effectively holds more than 49%. Our family company, which owns our house and land, has two Thai shareholders, my wife and my daughter, who between them  hold 51%, i hold the other 49%.  The company has been audited by the DBD and was given a clean bill of heath . I do wish members of this forum would stop making up the rules themselves. 

Here we go again, indeed.

 

You are simply using your Thai family as proxy shareholders, and I accept that is legal, yet, you don't own majority share, despite in all probability putting up 100% of the money.

 

What about a single guy setting up a Thai company to own land.  The Thai lawyer, and the Thai accountant as proxy shareholders, who soon after resign from the company, never to be replaced.   Care to comment on the legality of this?  

 

I do wish members would stop applying their own situations to all situations. 

[Pilotman]

1 minute ago, Leaver said:

Here we go again, indeed.

 

You are simply using your Thai family as proxy shareholders, and I accept that is legal, yet, you don't own majority share, despite in all probability putting up 100% of the money.

 

What about a single guy setting up a Thai company to own land.  The Thai lawyer, and the Thai accountant as proxy shareholders, who soon after resign from the company, never to be replaced.   Care to comment on the legality of this?  

 

I do wish members would stop applying their own situations to all situations. 

as you must know, the case you quote is illegal.  As for the rest of it, , please yourself, it makes no difference to me. . 

[Leaver]

Just now, Pilotman said:

as you must know, the case you quote is illegal.

Yes, it is, and is common here.

 

In the case of your Thai Company structure, which is also not uncommon, where would you stand, legally, should your wife, who I gather is the second majority shareholder, pass before you, Buddha forbit?  Yes, yes, I know, her family is great, but inheritance seems to bring out the worst in families.   

[SCOTT FITZGERSLD]

44 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Here we go again.  No its not illegal to do that.  It is illegal for the company to have proxy shareholders so that the faring effectively holds more than 49%. Our family company, which owns our house and land, has two Thai shareholders, my wife and my daughter, who between them  hold 51%, i hold the other 49%.  The company has been audited by the DBD and was given a clean bill of heath . I do wish members of this forum would stop making up the rules themselves. 

yes, it is perfectly legal to give your money away. this is what you do when you invest 100% of the money

but own only 49% of the company.

what most sane farang are looking for, is a way to own their investments. even if your partners are your wife

and daughter, it still does not mean you own the land or business which you paid for, and if you find it hard

to believe or understand, wait until you will seperate from your wife and than see what is left from your investment.

[anto]

On 12/16/2020 at 1:19 PM, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

yes, it is perfectly legal to give your money away. this is what you do when you invest 100% of the money

but own only 49% of the company.

what most sane farang are looking for, is a way to own their investments. even if your partners are your wife

and daughter, it still does not mean you own the land or business which you paid for, and if you find it hard

to believe or understand, wait until you will seperate from your wife and than see what is left from your investment.

true that. Thai sweetness can turn very sour /Spicy in a nano second .I know it from personal experience.

[Leaver]

On 12/16/2020 at 8:19 PM, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

what most sane farang are looking for, is a way to own their investments.

Does not exist in Thailand.  

[Mr Meeseeks]

On 12/16/2020 at 7:31 PM, Pilotman said:

Here we go again.  No its not illegal to do that.  It is illegal for the company to have proxy shareholders so that the faring effectively holds more than 49%. Our family company, which owns our house and land, has two Thai shareholders, my wife and my daughter, who between them  hold 51%, i hold the other 49%.  The company has been audited by the DBD and was given a clean bill of heath . I do wish members of this forum would stop making up the rules themselves. 

We have had this discussion before. It is illegal 100%.

 

A mate of mine is just in hot water with the DSI for illegally owning land in a company name, and he has no nominee shareholders at the company, and the company actually trades, however he lives in the house on the land. 

 

Dobbed in by a business rival or neighbour no doubt.

[Leaver]

On 12/22/2020 at 3:55 PM, Mr Meeseeks said:

We have had this discussion before. It is illegal 100%.

 

Yes, this has been debated many times before, in many different threads, in many different forums, and over many years.

 

As you say, it is illegal, 100%. 

 

Many foreigners seem to rely on the "grey area" not being enforced in Thailand, or safety in numbers. (everyone else is doing it so it must be ok) 

 

With the stroke of a pen in Bangkok, they can order a nation wide audit on all Thai Companies that have any percentage of foreign ownership, that have a land title attached to the Thai Company, which would send shockwaves through foreign property ownership here. 

 

The usual, "Why would they do that?" question can be easily answered with a reply question, "Why wouldn't they do that?"

 

Using these loop holes only leave one exposed for the eventual day when a Thai government would do such a thing.     

[Rimmer]

Thai company formation for purchase land - recommendations

[Kerryd]

3 hours ago, Leaver said:

With the stroke of a pen in Bangkok, they can order a nation wide audit on all Thai Companies that have any percentage of foreign ownership, that have a land title attached to the Thai Company, which would send shockwaves through foreign property ownership here. 

 

The usual, "Why would they do that?" question can be easily answered with a reply question, "Why wouldn't they do that?"

 

Using these loop holes only leave one exposed for the eventual day when a Thai government would do such a thing.     

Actually they did that a couple years ago. Made the news and did shock lot of people.

However, it didn't last long, possibly due to the massive number of companies they'd have had to check one by one. And we're not talking a couple thousand. I spoke to the lawyer last Spring about that crack down and if it was still happening. I was told they had (quietly) stopped. Seems just in Pattaya alone there are 10s of thousands of such companies, some active, some dormant.
Across the country they are probably looking at hundreds of thousands. Keep in mind, it's not just "white expats" that form companies and they would have to sift through every one of them. Then try to initiate legal action against all the directors/shareholders.

Then probably face an even larger backlash from dozens of countries when they see Thailand prosecuting their citizens for doing the same thing that Thai citizens are freely allowed to do in many of those other countries.

Personally, I'd recommend staying away from those little "all in one" shop house visa/house/law firms and stick with a firm that a) deals with a lot of foreigners and b) pretty much exclusively handles company formations and management. 
If that is their bread and butter, they will most likely have a better understanding of how things are done and what the latest situation is (with regards to things like gov't crackdowns or changes in regulations). I'd say they are also less likely to try and screw you over (or rat you out) and probably have staff that speak English. 

Those kinds of places will probably be a bit more expensive than the "all in one" shops you see scattered around the city.

[Leaver]

5 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

Actually they did that a couple years ago. Made the news and did shock lot of people.

However, it didn't last long, possibly due to the massive number of companies they'd have had to check one by one. And we're not talking a couple thousand. I spoke to the lawyer last Spring about that crack down and if it was still happening. I was told they had (quietly) stopped. Seems just in Pattaya alone there are 10s of thousands of such companies, some active, some dormant.
Across the country they are probably looking at hundreds of thousands. Keep in mind, it's not just "white expats" that form companies and they would have to sift through every one of them. Then try to initiate legal action against all the directors/shareholders.

Then probably face an even larger backlash from dozens of countries when they see Thailand prosecuting their citizens for doing the same thing that Thai citizens are freely allowed to do in many of those other countries.

Personally, I'd recommend staying away from those little "all in one" shop house visa/house/law firms and stick with a firm that a) deals with a lot of foreigners and b) pretty much exclusively handles company formations and management. 
If that is their bread and butter, they will most likely have a better understanding of how things are done and what the latest situation is (with regards to things like gov't crackdowns or changes in regulations). I'd say they are also less likely to try and screw you over (or rat you out) and probably have staff that speak English. 

Those kinds of places will probably be a bit more expensive than the "all in one" shops you see scattered around the city.

 

This is the typical mentality.  "They can't do it."  "They won't do it."  "They haven't got the resources to do it."  "They would upset too many people if they done it."  "It would effect foreign investment."

 

Thailand has a military lead government, and will do for the foreseeable future.  We are well aware of their dislike of foreigners.  The fact is, they can do whatever, whenever they want.  Even if it makes no sense.  

 

I don't think they would care about putting anyone in gaol for using this loop hole, maybe just stir up some money for their lawyer and accountant friends, or have 51% of farang wealth redistributed to Thai's, most likely the Thai girlfriend or wife.  Cha-Ching.  For sure the Thai lawyer and accountant puts their hand out for an annual fee now. 

 

It would look great as the lead story on the Thai news how the government is stopping foreigners "owning" all of the Thai land.    

 

It would not be about depriving foreigners of the property they have bought, think Mugabee in Zimbabwe, but it would be about milking more money out of farang property owners, but who knows, anything is possible.   

 

[Rimmer]

Still unable to stay on topic

//CLOSED//