Buying Propety?

[loubrockbank]

hi we are moving to thailand at the end of the year from the uk,

is it still possbilbe to buy homes there?

thanks

[Maestro]

..possbilbe to buy homes...?

Foreigners cannot buy land, but they can buy a house or a flat (condominium unit)

--

Maestro

[loubrockbank]

..possbilbe to buy homes...?

Foreigners cannot buy land, but they can buy a house or a flat (condominium unit)

--

Maestro

thanks for your reply yeah we know that we cant buy the land - i should have re-phrased that .. its just we heard somewhere that foriegners arnt able to even buy houses/ condos anymore??

may not be true but thought we best check it out

[Penkoprod]

You should take the advice of many people who have said this before me:

RENT a place 1st, until you get a "feel" for both the place/area you are looking to settle in, and the housing market itself

Penkoprod

[suthnuh]

Our house in Pattaya (Primary residence) has been on the market for about 6 months. While I was at work today a Thai woman brought a foreign customer to see the property.

She told my wife there has been a change in the law within the last 48 hours and foreigners can now buy houses again.

Sadly she didn't explain exactly how - through shell company, or direct, or whatever.

Has anyone heard of any changes in the ownership laws?

[stevemiddie]

No..........not true ( if she was also implying the land was with it as well. )

As for shell companies? The law IS changing and will be effective in 2008 or 2009 ( can,t remember which year right now ) Foreigners will no longer be able to hold majority stake. Must be Thai 51% minimum. ( does not apply to conglomerates like Toyota etc )

If i,m wrong please correct me.

[mark lamai]

"She told my wife there has been a change in the law within the last 48 hours "

now that has got to be this year's winner.

what a ripper.

[eljeque]

Still, foreigners can own only less than 50%. No change there in the past two days.

My friend transfered a house and land into a company with his name on the paperwork as the director and as a 33% share holder the other day. That was stopped, at least in Pattaya some 8 months ago. It seems to be fine again now.

My accountant told me that what she hears is in a few years the government will instruct the commercial offices to look into all of the companies that have property that are not doing any business to see if there are foreigners as substantial shareholders and as directors. She hears that the government will start to look at the companies where the foreigners own 49% to start, and then work their way down, or start to look at revenue or taxes, to see which ones are really doing business.

Who knows the future here?

Anyway, RENT!!!!!!

Keep your money where you have control of it. In the West, there is a market for property based on incomes, and the ability for developers to borrow to build said property. It is not the same here. If you bought and then you decided to move, you may wait one year or longer to sell your house, or a lot longer.

[1Rai.com]

49% of the units in a condominium project may be owned by foreigners, in their own names, freehold - but the other 51% must be owned by Thais or Thai companies.

You have always been able to buy property as a foreigner - you have never been able to buy the land. The common workaround, which has been promoted by lawyers for a long time and accepted as the norm by successive governments, has been to set up a Thai company and buy through that.

The problems started through Thaksin, when he sold his family's stake in ShinCorp, and the national satellite (an object important to National Security) to Temasek Holdings, which are a Singaporean group who opened a Thai company in this way but have a majority in voting rights. This led to a revision of the Foreign Business Act, although none of the revisions have passed through parliament as yet (changes in law must be approved by the Cabinet, then parliament, then the King).

As a result of these proposed changes, the foreign real estate market has taken a big hit in consumer activity (sales), although consumer interest (leads) is still there.

From what I have understood, leaseholds are what many lawyers propose; although Thai companies with legitimate investors may still trade in land. There's also an option, according to many lawyers, of a loan to the Thai investors on the shareholders certificate, basically saying that any increase in the company's value (i.e. the land, the house) is a dynamic repayment. As for existing companies used to hold land, the Cabinet has suggested forcing them to change their structures - although they haven't really made any decision on this after the World Trade Organisation told them that doing that would be illegal and may instigate sanctions on Thailand, which isn't what the government wants at all. They may move to make some half-measure in the future.

Many people are saying "wait until the elections" and see what happens afterwards, although, because nothing has been changed yet, many others are suggesting it safer to buy a property already belonging to the existing company and just change the shareholders - that way you can't be classed as opening a new company with a view to buying land.

Of course, the best advice I can give is go and see a lawyer, then go and see a couple more to make sure you are in the know.

And before anyone suggests I'm a real estate agent, I'm not.

[pkrv]

1Rai.com - a balanced response, and indeed insightful - I did not put two and two together on the satellite bit. Thanks.

Edited June 29, 2007 by pkrv

[suthnuh]

Thanks all. Pretty much what I already thought, that whoever the woman was it was much ado about nothing.

Thailand continues to be the most foreigner unfriendly place in SE Asia of the democratic countries when dealing with ownership laws. In the Philippines if you're married to a Pinay or Pinoy you get an automatic 1 year visa with no hassle. in Malaysia, if you buy a home you get an automatic long stay visa. Singapore? If you work there you can apply for permanent resident status and get it with no hassle after a very short period of time. All these countries recognize that bringing in foreigners is a huge boon to the economy. Mainly because unlike Thais who migrate to the West, we generally keep our money where we live. Whereas they earn it over there, and send it all back here.

Not much of a mental effort to see why more people and businesses are settling elsewhere.

Last statement I recall from, I think it was the Ministry of Interior - they stated they don't allow foreign ownership because it would price Thais out of the residential market. What a crock of horse hooey.

What it does is bring more money into Thailand, which supplies developers with more money to buy and build, which requires more laborers, which reduces unemployment, which increases retail demand, which in turn brings in more people, who continue to buy more houses.

If they would like to be smart about it...

1. Limit foreign owners to a single primary landed residence

2. Not more than 1 Rai

3. Government retains all mineral and natural resource rights (so if you strike gold when installing the new in-ground water tank, they get it - minus a small finders fee)

4. Ensure village developers manage percentage of house ownership similar to Condo rules 49% foreign/51% Thai

5. Limit license approval for developers to specific "special zones" where foreign owned developments can be built. (similar to "re-beautification" projects for districts and neighborhoods in western cities where people receive tax benefits to buy and improve a local area, which ends up benefiting everyone)

6. Cap property value growth to ensure Thai's aren't priced out of the market

I live and work here. Pay taxes here. Educate my children here. Own and drive a car. In fact I contribute a significant portion of my income to the local and national Thai economy. It seems somewhat silly for them to completely ignore the value of the foreign market and $$$ if they manage it properly. Its very very simple to regulate.

Sadly, most of the decision makers only care about lining their pockets, and not really with boosting the economy on a sustainable basis. Real Estate is the easiest to manage and most sustainable method of economic growth after agriculture.

[ProThaiExpat]

And the laments go on!! After a couple of years here I learned the expression mai pen rai and try to live by it. As a result I am much happier as I no longer try to run the country. Sure I have an abundance of ideas on how Thailand could be more like a western country or more to my liking but until someone comes and asks me to join a law revision commission, I remain continue to try to practice mai pen rai.

I can understand the Thai concept that they want their land to remain in Thai hands.

Had the law been any different, Thailand would be owned by foreigners by now.

Those who ignore the basic rationale behind Thai property laws, lawyer or not, will suffer the consequences. Sure, there are legal loopholes and gimmicks that give the foreigner some feeling of satisfaction of ownership of land, but the long term trend is consistent with the Thai rationale that Thai-land is for Thais, not foreigners and those who try to buck that rationale do so at their peril.

[pkrv]

Thanks all. Pretty much what I already thought, that whoever the woman was it was much ado about nothing.

Thailand continues to be the most foreigner unfriendly place in SE Asia of the democratic countries when dealing with ownership laws. In the Philippines if you're married to a Pinay or Pinoy you get an automatic 1 year visa with no hassle. in Malaysia, if you buy a home you get an automatic long stay visa. Singapore? If you work there you can apply for permanent resident status and get it with no hassle after a very short period of time. All these countries recognize that bringing in foreigners is a huge boon to the economy. Mainly because unlike Thais who migrate to the West, we generally keep our money where we live. Whereas they earn it over there, and send it all back here.

Not much of a mental effort to see why more people and businesses are settling elsewhere.

Last statement I recall from, I think it was the Ministry of Interior - they stated they don't allow foreign ownership because it would price Thais out of the residential market. What a crock of horse hooey.

What it does is bring more money into Thailand, which supplies developers with more money to buy and build, which requires more laborers, which reduces unemployment, which increases retail demand, which in turn brings in more people, who continue to buy more houses.

If they would like to be smart about it...

1. Limit foreign owners to a single primary landed residence

2. Not more than 1 Rai

3. Government retains all mineral and natural resource rights (so if you strike gold when installing the new in-ground water tank, they get it - minus a small finders fee)

4. Ensure village developers manage percentage of house ownership similar to Condo rules 49% foreign/51% Thai

5. Limit license approval for developers to specific "special zones" where foreign owned developments can be built. (similar to "re-beautification" projects for districts and neighborhoods in western cities where people receive tax benefits to buy and improve a local area, which ends up benefiting everyone)

6. Cap property value growth to ensure Thai's aren't priced out of the market

I live and work here. Pay taxes here. Educate my children here. Own and drive a car. In fact I contribute a significant portion of my income to the local and national Thai economy. It seems somewhat silly for them to completely ignore the value of the foreign market and $$$ if they manage it properly. Its very very simple to regulate.

Sadly, most of the decision makers only care about lining their pockets, and not really with boosting the economy on a sustainable basis. Real Estate is the easiest to manage and most sustainable method of economic growth after agriculture.

I wonder if you could help me please - I see in your post Singapore, Philippines and Malaysia mentioned - I have been for some time trying to work out what the freehold situation is in these countries , you sort of flipped immediately to visa issues so left me in confusion.

[dog412]

And the laments go on!! After a couple of years here I learned the expression mai pen rai and try to live by it. As a result I am much happier as I no longer try to run the country. Sure I have an abundance of ideas on how Thailand could be more like a western country or more to my liking but until someone comes and asks me to join a law revision commission, I remain continue to try to practice mai pen rai.

I can understand the Thai concept that they want their land to remain in Thai hands.

Had the law been any different, Thailand would be owned by foreigners by now.

Those who ignore the basic rationale behind Thai property laws, lawyer or not, will suffer the consequences. Sure, there are legal loopholes and gimmicks that give the foreigner some feeling of satisfaction of ownership of land, but the long term trend is consistent with the Thai rationale that Thai-land is for Thais, not foreigners and those who try to buck that rationale do so at their peril.

while i certainly agree with you on the "legal" aspects of the THAI property laws, i am confused as to how "mai pen rai"fits into this equation.

[suthnuh]

And the laments go on!! After a couple of years here I learned the expression mai pen rai and try to live by it. As a result I am much happier as I no longer try to run the country. Sure I have an abundance of ideas on how Thailand could be more like a western country or more to my liking but until someone comes and asks me to join a law revision commission, I remain continue to try to practice mai pen rai.

I can understand the Thai concept that they want their land to remain in Thai hands.

Had the law been any different, Thailand would be owned by foreigners by now.

Those who ignore the basic rationale behind Thai property laws, lawyer or not, will suffer the consequences. Sure, there are legal loopholes and gimmicks that give the foreigner some feeling of satisfaction of ownership of land, but the long term trend is consistent with the Thai rationale that Thai-land is for Thais, not foreigners and those who try to buck that rationale do so at their peril.

while i certainly agree with you on the "legal" aspects of the THAI property laws, i am confused as to how "mai pen rai"fits into this equation.

"Mai pen rai" is Thai language for "Nevermind". It's basically the answer of all those who are complacent and willing to accept the status quo. I'm happy to live within the laws of the land where I make my residence, but that doesn't mean I have to be satisfied and not hope for better treatment under those laws.

The comment regarding "Thai-land is for Thais" sort of ignores the fact I was suggesting limiting foreign ownership to one primary residence in order to prevent the de facto colonization that would result from unregulated foreign ownership.

Regarding freehold foreign ownership in Singapore, Malaysia, and Philippines... I've got some info somewhere on that topic. If I can dig it up I'll post it for everyone.

[sinam]

Speaking of the perils of trying to own land I read in the nation yesterday of the story of the thai wife (maybe ex but not sure) who after spending 2 years in the courts trying to get her German husband out of "her house" (he bought in her name) decided it was easier to have him bumped off! I guess foreign husbands or ex-husbands do have some rights to the property.

Si Nam

And the laments go on!! After a couple of years here I learned the expression mai pen rai and try to live by it. As a result I am much happier as I no longer try to run the country. Sure I have an abundance of ideas on how Thailand could be more like a western country or more to my liking but until someone comes and asks me to join a law revision commission, I remain continue to try to practice mai pen rai.

I can understand the Thai concept that they want their land to remain in Thai hands.

Had the law been any different, Thailand would be owned by foreigners by now.

Those who ignore the basic rationale behind Thai property laws, lawyer or not, will suffer the consequences. Sure, there are legal loopholes and gimmicks that give the foreigner some feeling of satisfaction of ownership of land, but the long term trend is consistent with the Thai rationale that Thai-land is for Thais, not foreigners and those who try to buck that rationale do so at their peril.

[RAZZELL]

Even after the alleged "crackdown" on limited companies....has there been a single example of houses being "re-possessed"???

Thai's aren't stupid...do you think they'll upset a multi-billion $$$ industry???

RAZZ

[dsfbrit]

Even after the alleged "crackdown" on limited companies....has there been a single example of houses being "re-possessed"???

Thai's aren't stupid...do you think they'll upset a multi-billion $$$ industry???

RAZZ

I agree with you on this Razz. When I saw the above post saying 'MaiBhenRhai', I thought it applied more to those of us with land 'ownership' through the company route. A year has gone by and nothing.

Maybe though LaeosDherrDuang (roughly translated - 'depends on fate')- would be more appropriate.

[observer21]

49% of the units in a condominium project may be owned by foreigners, in their own names, freehold - but the other 51% must be owned by Thais or Thai companies.

You have always been able to buy property as a foreigner - you have never been able to buy the land. The common workaround, which has been promoted by lawyers for a long time and accepted as the norm by successive governments, has been to set up a Thai company and buy through that.

The problems started through Thaksin, when he sold his family's stake in ShinCorp, and the national satellite (an object important to National Security) to Temasek Holdings, which are a Singaporean group who opened a Thai company in this way but have a majority in voting rights. This led to a revision of the Foreign Business Act, although none of the revisions have passed through parliament as yet (changes in law must be approved by the Cabinet, then parliament, then the King).

As a result of these proposed changes, the foreign real estate market has taken a big hit in consumer activity (sales), although consumer interest (leads) is still there.

From what I have understood, leaseholds are what many lawyers propose; although Thai companies with legitimate investors may still trade in land. There's also an option, according to many lawyers, of a loan to the Thai investors on the shareholders certificate, basically saying that any increase in the company's value (i.e. the land, the house) is a dynamic repayment. As for existing companies used to hold land, the Cabinet has suggested forcing them to change their structures - although they haven't really made any decision on this after the World Trade Organisation told them that doing that would be illegal and may instigate sanctions on Thailand, which isn't what the government wants at all. They may move to make some half-measure in the future.

Many people are saying "wait until the elections" and see what happens afterwards, although, because nothing has been changed yet, many others are suggesting it safer to buy a property already belonging to the existing company and just change the shareholders - that way you can't be classed as opening a new company with a view to buying land.

Of course, the best advice I can give is go and see a lawyer, then go and see a couple more to make sure you are in the know.

And before anyone suggests I'm a real estate agent, I'm not.

An excellent, concise, and very informative post

[Odysseus221]

Still, foreigners can own only less than 50%. No change there in the past two days.

My friend transfered a house and land into a company with his name on the paperwork as the director and as a 33% share holder the other day. That was stopped, at least in Pattaya some 8 months ago. It seems to be fine again now.

My accountant told me that what she hears is in a few years the government will instruct the commercial offices to look into all of the companies that have property that are not doing any business to see if there are foreigners as substantial shareholders and as directors. She hears that the government will start to look at the companies where the foreigners own 49% to start, and then work their way down, or start to look at revenue or taxes, to see which ones are really doing business.

Who knows the future here?

Anyway, RENT!!!!!!

Keep your money where you have control of it. In the West, there is a market for property based on incomes, and the ability for developers to borrow to build said property. It is not the same here. If you bought and then you decided to move, you may wait one year or longer to sell your house, or a lot longer.

Funny, I just bought a villa in Pattaya. I think it is time to be bold and buy. Every developer is dying to sell now. Prices are way down. Get yourself the deal. It will inevitably turn around. As for ownership, it is the same deal. Get a good local attorney refered by a property owner.

[dsfbrit]

Funny, I just bought a villa in Pattaya. I think it is time to be bold and buy. Every developer is dying to sell now. Prices are way down. Get yourself the deal. It will inevitably turn around. As for ownership, it is the same deal. Get a good local attorney refered by a property owner.

Can I ask you a couple of questions about this:

- How much

- What method (ie: company/ lease/ wife's name).

I am someone who has a house / land via the company route and am looking at all options. So am just interested in what other people are doing to acquire the land at the moment and what is selling and for how much.

[tuktukmike]

I really have to dissagree with the comments by the 1 RAI poster.

Quote,

although they haven't really made any decision on this after the World Trade Organisation told them that doing that would be illegal and may instigate sanctions on Thailand,

I am sure this is not the case from what I have read in various news reports, take a look below.

Is the amendment in violation of Thailand’s international obligations?

The proposed amendments do not violate any of Thailand’s international obligations,

including those under WTO. This is self-evident with regards to the amendment of the

punishment terms and the attached Lists.

The amendment to introduce voting rights as criterion for determining the nationality

of a company is consistent with Thailand’s obligations under the WTO Agreement and other

treaties to which Thailand is party. As far as the WTO is concerned, the definition of ‘foreign

service supplier’ is part of domestic regulation, an area in which Members have flexibility.

Moreover, the definition as amended is more in keeping with the definition of ‘juridical

person’ under Article XXVIII of the GATS.

[Captain Chaos]

I wonder if you could help me please - I see in your post Singapore, Philippines and Malaysia mentioned - I have been for some time trying to work out what the freehold situation is in these countries , you sort of flipped immediately to visa issues so left me in confusion.

Foreigners with Permanent Resdency can own 'landed property' in Singapore, ie. freehold land + house. Otherwise you're restricted to condos. No "49%" rule here with condos, but look out for some on short lease terms (can be 99 years in some cases), although this is usually reflected in the price.

Think there's a pilot scheme on Sentosa for any foreigners to buy - however have'nt looked into the details as it's aimed at megabucks types (ie. not me )

Don't know about Malaysia or the PI's.

CC

Edited July 31, 2007 by Captain Chaos

[ya5702]

I wonder if you could help me please - I see in your post Singapore, Philippines and Malaysia mentioned - I have been for some time trying to work out what the freehold situation is in these countries , you sort of flipped immediately to visa issues so left me in confusion.

Foreigners with Permanent Resdency can own 'landed property' in Singapore, ie. freehold land + house. Otherwise you're restricted to condos. No "49%" rule here with condos, but look out for some on short lease terms (can be 99 years in some cases), although this is usually reflected in the price.

Think there's a pilot scheme on Sentosa for any foreigners to buy - however have'nt looked into the details as it's aimed at megabucks types (ie. not me )

Don't know about Malaysia or the PI's.

CC

Foreigners with PR status MAY own "landed property" in Singapore. It is not a sure thing. An application has to be made. Approval to own "landed property" is on a "case-by-case" basis. Sentosa Cove is the exception.