Proposal would allow foreigners in Thailand to own 1 rai of land – but there’s a 40 million baht catch

[scorecard]

6 hours ago, pomchop said:

Obviously the new ganja has resulted in even more vivid pipe dreams.

And obviously the greddy property developers are trying again to influence policies purely for their own profit. Nothing more. 

[Pib]

If this becomes law I bet there would be enough "devil in the details" required paperwork to fill a shipping container.   

 

 

 

[Millcx]

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Sounds good.....but there is quite a risk involved. 

Do you think 555555 

[RafPinto]

Brilliant news.

I'm thinking of buying some farmland.
I have a good idea how to grow rice organically.
I did a 2 weeks google course and hold an online certificate.

I would need at least 20rai.
I don't mind to set aside 20x40 Million Baht.

Where do I sign?

[jinners]

4 hours ago, NightSky said:

too little too late..

 

We just sold our home in Thailand (was in wife's name) and we're out. I would only ever rent in future.

why only rent in future? How long did you own and what problems did you come across?

[realfunster]

1 hour ago, saakura said:

If renewing the 40 million baht investment after the three year period is not a condition for continuing to own the land, many foreigners will be interested to see further details. If allowed to invest it in stocks or bonds, a 3 year period is quite short. And one rai of land is good enough for a nice house with a small garden and pool.

Well, if one has 40 million knocking around. I would expect they are astute enough to get 8-10% returns on that money on global investment markets. That’s 3.2m+ a year, excluding compounding. 

 

Locked into a 3 year Thai government bond or debenture would give you, being generous, 2% return. That’s 0.8 million a year, excluding compounding. (Doubt SET will come into play based on previous schemes).

 

I make that a -7.2m “opportunity” cost, excluding a bit more for compounding.

Not looking quite so attractive now is it ? There’s also forex risk involved.
 

Those who will be interested, are those looking to park their money away from prying eyes, likely bent government officials and criminals from across Asia-PAC.

 

If I was a multi-multi millionaire, (which you need to be for this scheme to even be vaguely financially viable) whilst a nice villa on Phuket might be of interest, ultimately, I think I might prefer to park my money somewhere where rule of law is honored and quite frankly, a bit more upmarket..

 

 

 

[Tropposurfer]

What a total crock!

3 years ... and with this junta and no democratic law process equates as ZERO security to continue unfettered as any law abiding home owner should be treated.

The farcical edicts and brainwaves just keep on coming re: land ownership.

30 years with option to extend another 30 + 30 is somewhere near would be a sane offering around ownership.

Simple caveats to ownership e.g. commit reasonably serious crime/s, or serially offender e.g. violence are convicted (in a democratic functional court system - which some would say isn't present) and you risk forfeiture and forces sale of said property.  

[robertson468]

3 hours ago, 2baht said:

That's it Bert, I did it 30 years ago. ????

Me too, but 17 years ago and going strong!

[Gottfrid]

2 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

My point was simply that you are risking 1 million quid on the whim of the next general in the next coup ! Personally, I'd invest 1 million quid in a UK property and live in Thailand on the rental income - knowing I had somewhere to live if it goes bits up ! I prefer a plan to a risk.

Sure, I understand you. And, sure there might be a risk with investing 40 million baht in Thailand. However, many have done before, and not really heard anyone getting such amounts stolen. At last, you say you prefer a plan. Yeah, I would assume that a person that can and are willing to put 40 million in Thailand, not need to sell their house in the home country. What do you think?

[keystonecoppers2]

                  

 

                          Thanks Orinoco!  I knew there where something wrong

                           with the original Webb telescope picture.

[hotchilli]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

However, foreign buyers would be required to invest 40 million baht in Thailand for a period of three years in order to be eligible for land ownership.

Forget it.

[Foghorn]

4 hours ago, Purdey said:

No mention of permanent residents, who do not need to transfer money from abroad.

Readers may be interested to look into usafruct agreements if you have a Thai spouse. I read abou it on this site many years ago. Buy in his/her name, sign an usufruct agreement and have full rights to live in and use the property for the rest of your life. More reasonable, I think.

You need to make before you marry if wife owns the ground or make with the owner of ground before you give wife buy because if married to the owner it can be canceled by her . 

[Misterwhisper]

4 hours ago, Orinoco said:

That's about 930,000 GBP to live in a  home on one rai  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a load of jokers.

 

Plus the cost for the land.

Plus the cost for the house.

Plus the cost for the land transfer.

Plus the cost for the swimming pool.

Plus the cost for garden scaping and building a driveway.

Plus the cost of building a wall around the property.

Plus the cost for connecting to the public water and sewage system.

Plus the cost for the "super-duper elite visa" that will probably be a necessity.

 

Perhaps even more importantly: What happens after those 4 years have elapsed?

 

If you really have that much money to burn, I think you're better off buying 3 villas in Costa Rica, Mexico, some of the Caribbean islands, or even Portugal, for the same amount -- MINUS all those plus-plus-plusses. Oh, and that sort of property investment usually automatically comes WITH a long-term visa or even residency without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops.   

[Isaan sailor]

2 hours ago, jacko45k said:

It does happen...... 

I knew one Thai lady, who was not a youngster but seemed to attract men quite well,  was on her 4th relationship where she had got money and property from men who simply let her control everything... Darwinism it might be, but my point about giving absolute trust too easily,  is the only comment I make. 

It’s been said before, but I’ll mention again:  make sure you’re worth more alive than dead in Thailand.

[SpanishExpat]

Just f*** those lunatics! When will they stop with those totally unrealistic scenarios and come up with some decent proposals ? The total majority of foreigners don’t have and won’t ever have 40 Mio THB to invest in Thailand. 
 

This happens when officials are living in their bubble of corruption and money bribe, having totally lost the connection to real life..

[Road Warrior]

not many ex pats with 1000 mill gbp in the bank / so waste of time 

[vandeventer]

5 hours ago, cheapcanuck said:

Just another scheme to milk foreigners out of their money.

I'll stick with renting.

That's the place to be renting, because if trouble starts here and it can very quickly, we can just pack our bags and go Don't have to worry about selling your house just go.

[Sir Dude]

So, in other words a new policy that only the mentally disturbed will consider and pretty much no-one else qualifies for. Even if for some reason someone does, how often will the goalposts change on it or will it get canceled 10 years later? Still don't get it that investors invest on confidence/sentiment and the continuity and rule of law.

 

Bet the interior minister and his mates in government all have luxury apartments in London, NY, or Paris etc. Hypocrites.

[tomacht8]

It is not necessary to buy 1 Rai for 40 million Thai baht. You can also rent a nice beach villa for 1 million per year. If there are problems you can simply move. With the rental solution you simply remain more flexible. The rest of the capital can then be invested elsewhere with interest, where the capital commitment is not permanent. In general, the following applies in Thailand: Buying land is easy, but selling is much much more difficult.

[Longwood50]

The Parable Of The Camel

A traveler set up a tent in the wilderness. He snuggled under his covers for his night’s sleep. The night became cold and his camel poked his nose into the tent. The owner asked the camel, “What are you doing?” The camel replied, “It’s cold outside. If I could only put my nose inside the tent, I will warm up and then spend the rest of the night outside.” The owner agreed to allow the camel to place his nose inside the tent because, after all, the camel’s request made sense and it was only his nose inside the tent. There was still plenty of room for the traveler.

Soon the camel asked, “I’m still cold. Could I please place my head inside your tent? I will warm up soon, and then spend the rest of the night outside.” The traveler considered the request. He didn’t want his camel to be cold so, once again, he granted the camel’s wish because, after all, it was only his head and there was still room for the traveler inside the tent.

After several minutes, the camel said, “May I please place my front feet inside your tent? They are so cold out here. If only I can warm my feet for a few minutes, then I promise I will spend the rest of the night outside.”

The traveler thought about it. There would be less room in the tent, but it was cold and he believed the camel’s promise to spend the rest of the night outside as long as he could warm his feet. The traveler allowed the camel to place his feet inside the tent.

Not long after, the camel asked, “Can I take just a few steps inside? I’m sure I’ll warm up and then I’ll definitely spend the rest of the night outside.” By now the traveler was feeling crowded inside the tent, but he consented to the camel’s request.

After 30 minutes, the camel took a few more steps inside the tent. Before the traveler realized it, the camel had entered completely inside the tent and the traveler’s only option was to go outside and leave the camel inside the tent. So the owner spent the night outside in the cold, filled with regret that he had allowed the camel to first place his nose inside the tent.

One only has to look at California and Hawaii where the local population no longer can afford to live there and only the wealthiest of Americans can compete with the wealthy foreign money. 

If you want to keep Thailand for Thai's this is a bad idea. 

[MrMuddle]

3 hours ago, Purdey said:

I have a house under an usufruct so I can vouch for this. I suggest using the search function on this site using just one word, usufruct. I found 9 mentions. Try this first. 

 

 

Thank you!

[SunnyinBangrak]

Sensible enough proposal. I would take this opportunity to buy 1 rai of beachside land and a nice house. Maybe Hua-Hin, Chumpon or Samui. Condo life is great, but you can't beat owning your own piece of heaven outright.

 

[shackleton]

I don't know what they are smoking to come up with these money making ideas 

They must be getting desperate 

Who in their right mind would buy land and invest 40 million baht 

There won't be many tourists interested in this idea 

[gearbox]

2 hours ago, Boomer6969 said:

Could someone start a survey as follows:

 

I have 40 Million Thai Baht to invest  in Thailand [ ],

I don't have 40 Million Thai Baht to invest in Thailand [ ].

 

 

You can extend it with a few extra choices like "I don't have 800k for visa"

[WebGuy]

Let me think. Hmm ... no. Thanks.

[Arkady]

As luck would have it the provision already exists in the Land Code - Section 96 bis, as amended in 1999, allows an alien who invests THB 40 million in certain approved investments is permitted with permission of the minister to own 1 rai of land for residential purposes in certain zones. So it could easily be updated by just a few changes of wording here and there.

 

But wait a minute. The 1999 provision was effectively sabotaged by the failure to publish the enabling ministerial regulations for several years, the expiry of qualifying real estate investment mutual funds before the regulations were issued and the consequent failure to make any new authorised investments available.  Thus, as far as I know, no foreigner has ever been able to purchase land under the current Section 96 bis, although many tried. 

 

Let's hope they have better luck next time, if they do update the amendment. But it seemed that the initial proposal as part of the new visa offerings to wealthy foreigners had been dropped for fear of a local backlash.  Perhaps someone is talking out of turn by trying to revive this proposal. I expect realtors would support it but virtually no Thais who are not in the real estate sector.

[smutcakes]

Presumably this despicable MP is pushing this so its easier to flog all the land around Chana Industrial estate to buyers. This of course is where he has already openly admitted family members have been buying up land.....

[Purdey]

1 hour ago, Foghorn said:

You need to make before you marry if wife owns the ground or make with the owner of ground before you give wife buy because if married to the owner it can be canceled by her . 

Thanks. Got the usufruct the same time as buying the house at the Land Department. An usufruct is not a separation of land and house. I have the right to use the whole property. The Land Department officer was not happy “giving Thai land to a foreigner” and asked my wife if she wanted to limit it to 30 years. My wife said no, All life.

An usufruct cannot be canceled as it is an official document issued by government and a contract between the owner and myself.

(Edit)

just want to add that anyone considering an usufruct should contact a lawyer for their peace of mind.

[brucegoniners]

You technically already can own a house and land if you are a minority stockholder in a Thai company.

 

Talk to any competent attorney and they'll tell you how.

[Kaopad999]

Always about money with these lot...