Private Sector: Extending Foreign Leasehold Ownership A Better Option

[webfact]

Thai property title deeds overlaid on an image of downtown Bangkok. Photo: Matichon

 

by TNR Staff

 

THE head of a real estate association Friday (Nov. 4) said allowing foreigners to buy one rai of land under a new ministerial regulation still being vetted is unlikely to motivate them to do so because of difficult procedures and it would be better to extend their leasehold rights from 30 to 50 years, Matichon newspaper said.

 

The Cabinet greenlighted a draft ministerial regulation on Oct. 25 that will enable foreigners to buy a maximum of one rai of land in Thailand. One of the conditions includes an investment value of at least 40 million baht that must be retained for three years, NNT said.

 

This ministerial regulation designates four types of high-potential aliens who will be able to acquire land in Thailand for residential purposes. 

 

The four categories include high-wealth persons, retirees, individuals who intend to work from Thailand, and specialists who possess certain skills. The amount of land that may be acquired shall be no more than one rai (1,600 square metres). The land must only be used for self-residency and must be located within Bangkok, Pattaya, municipalities, or other suitable areas as stipulated by the urban planning law. The alien acquiring land must invest no less than 40 million baht in a business or enterprise and retain the investment for at least three years.

 

Full story: https://thainewsroom.com/2022/11/04/private-sector-extending-foreign-leasehold-ownership-a-better-option/

 

-- © Copyright  THAI NEWSROOM 2022-11-05

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Monthly car subscription with first-class insurance, 24x7 assistance and more in one price - click here to find out more!

[Tarteso]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

The alien acquiring land must invest no less than 40 million baht in a business or enterprise and retain the investment for at least three years.

 

[RichardColeman]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

This ministerial regulation designates four types of high-potential aliens who will be able to acquire land in Thailand for residential purposes. 

Aside from the xenophobia use of the word 'alien' , what sort of nutcase wants to stump up 40 million to live in thailand - and buy a little land - when you can rent and invest nothing. It's not like you get citizenship or anything out of it 

[Archie Baker]

7 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Aside from the xenophobia use of the word 'alien' , what sort of nutcase wants to stump up 40 million to live in thailand - and buy a little land - when you can rent and invest nothing. It's not like you get citizenship or anything out of it 

Well I think foreigners should not own Thai land and keep their 40m, cost for the land and cost to build a luxury home in their personal investments.  And I think all rich Thais who have large properties in London should have them repossessed and chuck them out of the country. 

 

What is so special about Thailand anyway? Temples, beaches, pussy cats, rubbish dumps everywhere, as many soi dogs you can shake a stick at, upset someone and your likely to be shot, road deaths exemplars,  extortionate prices for imported goods, wow such a temptation. 

 

[mikeymike100]

Who is going to risk 40 million baht on an investment, knowing in 6 months or whenever the law could change? On top of that as we are only guests here , have no rights and we could be thrown out of the country at any time.

[finnomick1]

17 minutes ago, Archie Baker said:

Well I think foreigners should not own Thai land and keep their 40m, cost for the land and cost to build a luxury home in their personal investments.  And I think all rich Thais who have large properties in London should have them repossessed and chuck them out of the country. 

 

What is so special about Thailand anyway? Temples, beaches, pussy cats, rubbish dumps everywhere, as many soi dogs you can shake a stick at, upset someone and your likely to be shot, road deaths exemplars,  extortionate prices for imported goods, wow such a temptation. 

 

You make it sound so tempting....almost to good to be true ????

[couchpotato]

With so much political opposition to this proposal, the idea will be shelved soon.

Just like a cop or civil servant who gets shunted to an 'in-active" post.

[tjo o tjim]

Something tells me they are approaching this from the wrong direction.  Most foreigners that want to have ownership rights rather than leasehold feel that way because they either want to be albe to sell their investment on in the future, or leave it to someone when they die.  Ok, so there is also the contingent that is worried about their Thai spouse taking everything and being left out with zero rights.

 

If they want to encourage foreign investment then the first issue is legal transparency and predictability.  Right now putting more than 5-10% of your assets into Thailand as an investment is a risky proposition if you have been here less than ~3-5 years and have local connections.  (Even then, much more than 50-60% seems like a stretch to me.)

 

But if their goal is to attract foreigners with net worths over US$100MM, none of these things matter to them in the same way.  It is easy enough to create a company that owns your estate with employees running it in a legal structure that will pass muster.

[SymS]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

extend their leasehold rights from 30 to 50 years

I'm pretty sure this would have zero effect on the property market.

[Sydebolle]

Only once those oligarchs understand, that you cannot eat money ............ The elite is afraid, that smarter aliens take over Thailand and jump-start it into 21st century.

Leasehold went sour on countless Japanese and some dirty farang. A prime example was a 30-years leasehold of condominiums at the "Twin Peaks Residence" on Sukhumvit Road Soi 17. For years leasehold takers fight in the courts over the issue, that the original owner sold the building and the new owners want to take it down to make space for something even bigger. 
The losers are those countless leaseholders who have already vacated the premises while a few hardcore (mostly retirees, being in their 17th, 18th year of a 30-years leasehold) have sleepless nights over eviction orders. More than once served already and always kept on hold by expensive legal advice on the account of the leasehold beneficiaries ???? 

Such incidents lead you to the conclusion, that you might want to rent a property. This allows to leave with as little damage as possible, if the semi-divine real estate crooks are at it again! 

[jacko45k]

2 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Aside from the xenophobia use of the word 'alien' , what sort of nutcase wants to stump up 40 million to live in thailand - and buy a little land - when you can rent and invest nothing. It's not like you get citizenship or anything out of it 

It is perplexing, xenophobia might just be it. The terms and requirements are so onerous, they are really a deterrent. They don't want to get these types of Expats, but have to be seen to be offering something. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by jacko45k

[hotchilli]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

This ministerial regulation designates four types of high-potential aliens who will be able to acquire land in Thailand for residential purposes.

High potential aliens?

Nice monika  NOT

 

[mran66]

What is so special about owning land in Thailand? So many countries to choose to own piece land if that's your thing, why bother with it in Thailand. 

 

But yes, land ownership right for non nationals should be reciprocal between counties, just like relative ticket prices for national parks. 

[easydoor]

When you have a look at the conditions I must say:: you have to be more than crazy  to do something like this. Only people with a lot of BLACK MONEY will something will do like this to whitewash they money.

[BumGun]

44 minutes ago, easydoor said:

When you have a look at the conditions I must say:: you have to be more than crazy  to do something like this. Only people with a lot of BLACK MONEY will something will do like this to whitewash they money.

Yeah but why would even they do it ? They can already get around it with the gray area of using a company and this new suggestion  still doesn't come with any surety of residency, so you own a place and they refuse entry at immigration ? while I would be interested, the bar they've set seems particularity onerous and appealing to no one ?

 

Also as others have mentioned, I think a little nod to reciprocity is in order as well. I know only wealthy Thais are buying places in London, Australia, Canada, Germany, US etc and they're not really competing with the poor in the those countries (way different market) but still

Edited November 5, 2022 by BumGun

[bkkcanuck8]

3 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Aside from the xenophobia use of the word 'alien' , what sort of nutcase wants to stump up 40 million to live in thailand - and buy a little land - when you can rent and invest nothing. It's not like you get citizenship or anything out of it 

The use of 'alien' in legislation is a normal and appropriate use for it.  In law, an alien is any person (including organizations) who is not a citizen or national of a specific country.  Thailand is just using the English terms used by English speaking countries. 

[Jonathan Vickers]

If you are looking to retire, (which I am not) 40,000,000 bt will buy you a lovely home near the beach in sunny Queensland, Australia, where you are invited to actually become an Ozzie, are made to feel welcome and respected and where it is beautiful one day and perfect the next! You get to fully own the property, leave it to your children and not have to put up with the narcissistic, xenophobic and persistent racist nonsense of this megalomaniacal Thai system. 

[FarangFB]

21 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The use of 'alien' in legislation is a normal and appropriate use for it.  In law, an alien is any person (including organizations) who is not a citizen or national of a specific country.  Thailand is just using the English terms used by English speaking countries. 

Would be cool if in a distant future the A word becomes forbidden to Thais but acceptable only for farangs to talk among themselves.

 

I could go up to you and say "sup my alien", but if a Thai called us that we would be deeply offended. 

[Iron Tongue]

2 hours ago, tjo o tjim said:

Something tells me they are approaching this from the wrong direction.  Most foreigners that want to have ownership rights rather than leasehold feel that way because they either want to be albe to sell their investment on in the future, or leave it to someone when they die.  Ok, so there is also the contingent that is worried about their Thai spouse taking everything and being left out with zero rights.

 

If they want to encourage foreign investment then the first issue is legal transparency and predictability.  Right now putting more than 5-10% of your assets into Thailand as an investment is a risky proposition if you have been here less than ~3-5 years and have local connections.  (Even then, much more than 50-60% seems like a stretch to me.)

 

But if their goal is to attract foreigners with net worths over US$100MM, none of these things matter to them in the same way.  It is easy enough to create a company that owns your estate with employees running it in a legal structure that will pass muster.

Dude,

If you want to talk using reason and rationale, you're in the wrong country!

Why don't you go slam 10 shots of random liquors, then come back and try posting again!

[Aussieroaming]

It is too easy for Thailand ( or any other country) to roll back real estate laws if political whims change.

 

As it stands foreigners cannot own land in Thailand. I would prefer a law whereby if the citizens of a country cannot own land in Thailand that the country in question bans Thai citizens from owning land in that country unless there is reciprocation.

 

in that way both countries can decide whether there is a vested interest in having a joint land acquisition agreement whereby each country's citizens can own land to a certain size and type in the host country. 

[crazykopite]

Easier to set up a company build a couple of houses live in one and rent the other out making sure you keep your company accounts up to date and pay your taxes then when you want to move on in life sell the company as a going concern that’s what I did 

[crazykopite]

2 minutes ago, Aussieroaming said:

It is too easy for Thailand ( or any other country) to roll back real estate laws if political whims change.

 

As it stands foreigners cannot own land in Thailand. I would prefer a law whereby if the citizens of a country cannot own land in Thailand that the country in question bans Thai citizens from owning land in that country unless there is reciprocation.

 

in that way both countries can decide whether there is a vested interest in having a joint land acquisition agreement whereby each country's citizens can own land to a certain size and type in the host country. 

The most expensive piece of land in Thailand was sold a few years ago the owner was the British Government it’s now a huge shopping mall I’m led to believe the new British Embassy is a rabbit hutch 

[pomchop]

Renting is likely a better option for vast majority of farangs in Thailand.  Not perfect but way less hoops to jump around and less risk of losing a bundle.

[ThomasThBKK]

2 hours ago, tjo o tjim said:

Something tells me they are approaching this from the wrong direction.  Most foreigners that want to have ownership rights rather than leasehold feel that way because they either want to be albe to sell their investment on in the future, or leave it to someone when they die.  Ok, so there is also the contingent that is worried about their Thai spouse taking everything and being left out with zero rights.

 

If they want to encourage foreign investment then the first issue is legal transparency and predictability.  Right now putting more than 5-10% of your assets into Thailand as an investment is a risky proposition if you have been here less than ~3-5 years and have local connections.  (Even then, much more than 50-60% seems like a stretch to me.)

 

But if their goal is to attract foreigners with net worths over US$100MM, none of these things matter to them in the same way.  It is easy enough to create a company that owns your estate with employees running it in a legal structure that will pass muster.

https://dancham.or.th/sap-ing-sith-act/

 

They came up with this sap in sith act, where the thing can be resold, if that was 99 years duration and could be converted back to chanote or something in case a thai buys it, it would be well enough... otherwise theres lifelong usufructs/superficies anyway.

 

But yeah you are absolutelt right, they don't F**** get it, i could walk in a random irish pub and select random drunks that would come up with a better sheme within 10 minutes. 

 

 

 

[jaywalker2]

4 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Aside from the xenophobia use of the word 'alien' , what sort of nutcase wants to stump up 40 million to live in thailand - and buy a little land - when you can rent and invest nothing. It's not like you get citizenship or anything out of it 

Rich Chinese.

[tomacht8]

18 minutes ago, crazykopite said:

Easier to set up a company build a couple of houses live in one and rent the other out making sure you keep your company accounts up to date and pay your taxes then when you want to move on in life sell the company as a going concern that’s what I did 

Normally, in a Thai company, 51% must remain in Thai hands. Of course, the Thai 51% give up their voting rights on a separate sheet of paper. The whole thing is on shaky ground. In the past, Thai courts have rejected this model as it results in "quasi" land ownership by the foreigner. From my point of view, the company model is only suitable if you have a Thai partner who you can trust 100%. However, many practice this model with unknown shareholders/straw men supplied by shady lawyers.

[bangon04]

2 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

Rich Chinese.

Rich Chinese with ex-Evergrande investment funds to park somewhere.....

[chilli42]

Thailand has always been very clear … they want foreign money they don’t want foreigners.  

[Dogmatix]

4 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

Normally, in a Thai company, 51% must remain in Thai hands. Of course, the Thai 51% give up their voting rights on a separate sheet of paper. The whole thing is on shaky ground. In the past, Thai courts have rejected this model as it results in "quasi" land ownership by the foreigner. From my point of view, the company model is only suitable if you have a Thai partner who you can trust 100%. However, many practice this model with unknown shareholders/straw men supplied by shady lawyers.

Can you cite examples where Thai courts have rejected the land ownership by a foreigner and what the court ordered to be done to rectify the situation? I am unaware of any cases like this and can't think who would  sue in the court. The Land Department has power to force the company to sell the land or it can seize the land and have the Legal Execution Dept sell it by public auction without going to court. But I have never heard of cases where this happened either.  There have just been threatening noises made from time to time but, so far, never any action. 

 

What has become more difficult, since a letter sent to land offices by the Interior Ministry in the last days of the Thaksin government before the 2006 coup, ordering them to check, is registering land in the name of any company that has any foreigners associated with it at all, whether as shareholders, directors or just people hanging around in the Land Office, Before 2006 the instruction to land offices was just to refer to the director general any transaction where foreigners owned over 40% of the shares but it was easy to get around this by reducing the foreign shareholding to 40% in the Land Office before going up to the counter and increasing it back up to 49% before leaving the office.

[Dogmatix]

The original version of the bill to amend the Land Code like this in 1999 had a category for foreigners married to Thais who got exemption from the requirement to invest 40 billion.  This hasn't been revived.  I wonder why not?  555

 

Why are PRs not included in this?  Perhaps not many would agree to the 40 million but there are many PRs who are not married to Thais and would love to have a piece of land in their own names. They are just offering to the new fangled LTR visa holders because that was a pet project of theirs, even though it might not survive,  and ignoring PR status that has stood the test of time since 1927.