Thailand grants citizenship to half a million people – but not farangs

[itsari]

7 hours ago, Celsius said:

oh deary me, not the shareholder house scam. 

 

Thais taking their land back 1 Farang mug at the time.

 

 

 

If the company is trading then the foreigner controlled company is legal to own land.

If the company is just set up for owning the land then that is illegal from my understanding of the law.

[scubascuba3]

Lawyers and accountants involved with these company setups need jail also, farang are so gullible

[xylophone]

15 minutes ago, BestB said:

In the mean time Thai pretending to be accountants and agents continue to steal , scam and deceit without any repercussions what so ever.

 

and if you take one to court and win, your visa gets cancelled because accountant or agent is guilty and then PM goes overseas to scream how Thailand is open for business and more people should be investing 😎

Interesting post because a friend of mine here in Phuket had his house "stolen" by his own lawyer who had forged documents and sold it whilst my friend was away working in Singapore.

 

He decided to pursue this lawyer through the courts and despite the case seemingly being clear-cut, the judge ruled that:- because my friend had bought the house through the "company/nominee route" (when he didn't have a company) then the purchase was illegal and ruled that the house was therefore never his, and he lost everything.

 

I don't believe anything was ever done about the crooked lawyer, so it shows that one has to be on one's guard here, even when one has a lawyer who is supposedly looking after the clients interests – – it doesn't always work like that here!

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

If I ever did a 30 year lease on a piece of land I would consider it a long term rent for 30 years max, I'll probably be dead by then anyway so it wouldn't matter as I have no aires and would likely pick up another house or two over the coming decades also on 30 year leases which stretch far beyond my time here.

You raise an important point there. If you don't have any heirs then I guess it's less of a gamble. If you have kids and you stake the bulk of your wealth on a convoluted property deal, you could end up leaving nothing for your kids. I'd like to leave something for my daughter in the UK, as it's probably the only way she'll get on the property ladder (Gen Z are screwed in the UK). 

 

Property in the UK (and other developed western countries) is an appreciating asset. Whereas however you buy property in Thailand you'll end up with less/nothing, in most cases.

Happy to be proved wrong - I'm only going by what I've read over the years. 

[theblether]

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

If you must buy something then leasing is the way to go but based on what I've read over the years the lease renewal is not guaranteed in any way.

 

Also a lease contract which has a 'binding' obligation on the registered land owner to renew after each 30 year term is not legal which it is speculated nullifies the lease completely. A lease contract with clauses that are not allowed doesn't simply nullify the bad clauses - it nullifies the whole lease - is this true? Has it been tested yet?

So there's a lot of people out there who think they're sitting pretty in their house on a lease that's quite possibly not acceptable should the owner decide they want it back.

 

If I ever did a 30 year lease on a piece of land I would consider it a long term rent for 30 years max, I'll probably be dead by then anyway so it wouldn't matter as I have no aires and would likely pick up another house or two over the coming decades also on 30 year leases which stretch far beyond my time here.

 

Now I would do this on my Mrs name and lease from her, we are not married which is important because you can't do contracts between husband and wife. Well you can easily do them - but they can easily be reversed based on what I've read on here as well.

 

I figure if you spend 5% of your assets on a house then it's kind of disposable anyway but there's no need to let anyone know that.

 

 

 

It was clarified around seven years ago. There's no such things as a 30+30 lease in Thailand. That was a common marketing tactic by scam real estate agents at one time. Bizarrely some even claimed that 30+30+30 was possible. You are at the mercy of the landowner when your lease expires after 30 years. A guy I know took on a 30 year lease which would have expired when he was 76. 9 years later he negotiated a new 30 year lease. His reasoning was that there was a good chance he'd live to 76 but he reckoned he'd be dead by 85. 

 

In reality, 2 years after the new lease was signed he took a brainstorm and left the property. The number of people who subject themselves to delusional property deals is off the scale.  

[PingRoundTheWorld]

So instead of fixing the law so foreigners can own land/houses like a normal country.... this.

 

I understand wanting to protect land prices so it doesn't get taken over (by Chinese more likely than farang), but in that case restrict investment property but allow people to buy a home to live in. It's ridiculous that you can't.

[Stevemercer]

I know of a senior Thai lawyer involved in this practice. She also allegedly stole from a French client who pursued the allegation in court, and won.

[hhaat]

Basically, only if a person pays rent every month, or every year, then it is a lease.  This is legal.

 

If the person pays 30 years of rent in one go, this is called a purchase, and it is illegal.

 

You can sign a 30 year lease, but if you pay for it upfront, you are a criminal.

[Presnock]

5 hours ago, Excogitator said:

Do your own thorough research, and trust yourself only. Foreigners can not own land in los, period.

just like all those "clean" agents and the immigration laws....am sure some people might be getting a tad scared if things continue

to escalate.

[Presnock]

4 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I really don't understand why foreigners buy a house here. 

Lock them up. 

Well I "bought" for my Thai family.  I know that I cannot legally own it and knew that from the beginning but that doesn't bother me at all.  My Thai family will be living many years longer than me so there is no problem in my mind.

 

[Neeranam]

8 minutes ago, Presnock said:

Well I "bought" for my Thai family.  I know that I cannot legally own it and knew that from the beginning but that doesn't bother me at all.  My Thai family will be living many years longer than me so there is no problem in my mind.

 

My wife and I bought a house in her name, nothing wrong with that. 

[Neeranam]

46 minutes ago, hhaat said:

Basically, only if a person pays rent every month, or every year, then it is a lease.  This is legal.

 

If the person pays 30 years of rent in one go, this is called a purchase, and it is illegal.

 

You can sign a 30 year lease, but if you pay for it upfront, you are a criminal.

Interesting

[Neeranam]

59 minutes ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

So instead of fixing the law so foreigners can own land/houses like a normal country.... this.

 

I understand wanting to protect land prices so it doesn't get taken over (by Chinese more likely than farang), but in that case restrict investment property but allow people to buy a home to live in. It's ridiculous that you can't.

The law was initiated because of the Japanese, who were buying a lot of Bangkok. 

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, theblether said:

 

It was clarified around seven years ago. There's no such things as a 30+30 lease in Thailand. That was a common marketing tactic by scam real estate agents at one time. Bizarrely some even claimed that 30+30+30 was possible. You are at the mercy of the landowner when your lease expires after 30 years. A guy I know took on a 30 year lease which would have expired when he was 76. 9 years later he negotiated a new 30 year lease. His reasoning was that there was a good chance he'd live to 76 but he reckoned he'd be dead by 85. 

 

In reality, 2 years after the new lease was signed he took a brainstorm and left the property. The number of people who subject themselves to delusional property deals is off the scale.  

It the same as Expats buying bars, it's crazy. 

BTW, nice to see you again, been a few years 🙂

[theblether]

2 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

It the same as Expats buying bars, it's crazy. 

BTW, nice to see you again, been a few years 🙂

 

Yup, I got banned for ten years which seemed a bit harsh 555 Onwards and upwards. 

[BrianStar]

1 hour ago, itsari said:

If the company is trading then the foreigner controlled company is legal to own land.

If the company is just set up for owning the land then that is illegal from my understanding of the law.

Yes. It's legal for a company to own land but there is a law that specifically states that a company cannot be formed specifically for the sake of owning land for a foreigner. So that company the foreigner is involved in must be conducting business and taking profits and paying taxes. Lawyers advise not to conduct business with a property owning company because of liability and it opens the doors for audits, which can lead them to discovering something you're doing wrong and force you out of the company / house. Plus you need a work permit and all that so it's a mess to get involved in just to be able to buy a house.

 

Right now, the risk is incredibly low for a dormant company to be audited but should the government decide to start cracking down on these dormant companies, there's going to be a lot of upset foreigners. From what i do understand, they won't make the foreigner give the keys and move out but they will make him sell the house and who knows how much time they will give to do that plus are they going to make him sell to thai people who probably won't have the money for an expensive home? It's not a pretty situation should it arise.

[NorthernRyland]

3 hours ago, xylophone said:

That area is a potential minefield, because once the land is sold to new owners, they have no obligation to abide by the original agreement, whatever it was.

There was also a similar "scam/ruse" whereby agents were telling prospective buyers that land could be bought on a 30+30+30 year lease. That was ruled illegal in a Thai court of law.

So the 30 year lease is illegal? That's the first time I heard this. Do you have a reference? If it's not illegal then selling the property was committing fraud.

[bbi1]

9 hours ago, jaideedave said:

6:30 He states that the 30 yr lease is automatically renewable? I'm not so sure thats been proven yet. Another bugbear is it being willable? I'd need proof or examples of this 1st.

They may be fine with the current lessor but things change over time a different lessor may not sgree with the original agreement.

These folks are not destitute so even if they only got use of it for 30 years it would have cost them $277 usd/month if considered rent up front.

100,000 ÷ 360= 277.777

 

 

 

Looking at their age, in 30 years time it's 99.9999% guaranteed they won't be alive anymore, so it really doesn't matter.

[SiSePuede419]

What's wrong with you Farangs? 

 

Too lazy to bone a Thai citizen and buy your Thai real estate 💯% legally in their name? 😳

[itsari]

22 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

What's wrong with you Farangs? 

 

Too lazy to bone a Thai citizen and buy your Thai real estate 💯% legally in their name? 😳

Not illegal in my opinion but of course high risk 

Many foreigners use that way you described and have no problems.

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours ago, bristolgeoff said:

I know a farang can never own land alone.

That's not quite accurate, there are legal ways for foreigners to acquire land. The Land Code Act will help you out.

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours ago, Excogitator said:

Do your own thorough research, and trust yourself only. Foreigners can not own land in los, period.

Do your own thorough research, they can in certain circumstances.  Period.

Edited March 16 by Liverpool Lou

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours ago, Excogitator said:

My point was, and still is, you, as a foreign person, can not own land in in los.

Your point was, and still is, wrong.  There are ways, investment, for example.

 

 

Edited March 16 by Liverpool Lou

[DaveOhAust]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yup, those solicitors didn't get their reputation by being honest. They probably have an office party after muggins gives them a whole heap of loot to evade the law.

Top of my list of people not to trust would be lawyers/ solicitors, and second is Thai wives.

Wives in general as Thai wives no different to other nationalities they all chase the $

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

I recall a few years back, they proposed allowing some foreign land ownership in order to attract high wealth individuals and foreign companies.  As I recall, it was limited to a small yard to build a residence.   Not farmland, and it was tied to investment that benefitted Thailand.  But I'm pretty sure that went nowhere. 

 "But I'm pretty sure that went nowhere".

It did go somewhere...into the Land Code Act.

[xylophone]

52 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

So the 30 year lease is illegal? That's the first time I heard this. Do you have a reference? If it's not illegal then selling the property was committing fraud.

Not sure what you mean by your post, however it is illegal for a farang to own land in Thailand. He can elect to lease land through a Thai company in which he owns only 49% of the company, but that company has to meet certain criteria inasmuch as the Thai partners of the 51% have to be bone fide partners who have invested their own funds into the company, not just nominee folk. Owning through his wife who has to show that she has purchased the land with her own funds, is possible, but then again the farang does not own it. 

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, ChipButty said:

 

One builder I know says he will renew the lease

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he!

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, xylophone said:

agents were telling prospective buyers that land could be bought on a 30+30+30 year lease. That was ruled illegal in a Thai court of law.

"What is the legal status of a renewal option in a 30 year lease
The renewal option in a 30 year lease agreement is not a lease right or option given under Thai property laws to create a longer lease term but a simple promise of the current owner to give a new lease when the registered 30 year term of the lease runs out. Including a renewal option (or any number of renewal options) in a lease agreement is based on the freedom of contract between the parties but says nothing about the enforceability of this promise or options when the registered 30 year lease term actually finishes.

https://www.samuiforsale.com/real-estate/renewal-options-in-a-thai-lease-agreement.html#:~:text=If the owner of the,year term (section 564).

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, TheFishman1 said:

Yeah, that guy from Arizona seems all confident with all the <deleted> hits the fan. Yeah it’s like he’s an expert I lived here 13 years and half of what he said, said is not proven. Actually I think he’s incorrect.TIT

"Actually I think he’s incorrect.TIT"

He is...he has a thirty year lease, that's all. A new lease may be negotiated after the first thirty years, but, then again, it may not be.

[MangoKorat]

3 hours ago, itsari said:

If the company is trading then the foreigner controlled company is legal to own land.

If the company is just set up for owning the land then that is illegal from my understanding of the law.

Partly correct but.........................as I've said a thousand times to those who told me they own their house through a Ltd. Co - if investigated, the company needs to have a reason to own land.  The cover all clause in the Thai Land Law is the one about circumvention.  If it can be proven that the company, trading or not, only owns the house in order to circumvent the law, its illegal and the property may be subject to forfeiture.  Claiming the company is in the real estate business and letting the house out to yourself as a director is very likely to also be seen as circumvention - especially if that company only owns one property.  There is trading and then there is trading - washing a few thousand baht through the company every year and paying a little tax is unlikely to be seen as trading.

 

I believe that if say, the property is a shop-house and the company is carrying on a real business in that property, that should be seen as legal but as ever, anyone considering such methods should check it out with a decent Thai lawyer first.

 

There are far better ways to protect your investment and guarantee your rights to live in a property that don't involve trying to circumvent the land laws.  Providing you have a Thai citizen that is prepared to be the registered owner and will accept you placing a legal charge on the title - that's your investment protected. The only spanner in the works being that some Land Offices won't accept a foreign mortgage. You have not circumvented any law, the property remains in Thai ownership. Do not do this in cash - a paper trail at all stages is required to be secure.

 

A correctly worded Usufruct is legal and will protect your right to live in the property - just don't build a house or your wife's family land - especially not in the moobaan or any other place where you are likely to be harrased in the event of a relationship breakdown. The Usufruct must also be registered at the Land Office to be legal.

 

 

Edited March 16 by MangoKorat