British and American men arrested for real estate violations

[biggles45]

If the foreigner can only have 49% of the company and he dies, what happens to the 51% of the house value, which is the companies asset? 

He may have a will but he can still only bequeth his 49% of the houses value (sale price) as the rest is 'owned' by the Thai nominees? 

Anyone have 'real world' experience of the answer here? 

[Shetraveler]

12 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

It's amazing the lengths us foreigners will go to have some dirt in our name. They're coming for us (foreigners) the white devils. 

 

Just keep your head down, only speak when spoken to. Sort of like prison rules.

Or just follow the rules.
So sorry you feel put upon to follow the laws of the country you chose to live in.
 

[mikebell]

8 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

damn, what happened?

Did the company route : farang 49%; Thai (ex-wife) 48 + 3% in crooked audit office.  They had me sign the normal 46 pages in Thai for the annual audit but on this occasion added a 47th which changed my wife's share to 50%.  By this time we were separated & despite spending about half a million in legal fees, the Thai court awarded me 25% of house/cars/furniture.  I'd happily accompany the police to the audit company which is close to Tesco Lotus' at Thepprasit.  I've kept all the papers.

[CLUBBER]

12 hours ago, impulse said:

I wonder how many real estate transactions will be unwound, costing unsuspecting foreigners $$ millions.

 

I also wonder whether they're genuinely trying to clean it up, or just steer the money to the right parties.

 

Well I would bet money I it’s the latter 

[NorthernRyland]

41 minutes ago, mikebell said:

Did the company route : farang 49%; Thai (ex-wife) 48 + 3% in crooked audit office.  They had me sign the normal 46 pages in Thai for the annual audit but on this occasion added a 47th which changed my wife's share to 50%.  By this time we were separated & despite spending about half a million in legal fees, the Thai court awarded me 25% of house/cars/furniture.  I'd happily accompany the police to the audit company which is close to Tesco Lotus' at Thepprasit.  I've kept all the papers.

Why wasn't the property a marital asset which you were entitled 50% to? Furthermore, why was the company needed anyways if you were married? Seems like you would just buy in the wife's name and that would be the end of it.

[NorthernRyland]

2 hours ago, xylophone said:

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. 

I thought you could lease land for 30 years, in which case the original owner would not change but you would simply have the right to live there for the duration of the lease. 

 

Owning through the wife? It's a martial asset then which belongs to both parties right? The law of marriage is that both people relinquish right to hold title. I assume a court would have you liquidate the property in the case of divorce though and divide it up with all other assets. That almost seems safer than making shell companies.

[NorthernRyland]

1 hour ago, MangoKorat said:

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.

 

I'm dubious of a usufruct between married people. I don't think those contracts can supersede the marital laws.

[MangoKorat]

2 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

I'm dubious of a usufruct between married people. I don't think those contracts can supersede the marital laws.

The dubious thing is and always will be - any method used to try to circumvent the Thai land laws in order for a foreigner to attempt to own land.

 

On another thread a guy was questioning Usufructs given by woman to her foreign husband - I'm not really interested, I'm not married and even when I was, my property had nothing to do with my wife.  The registered owner of my property is a trusted friend.  I have a Usufruct and other documents that I'm satisfied give me the right to do whatever I want, including sell my Thai home.  Nothing I have attempts to try and get around the ownership rules.

 

Many years ago when someone told me I could set up a Thai Ltd Co. to own a house/land and control that company through taking away the voting rights of the Thai shareholders, I looked at the land law and that one sentence regarding circumvention said it all for me.  I knew then that unless the company was actually trading and had a reason to own land/property - such a deal could always fall foul of the law.

 

I dismissed that route and have been arguing with people about it ever since.  I don't doubt that there are literally thousands out there that have gone down the company route and have not had a problem - yet. They may have a problem in the future though.

 

Given the current spate of Xenophobia, driven by more than a few news reports of wrong doings by foreigners, who knows what's going to happen really?  This could all blow over and may stay related only to the current investigations as per the OP.  Or it could cause nationwide investigations into all Thai Ltd Companies with foreign shareholders  that own property.

 

My gut feeling is that it will blow over once this case is fully prosecuted and put to bed.  This is not the first time this has come up, there was a case a number of years back - can't remember the exact details but it was related to Thai Ltd Co's with foreign directors/land.  The government at the time threatened all sort of reforms to company structures etc.

 

But then big business got jittery.  If yer basic guy in the street was having his property dealings threatened - where did that leave them?  Foreign investment looked like it might go down the plughole.  A few changes were made outlawing nominee directors, Thai shareholders now have to prove where the cash for their shares comes from and some Land Offices will not register land to companies where foreign directors hold more than 39% of the shares.

 

That was about it really - that's not to say they won't go after individual cases that fall into their lap but when the bosses of major multinationals start to worry about doing business in Thailand, that's when the government sweep this under the carpet.

 

I'd take a bet, this matter will run a few more weeks, lots of talk will go on about how they are going to clamp down on these pesky foreigners stealing their land - then, like almost everything else they do, it will just go quiet.

 

Does that mean I think its safe for a foreigner to use the company route to own a house? Never.

Edited March 16 by MangoKorat

[SmokeandIce]

16 hours ago, rexpotter said:

What does the term 'Squeeky Bum' for the rest of the world who didn't grow up in the Uk?

[EVENKEEL]

8 hours ago, Shetraveler said:

Or just follow the rules.
So sorry you feel put upon to follow the laws of the country you chose to live in.
 

Get back to me in 10-15-20 yrs. Then your opinion may have a bit of meaning.

[jacko45k]

20 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Squeeky bum time for foreigners with land in company name.

I am not feeling overly worried actually. 

The alternative was a little student bedsit in the sky, that is a potential death trap. 

[mikebell]

8 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

Why wasn't the property a marital asset which you were entitled 50% to? Furthermore, why was the company needed anyways if you were married? Seems like you would just buy in the wife's name and that would be the end of it.

I bought the house before I met my ex; in those days you had to have a variety (I think 3 or 5 Thai shareholders - usually working in the Audit company.)  The rules tightened after I married & it seemed simpler to use my wife as a shareholder.

[Sluglord]

Meanwhile... On TikTok a number of posters have stated it was perfectly alright to circumvent Thai law using a corporation. I can think of two rather mouthy farang an a new arrival know it all of dubious E Asian decent blabbing on about this and sundry topics.

 

If anyone thinks this board is a trollfest they gotta have a look at the TT shi+show know -nothings

[ChipButty]

According to other reports I just read, the Russians are controlling the real estate market in Phuket

[fceligoj]

"Great job done" by the Special Investigation unit.  BUT they should be seriously looking at Chinese foreigners doing the same and probably to a much great extent!

[NorthernRyland]

7 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

The registered owner of my property is a trusted friend.  I have a Usufruct and other documents that I'm satisfied give me the right to do whatever I want, including sell my Thai home.  Nothing I have attempts to try and get around the ownership rules.

 

 

If the spirit of the law is to prevent foreigners from owning houses why would they let you buy a house via a Thai national and have said Thai national waive their right to the house using a Usufruct? All these things seem dodgy to me if the authorities really decide they want to crack down for some reason. 

[spidermike007]

Best to just own a house in your wife's name if she is somebody that you love and trust. In my particular case I want to leave her a bunch of assets anyway when I move on, since she's been such a wonderful partner for all these years. 

 

If you don't have a quality partner like that better to do a 30-year lease. If you can renew it, great, if not 30 years is long enough. 

[JimTripper]

 

22 hours ago, jaideedave said:

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

That's true if they really want to live there for 30 years. My guess is they will want to sell and move in 5 years, or just let it sit while they are away.

 

Strange how he keeps talking about the furniture delivery & setup 🤔

[Ebumbu]

23 hours ago, rexpotter said:

All attachments to anything earthly end in failure. Had all the stuff, designer wife, Big house great job, Benz, BMW etc. 25 years ago a grabbed backpack and left the keys in my Volvo at Chicago O'hare and never looked back.

 

Where did you park? 

[kevinsan]

23 hours ago, rexpotter said:

Only rent is the safest, I've tried all of it, barely got out alive.

Same goes for the girls.

[rexpotter]

2 hours ago, Ebumbu said:

 

Where did you park? 

I think its gone, 1999

[rexpotter]

1 hour ago, kevinsan said:

Same goes for the girls.

I was told by an old wise man here that we don't pay them to do anything, we pay them to leave.

[greg71]

On 3/16/2024 at 10:02 AM, proton said:

These two seem very sure of themselves and the 30 year lease on the land,

 

 

The wife actually made a video about this a little while ago - they both seem rather green about what can and cant be done in regard to this property . Some of the comments in the vid are comedy and there responses are truly outstanding .

 

[jaideedave]

5 hours ago, JimTripper said:

 

That's true if they really want to live there for 30 years. My guess is they will want to sell and move in 5 years, or just let it sit while they are away.

 

Strange how he keeps talking about the furniture delivery & setup 🤔

Good luck to them if they want to resell.We paid 2.4 m for our 2 br bungalo in 2007.It's been confirmed a few times now that I'll be lucky to recoup that if we sell even after I've done major upgrades.

Unlike in the west where property values keep climbing unabated.

At any rate it'll be left for my wife and her sister as I'm about to turn 74.

[Liverpool Lou]

21 hours 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.

Good gawd...

[Liverpool Lou]

20 hours ago, Presnock said:

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.

Using agents for extensions is not illegal, foreigners using Thai companies to circumvent the law on owning land is.

[Liverpool Lou]

20 hours ago, Neeranam said:

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

A foreigner buying a business is the same "crazy" as what?  It is not illegal.

[John Drake]

30 minutes ago, greg71 said:

The wife actually made a video about this a little while ago - they both seem rather green about what can and cant be done in regard to this property . Some of the comments in the vid are comedy and there responses are truly outstanding .

 

 

Mutton dressed as lamb.

[Presnock]

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Using agents for extensions is not illegal, foreigners using Thai companies to circumvent the law on owning land is.

If one does not meet all the necessary criteria for getting an extension and uses an agent who ghosts the necessary criteria to enable on to extend, then that is not legally following the immigration rules.

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

If the spirit of the law is to prevent foreigners from owning houses

That is not the purpose if the law, the purpose is to prevent foreigners from owning land, foreigners can own as many houses as they want , that is legal.