Liverpool Lou Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Presnock said: 18 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. Extensions are granted by the IOs who, as competent officials, have discretion about requirements, legally. Edited March 17 by Liverpool Lou 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Presnock Posted March 17 Popular Post Share Posted March 17 13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said: Extensions are granted by the IOs who, as competent officials, have discretion about requirements, legally. Wrong! If one does not have the monetary means to meet the criteria and hires an agent who "ghosts" that monetary means then that is illegal! Just because an agent has some kind of agreement with the IO and the IO allows the extension, does not mean that the ex-pat is still here LEGALLY. As an "advanced" member, you should be aware of that illegality too that some folks use to get their extension. Just like those old embassy letters attesting to pension amounts...too many didn't care that they were breaking the US law about lying to an officer of the government. I do believe in honesty especially if it could prevent my remaining here. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverpool Lou Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 6 minutes ago, Presnock said: 24 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said: Extensions are granted by the IOs who, as competent officials, have discretion about requirements, legally. Wrong! If one does not have the monetary means to meet the criteria and hires an agent who "ghosts" that monetary means then that is illegal! Just because an agent has some kind of agreement with the IO and the IO allows the extension, does not mean that the ex-pat is still here LEGALLY. Seems that you don't understand the meaning of "competent official" in the context of Immigration law, nor do you understand that IOs have discretion when it comes to IB regulations. Those who have an extension granting them permission to stay, issued by an Immigration Office, are here legally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BestB Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 22 hours ago, xylophone said: 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! This is happening more and more but authorities, police could not care less. In case of accountants they do not pay social, taxes or any other fees, including balance sheets , sometimes for years By the time person finds out, it could take a few years and losses are massive and yet no recourse and as i said, if you take them to court and prove they were stealing, your visa status becomes overstay from the date they started stealing. Even though you were not aware and have all the evidence of having paid all, still over stay. and no guarantees to recover any money even if judge rules for them to repay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 8 hours ago, NorthernRyland said: 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. A Usufuct does not convey ownership - only the right to use and enjoy the property. Therfore, the intention of the law - to keep Thai land in Thai ownership is not broken. You can think a Usufruct is dodgy as much as you like, it is a legal instrument, accepted in Thai law. Thankfully Thailand has a functioning legal system and therefore if the authorities did try to 'clamp down' on them, they themselves would fall foul of the law. It is always possible that they could ban future Usufructs but existing agreements are within the law and therefore cannot be anulled. To do so would threaten every law in Thailand and that would have serious consquences, both nationally and more importantly, internationally. Thailand is not Russia yet. I believe the law would be upheld. Edited March 17 by MangoKorat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said: Seems that you don't understand the meaning of "competent official" in the context of Immigration law, nor do you understand that IOs have discretion when it comes to IB regulations. Those who have an extension granting them permission to stay, issued by an Immigration Office, are here legally. I don't think you have considered all angles in that statement. If it can be proven that money has changed hands to facilitate an I.O.s 'discretion' as you put it, that is corruption and all parties involved can be prosecuted. Unless the extension holder could convince a court that he/she was unaware of the situation (unlikely), they too would wind up in court. The highly likely outcome would be that the foreigner would be ruled complicit and be punished accordingly. Such punishment would almost certainly include revocation of their visa. Do you not remember the fake passport stamps fiasco? Edited March 17 by MangoKorat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimTripper Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 3 hours ago, jaideedave said: 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. Backup properties are golden if you have a family. Unemployment, legal trouble, divorces, you name it and there's always a place to go quickly without a relative facing homelessness or that type of situation. 3 hours 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 . She said in the video the 30 year lease was automatically renewable 3x, so 90 years and they paid for those renewal rights when the bought the property. If there was a new landowner they would presumably have to honor that 3x renewal as part of the ownership contract on the land. So if they had a good lawyer it sounds like they are there permanently or 90 years. Edited March 17 by JimTripper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 19 hours ago, NorthernRyland said: 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. That would depend on when the property was bought. If purchased after marriage then it may well be considered as 'Sim Somros' - a marital asset. However, it is very complicated and down to interpretation. In such a case, I think the prosecution's case would be that a house cannot be a marital asset as a foreigner cannot own land. It would be up to the defence to convince a court that they are not seeking ownership, only a share on the financial aspect. To be fair, I have heard of cases where a court has decided that the foreigner is entitled to 50% of a property's value. It remains questionable though. I convinced a Thai court that an item (not a house) was bought with money I held before I was married to my (ex) Thai wife - even though the actual purchase was done after marriage. I provided a certified paper trail of the money's source, showing how long it had been held and that it was transferred into Thailand. Therefore the case was allowed to go ahead with the outcome almost certain as the court ruled that it was up to my (ex) wife to prove otherwise. I cannot be 100% certain of that outcome as my wife (ex) backed down before court and returned the asset but I believe the court made it quite clear. Marital financial disputes can be a nighmare and a lot of things are taken into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celsius Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 what's up with this dumb comment??? Good god, some people really want to sound like experienced know it all long timers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neeranam Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: A foreigner buying a business is the same "crazy" as what? It is not illegal. I meant buying a bar. Most lose money. Actually, nearly all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neeranam Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 8 minutes ago, Celsius said: what's up with this dumb comment??? Good god, some people really want to sound like experienced know it all long timers. Well it wasn't a small fishing village in the 90s. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post MangoKorat Posted March 17 Popular Post Share Posted March 17 17 minutes ago, JimTripper said: She said in the video the 30 year lease was automatically renewable 3x, so 90 years. If there was a new landowner they would presumably have to honor that 3x renewal as part of the ownership contract on the land. So if they had a good lawyer it sounds like they are there permanently to me or 90 years. Nope, this matter has already been decided in the Thai courts. The maximum term of a lease is 30 years. A lease that containing renewals after that period is invalid. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neeranam Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 10 minutes ago, MangoKorat said: To be fair, I have heard of cases where a court has decided that the foreigner is entitled to 50% of a property's value. It remains questionable though. No, it's the law, quite simple There is a fixed fine for it to be sold, or it goes to auction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Neeranam said: No, it's the law, quite simple There is a fixed fine for it to be sold, or it goes to auction. Its not the law actually and its not that simple. Assets held before marriage are normally considered Sin Suan Tua and after marriage - Sin Somros. However, as my case showed an asset purchased after marriage may still be considered Sin Suan Tua. I think you are mixing up the rules on divorce with those relating to property left in a will. Edited March 17 by MangoKorat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 On 3/16/2024 at 11:14 AM, 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. Would you care to show the law that establishes the facts you are claiming please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expat Tom Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 There am MANY MANY other desirable countries in the world for expats to live where it is completely legal for them (us) to own residences other than condos in building with 51% Thai ownership. Many of these other countries actively look for expat retirees rather than hinder them. There are many other countries in the world where expats on retirement visas get DISCOUNTS rather then charged more than citizens. I have been here for over 15 years. I have loved my time in Thailand but am working on my exit strategy. Maybe it is just me but I seem to be less welcome here than in years past. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john donson Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 white devil cannot own land in th thai people with money buy whatever in the rest of the world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neeranam Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 1 hour ago, MangoKorat said: Its not the law actually and its not that simple. Assets held before marriage are normally considered Sin Suan Tua and after marriage - Sin Somros. However, as my case showed an asset purchased after marriage may still be considered Sin Suan Tua. I think you are mixing up the rules on divorce with those relating to property left in a will. Quite possibly confused, thanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, Expat Tom said: There am MANY MANY other desirable countries in the world for expats to live where it is completely legal for them (us) to own residences Yes but is it possible for a foreigner to find a woman 20-30 years younger than themselves in those countries? If not, I'm not interested. I refuse to have a woman with envelope flaps for boobs. 🤣 Edited March 17 by MangoKorat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 21 minutes ago, john donson said: white devil cannot own land in th thai people with money buy whatever in the rest of the world... Thaksin being just one example. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proton Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: Extensions are granted by the IOs who, as competent officials, have discretion about requirements, legally. The don't have discretion on granting extensions for people who do not live in their province, that's strictly illegal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Gknrd Posted March 17 Popular Post Share Posted March 17 Retiree's don't understand or want to under stand the laws of Thailand. They are ripe for the picking. Always amazed at the retiree's that come here and think they are special and it will work for them. They come to a dictatorship run country, in a country that does not want them (only their money). Then expect things will go in their favor.. Coin the phrase: Stupid Farang. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintdomingo Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 6 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: Seems that you don't understand the meaning of "competent official" in the context of Immigration law, nor do you understand that IOs have discretion when it comes to IB regulations. Those who have an extension granting them permission to stay, issued by an Immigration Office, are here legally. For once I agree with you and find you being logical and accurate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presnock Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 11 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: Seems that you don't understand the meaning of "competent official" in the context of Immigration law, nor do you understand that IOs have discretion when it comes to IB regulations. Those who have an extension granting them permission to stay, issued by an Immigration Office, are here legally. What YOU fail to understand is honesty, by using an agent to put up fake monetary accounts for an individual to obtain an extension is still ILLEGAL by any standard. The "competent" IO is only responding to the paperwork provided by the agent. It is still not going by the legal definition of the requirement about monetary accounts. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacko45k Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 22 hours ago, mikebell said: 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. It dropped to 3 I believe, and you would normally split 51% between 2 Thais. They stopped/restricted using employees at the lawyers office at that time too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaoNow Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Just a minor footnote on ex-pat ownership of land in Thailand. When my Thai wife died suddenly in 2011, I went to the local branch (Taling Chan) of the provincial court to arrange probate. I presented all the relevant documents (marriage cert., death cert., household reg., land deeds, waivers from our adult children, etc.) Then a few months later I appeared before 3 judges at the court. I had no lawyer. We just exchanged a few questions and answers and that was that. My name was added to the land deed documents, and the main District Office and District Land Office said that I could sell the land if I chose to. But, I never intended to sell, so that was moot. One oddity though: While I owned the land, I could not own the house which sits on it. Only a Thai citizen can have their name on the House # document and Household Registration book. 'nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaRoadrunner Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 On 3/16/2024 at 4:03 PM, ChipButty said: Im not sure that 30 years lease nonsense has been tested yet, I do know of some villas thinking about it, it has to be around 22 years into the lease, One builder I know says he will renew the lease, He will renew the lease.... at what cost? And if you wanted to sell your house with a short remaining lease, who is going to buy it? What would it be worth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverpool Lou Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 8 hours ago, Presnock said: 19 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: Seems that you don't understand the meaning of "competent official" in the context of Immigration law, nor do you understand that IOs have discretion when it comes to IB regulations. Those who have an extension granting them permission to stay, issued by an Immigration Office, are here legally. What YOU fail to understand is honesty, by using an agent to put up fake monetary accounts for an individual to obtain an extension is still ILLEGAL by any standard. What YOU fail to understand is "discretion". IOs, as competent officials, are granted the authority to use discretion when it comes to issuing extensions, so the exercising of that discretion by IOs is not illegal. It's similar to police officers exercising their discretion, for example, when it comes to ticketing errant motorists, they have the discretion not to prosecute an offence if they choose, that would not make that decision illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverpool Lou Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 14 hours ago, proton said: 20 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: Extensions are granted by the IOs who, as competent officials, have discretion about requirements, legally. The don't have discretion on granting extensions for people who do not live in their province, that's strictly illegal Is it, really? I don't believe that it is "strictly illegal", it is certainly not stated in any section of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverpool Lou Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 18 hours ago, MangoKorat said: 19 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: Seems that you don't understand the meaning of "competent official" in the context of Immigration law, nor do you understand that IOs have discretion when it comes to IB regulations. Those who have an extension granting them permission to stay, issued by an Immigration Office, are here legally. I don't think you have considered all angles in that statement. If it can be proven that money has changed hands to facilitate an I.O.s 'discretion' as you put it, that is corruption and all parties involved can be prosecuted. Unless the extension holder could convince a court that he/she was unaware of the situation (unlikely), they too would wind up in court. The highly likely outcome would be that the foreigner would be ruled complicit and be punished accordingly. Such punishment would almost certainly include revocation of their visa. Do you not remember the fake passport stamps fiasco? "I don't think you have considered all angles in that statement". I don't think that you have considered that there has never been one single case reported of that hypothetical happening so it's not worth considering in view of the massive agent/IO industry that exists, and has existed, for many decades. "Do you not remember the fake passport stamps fiasco?" Yes, I do but using an agent and Immigration does not result in having a "fake stamp". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now