Thai housemaid’s 100 million baht fortune hits a legal snag

[Liverpool Lou]

14 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Yeah, just all her money stolen without her day in court. I like how they waited until she was dead to figure this all out, then take it all in the name of justice.

1)  All her money has not "been stolen", the circumstances are still being investigated, I believe but, even if it does not conclude in the company's favour, it is not being stolen.

2)  Her assets were acquired via an illegally set up company in order to circumvent the laws that prohibits foreigners from owning and profiting from that illegally held land, if she had done it properly initially there would not be this issue now.

3)  Prior to her death there was apparently no reason to investigate the woman's company.

Edited Thursday at 03:16 AM by Liverpool Lou

[Liverpool Lou]

13 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

I like how they waited until she was dead to figure this all out

Why do you like it?

[mdr224]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Why do you like it?

Bizarre that youre spending so much effort defending what doesnt deserve to be defended

[Liverpool Lou]

20 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

25 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Why do you like it?

Bizarre that youre spending so much effort defending what doesnt deserve to be defended

I'm not defending the law that prevents foreigners from owning land, I do not agree with it, but it's bizarre that you don't understand that a law is a law, even if you don't approve of it.    Those banging on about it's perceived unfairness won't change it, neither will it justify the actions of those who break that law in order to profit from their action.

Edited Thursday at 03:38 AM by Liverpool Lou

[mdr224]

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I'm not defending the law that prevents foreigners from owning land, I do not agree with it, but it's bizarre that you don't understand that a law is a law, even if you don't approve of it.    Those banging on about it's perceived unfairness won't change it, neither will it justify the actions of those who break that law in order to profit from their action.

The laws in Thailand serve the rich. They are fluid and change depending on the circumstance 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 minute ago, mdr224 said:

The laws in Thailand serve the rich. They are fluid and change depending on the circumstance 

Really?  Can you give an example of that change in the laws in order to benefit the rich?

[mdr224]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Really?  Can you give an example of that change in the laws in order to benefit the rich?

Are you rich? And do you live in Thailand. Case in point. Youd have to be an absolute moron to even risk it

[off road pat]

On 11/27/2024 at 4:22 AM, TedG said:

Feels like theft.

"Theft" indeed. What about the assets in the bank, the jewelry, etc,...these items are not illegal !!!

[Liverpool Lou]

9 hours ago, mdr224 said:

9 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Really?  Can you give an example of that change in the laws in order to benefit the rich?

Are you rich? And do you live in Thailand. Case in point. Youd have to be an absolute moron to even risk it

I was pretty sure that you would be unable to provide even one example to justify your blatantly false claim that "laws have been changed to benefit the rich".  I was right.  What my affluence and residential location have to do with anything, I do not know, perhaps you could explain?

[Liverpool Lou]

9 hours ago, mdr224 said:

The laws in Thailand serve the rich. They are fluid and change depending on the circumstance 

B0llocks.

[ryandb]

On 11/27/2024 at 1:19 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

Absolutely not.

Inheritance tax is the most disgusting of all taxes, sorry about your dad, you need to find 40% of the figure we place your assets as worth otherwise we will sell it cheap to our friends.

[Tropicalevo]

On 11/28/2024 at 2:48 PM, off road pat said:

"Theft" indeed. What about the assets in the bank, the jewelry, etc,...these items are not illegal !!!

 

This according to Khaosodenglish

 

Quote

As for Pa Tim, she was not investigated in the villa possession case, but she may have rights to other assets, including jewelry from a safe deposit box and bank deposits, as specified in Madame Catherine’s will....

 

อ่านข่าวต้นฉบับได้ที่ : https://www.khaosodenglish.com/featured/2024/11/27/french-womans-thai-maid-loses-inheritance-in-koh-samui-nominee-probe/

[ukrules]

On 11/27/2024 at 1:21 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, if they set it up the way she did with illegal nominees.  If it is set up with legal Thai partners, not designed solely to circumvent the property-owning laws, there will be no concerns.

 

The penalty for such a heinous crime should be a fine of a few thousand baht per year - not confiscation of every Baht the person ever earned.

It's a massive corrupt cash grab and you know it.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

 

The penalty for such a heinous crime should be a fine of a few thousand baht per year - not confiscation of every Baht the person ever earned.

It's a massive corrupt cash grab and you know it.

No, it is not and, no, I do not.  Every baht the person ever earned is not being confiscated, only the assets that she acquired illegally by virtue of her knowingly, illegally, controlling a company of which she was not the majority shareholder.  

[Liverpool Lou]

7 hours ago, ryandb said:

Inheritance tax is the most disgusting of all taxes, sorry about your dad, you need to find 40% of the figure we place your assets as worth otherwise we will sell it cheap to our friends.

"...you need to find 40% of the figure we place your assets as worth otherwise we will sell it cheap to our friends".

Who are you alleging is stating that?  Which country taxes all inheritances at 40% and then confiscates it to sell to cronies if the tax is not paid?

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, ukrules said:

The penalty for such a heinous crime should be a fine of a few thousand baht per year - not confiscation of every Baht the person ever earned

Why just a few thousand baht when her illegal scheme to own/control Thai land benefitted her to the tune of B100m+?

Edited Friday at 12:25 PM by Liverpool Lou

[Peabody]

What's the difference between a legal 51% Thai owned and an illegal 51% Thai owned? Serious question.

[Sydebolle]

I was wondering, how and when they would ensure that the maid will be denied her legal inheritance. 

Thailand at its best; if the official Thailand is like that, then they can "nationalize" tens if not hundreds of thousands of properties as the dinosaurs in the government have not understood yet, that this 49/51 key is total nonsense. 

Not a single person, anywhere on the planet, has been seen rolling up property, stashing it into a suitcase and fly off to faraway lands. If I pay for property I will ensure, that this property remains under my sole control. 

The beauty of the law is, that there is no difference between natural and juristic Thai persons. So, if you create three juristic persons as Limited Partnerships or Company Limited set-ups and ensure, that two of those are shareholding the third one, and do this across all three companies, you have created three 100% Thai-owned juristic persons. Sofar, no law prohibits a foreigner from being a non-resident single signatory director. This structure is what older companies of non-Thai origin use as legal framework. 

For this maid I feel truly sorry; maybe there are some people out there to offer her legal help; the potato is far too hot for the dinosaurs to push it completely through as it would put shockwaves through the entire property-owning non-Thai society and that would be playing with very hot and difficult to control fire. 

But - in closing - of course by co-incidence, some pig somewhere will snap up this inheritance for a fraction of a price at an auction which will run totally behind curtains and out of sight of the public. 

[Tropicalevo]

52 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

The beauty of the law is, that there is no difference between natural and juristic Thai persons. So, if you create three juristic persons as Limited Partnerships or Company Limited set-ups and ensure, that two of those are shareholding the third one, and do this across all three companies, you have created three 100% Thai-owned juristic persons. Sofar, no law prohibits a foreigner from being a non-resident single signatory director. This structure is what older companies of non-Thai origin use as legal framework. 

 

You only need two companies.

When setting them up, the timing is important. ie not at the same time.

Set up Company A with temporary Thai share holders. (Lawyer?)

Set up company B later. Company A is the 100% Thai shareholder of Company B. (Juristic person.)

Then Company B buys the shares from the original temporary Thai shareholders.

Both companies are 100% owned by a Thai juristic person.

Only one director in each company - you. (This rule may have changed.)

[Sydebolle]

3 hours ago, Tropicalevo said:

 

You only need two companies.

When setting them up, the timing is important. ie not at the same time.

Set up Company A with temporary Thai share holders. (Lawyer?)

Set up company B later. Company A is the 100% Thai shareholder of Company B. (Juristic person.)

Then Company B buys the shares from the original temporary Thai shareholders.

Both companies are 100% owned by a Thai juristic person.

Only one director in each company - you. (This rule may have changed.)

 

Well possible, thanks for the update.

As far as the capitalization of companies are concerned, we usually borrowed the money from the "mother company" to the daughters so the latter could financially buy shares in the mother company. We physically flushed money from the mother to the individual daughters and - by purchasing the mother company's shares - the money flowed back to the mother company. Is absolutely legal and there is nothing the commerce goons can moan about it.