Just been looking into this proxy, fake Thai ownership malarky and wondered how far it could go.

There's 'talk' of luxury villa ownership being investigated after all these businesses have been closed down and land and property could possibly be seized.

I was thinking I'm safe......everything is in my Thai wife's name anyway......house, farmland, bar, restaurant........my name doesn't appear on any documents.

I asked Siam Legal to give some assurances and they said ................."unless your wife has evidence of previous earnings, inheritance, lottery win even, that show the funds to purchase came from her and not me, then the property is technically still at risk of seizure.

Hand on heart, I don't see anything coming of it, but it makes you realise how fragile things could become with Anutin running riot

13 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

."unless your wife has evidence of previous earnings, inheritance, lottery win even, that show the funds to purchase came from her and not me

Perhaps it's best not to get married.

Never been married in Thailand, all property in kids names. 😊

Edited June 22Jun 22 by SAFETY FIRST

2 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Perhaps it's best not to get married.

Never been married in Thailand, all property in kids names. 😊

As it happens I've kept all my wife's P60s, wage slips, NI records, P45 etc.........but if push turns to shove, I imagine some might find themselves in quite a predicament.

13 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

I was thinking I'm safe......everything is in my Thai wife's name anyway......house, farmland, bar, restaurant........my name doesn't appear on any documents.

I asked Siam Legal to give some assurances and they said ................."unless your wife has evidence of previous earnings, inheritance, lottery win even, that show the funds to purchase came from her and not me, then the property is technically still at risk of seizure.

Same with me, name doesn't appear anywhere, and signed doc at land office, of all her money for land purchases.

She has previous employment record of over a decade, and family well off, so source of finances wouldn't be an issue. And technically, all funds were from her, after I sold the first house, built with previous wife.

Wasn't even married to current wife when she bought land & contracted our previous house, which profits from, financed current assets, she holds. So no worries here. I'm just along for the ride.

I know more than a few, that if peeked at, their home and business ownership would be questionable.

Edited June 22Jun 22 by KhunLA

Depends how far the authorities want to go, it's a quasi looting going on which is probably addictive so may keep going until wealth has gone to the Thais involved

6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Same with me, name doesn't appear anywhere, and signed doc at land office, of all her money for land purchases.

She has previous employment record of over a decade, and family well off, so source of finances wouldn't be an issue. And technically, all funds were from her, after I sold the first house, built with previous wife.

Wasn't even married to current wife when she bought land & contracted our previous house, which profits from, financed current assets, she holds. So no worries here. I'm just along for the ride.

I know more than a few, that if peeked at, their home and business ownership would be questionable.

Yes, my thoughts exactly.......I can't imagine a purge would get down to our/my level........but it just might in certain areas, or if someone upsets the wrong person!

17 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Just been looking into this proxy, fake Thai ownership malarky and wondered how far it could go.

There's 'talk' of luxury villa ownership being investigated after all these businesses have been closed down and land and property could possibly be seized.

I was thinking I'm safe......everything is in my Thai wife's name anyway......house, farmland, bar, restaurant........my name doesn't appear on any documents.

I asked Siam Legal to give some assurances and they said ................."unless your wife has evidence of previous earnings, inheritance, lottery win even, that show the funds to purchase came from her and not me, then the property is technically still at risk of seizure.

Hand on heart, I don't see anything coming of it, but it makes you realise how fragile things could become with Anutin running riot

So what is really at risk?

Is everything owned by your wife personally, or by a Thai company? That makes a difference. From what I understand, they are mainly going after nominee structures where Thai names are used as fronts for foreign control. Fake shareholders, professional fixers, land holding companies, and businesses set up mainly to bypass foreign ownership rules.

If your wife genuinely owns and controls it, or if the company is a real Thai business with proper accounts, tax records, and real activity, I would not lose sleep over it. But if it is only a paper company holding land for a foreigner, that is exactly the kind of thing they are looking at now.

5 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Depends how far the authorities want to go, it's a quasi looting going on which is probably addictive so may keep going until wealth has gone to the Thais involved

With Anutin running the show he might really push this, especially if he sees a ground swell of support from the voters.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

So what is really at risk?

Is everything owned by your wife personally, or by a Thai company? That makes a difference. From what I understand, they are mainly going after nominee structures where Thai names are used as fronts for foreign control. Fake shareholders, professional fixers, land holding companies, and businesses set up mainly to bypass foreign ownership rules.

If your wife genuinely owns and controls it, or if the company is a real Thai business with proper accounts, tax records, and real activity, I would not lose sleep over it. But if it is only a paper company holding land for a foreigner, that is exactly the kind of thing they are looking at now.

No company structure involved for us, this just about where the funds originally come from.

My wife had to signed the Sin Suan Tua form (I thnk)

Under the current law, if it can be shown that even if the purchase was made in a Thai's name, but the funds came from a non-Thai.........there could be repercussions.

3 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

No company structure involved for us, this just about where the funds originally come from.

My wife had to signed the Sin Suan Tua form (I thnk)

Under the current law, if it can be shown that even if the purchase was made in a Thai's name, but the funds came from a non-Thai.........there could be repercussions.

Then I would not lose sleep over it. No company structure, no fake shareholders, no third party setup, and no nominee arrangement.

It is in your wife’s name, signed as her separate property, and that is the structure Thailand itself allows. Money inside a marriage is often family money. Unless there is some hidden agreement showing she is only holding it for you, I would not make the lawyer fear bigger than the reality.

30 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Under the current law, if it can be shown that even if the purchase was made in a Thai's name, but the funds came from a non-Thai.........there could be repercussions.

The land I build my house on is in Thai name, not my wife as I'm not married.

Contract was made up by a lawyer, which states that I loaned the money for the purchase, and the mortgage is registered at the land office, and noted on the back of the Chanote.

The house is in my name, with building licence in my name, and I have a 3 year lease on the land.

Leases of less than 3 year do not require registration, and can legally auto-renew.

42 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

With Anutin running the show he might really push this, especially if he sees a ground swell of support from the voters.

What he doesn't realise is people will stop investing costing thousands of thai jobs

30 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Then I would not lose sleep over it. No company structure, no fake shareholders, no third party setup, and no nominee arrangement.

It is in your wife’s name, signed as her separate property, and that is the structure Thailand itself allows. Money inside a marriage is often family money. Unless there is some hidden agreement showing she is only holding it for you, I would not make the lawyer fear bigger than the reality.

No, apparently if it's in the wife's name but funds come from elsewhere i.e the farang there could be an issue, read it on facebook earlier so must be true

My cleaner told me last week that a friend / customer farang transferred his house to her, panic has started

45 minutes ago, Hummin said:

So what is really at risk?

Is everything owned by your wife personally, or by a Thai company? That makes a difference. From what I understand, they are mainly going after nominee structures where Thai names are used as fronts for foreign control. Fake shareholders, professional fixers, land holding companies, and businesses set up mainly to bypass foreign ownership rules.

If your wife genuinely owns and controls it, or if the company is a real Thai business with proper accounts, tax records, and real activity, I would not lose sleep over it. But if it is only a paper company holding land for a foreigner, that is exactly the kind of thing they are looking at now.

Exactly and the OP should probably get a second opinion.

The letter of confirmation signed at the Land Office at purchase is required when a Thai is married to a foreigner. It basically states the property is "her" property. Doesn't matter where the funds came from. It is completely legal and the property is owned 100% by her.

47 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Then I would not lose sleep over it. No company structure, no fake shareholders, no third party setup, and no nominee arrangement.

It is in your wife’s name, signed as her separate property, and that is the structure Thailand itself allows. Money inside a marriage is often family money. Unless there is some hidden agreement showing she is only holding it for you, I would not make the lawyer fear bigger than the reality.

No...not in this case....the land, property must be bought with Thai money.....it what she signs for re the Sin Suan Tua.

As I say....I doubt anything will come of it, but legally the threat remains if foreign money is seen as the source of a purchase.

25 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

What he doesn't realise is people will stop investing costing thousands of thai jobs

Absolutely...and I think that will put the brakes on the whole thing.....it will then be applied selectively as seen fit by the authorities.

15 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

No, apparently if it's in the wife's name but funds come from elsewhere i.e the farang there could be an issue, read it on facebook earlier so must be true

I would not believe everything on Facebook. There is a legal issue if the Thai person is only a front for foreign ownership. Fake owner, fake marriage, fake company, hidden agreement, that is different.

I asked AI to make a search based on your claims:

I found examples of enforcement, but not a clear public example where a genuine Thai wife in a real marriage lost land only because the husband helped fund it.

What I found points to three different things:

1. Real crackdown examples are mostly nominee/company cases. Recent reports describe Thai authorities targeting companies where foreigners allegedly used Thai nominees or dummy shareholders to control land, villas, hotels, tourism businesses, cannabis farms, and similar structures. One report says companies were linked to foreigners who falsely listed Thai nominees as majority owners.

2. Thai spouse ownership is legally allowed, but the Land Office wants the land treated as the Thai spouse’s personal property, not joint marital property. That is where the Sin Suan Tua form comes in. The Thai spouse can own land, but the foreign spouse normally signs away any claim to the land.

3. There are court examples about foreign funded land in a Thai spouse’s name being treated as marital property for reimbursement or divorce value, but that is not the same as the state seizing land from a real wife because the foreign husband paid.

So his Facebook claim has a legal seed, but it sounds exaggerated. The real danger is if the wife is only a front, the marriage is fake, or there is some hidden agreement showing the foreigner is the real owner. A normal marriage, family money, land in wife’s name, and no nominee structure is a different situation.

16 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

My cleaner told me last week that a friend / customer farang transferred his house to her, panic has started

Seriously....or are you poking fun?

8 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

No...not in this case....the land, property must be bought with Thai money.....it what she signs for re the Sin Suan Tua.

As I say....I doubt anything will come of it, but legally the threat remains if foreign money is seen as the source of a purchase.

I understand the point, but I think you are stretching the practical risk.

The Sin Suan Tua form is there to confirm the land is your wife’s personal property, not joint marital property you can claim later. That is different from saying every Thai wife is at risk because family money helped buy a home. Again, the real issue is still hidden foreign ownership. If there is a fake owner, fake marriage, nominee company, or hidden agreement showing she only holds it for you, that is different.

I stress this because I know many are in the same situation as you. I am not registered married in Thailand, so I have no personal feelings about it. But for those who are in the exact situation as you, I would say the fear is exaggerated, and there is no need to lose sleep at night over a government takedown.

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I would not believe everything on Facebook. There is a legal issue if the Thai person is only a front for foreign ownership. Fake owner, fake marriage, fake company, hidden agreement, that is different.

I asked AI to make a search based on your claims:

I found examples of enforcement, but not a clear public example where a genuine Thai wife in a real marriage lost land only because the husband helped fund it.

What I found points to three different things:

1. Real crackdown examples are mostly nominee/company cases. Recent reports describe Thai authorities targeting companies where foreigners allegedly used Thai nominees or dummy shareholders to control land, villas, hotels, tourism businesses, cannabis farms, and similar structures. One report says companies were linked to foreigners who falsely listed Thai nominees as majority owners.

2. Thai spouse ownership is legally allowed, but the Land Office wants the land treated as the Thai spouse’s personal property, not joint marital property. That is where the Sin Suan Tua form comes in. The Thai spouse can own land, but the foreign spouse normally signs away any claim to the land.

3. There are court examples about foreign funded land in a Thai spouse’s name being treated as marital property for reimbursement or divorce value, but that is not the same as the state seizing land from a real wife because the foreign husband paid.

So his Facebook claim has a legal seed, but it sounds exaggerated. The real danger is if the wife is only a front, the marriage is fake, or there is some hidden agreement showing the foreigner is the real owner. A normal marriage, family money, land in wife’s name, and no nominee structure is a different situation.

"So his Facebook claim has a legal seed"................that is the point of the post to be honest.

I'm sure you have been here long enough to know Thai laws are at best a rough guide.

If Anutin wants to, he has the seed. He might not use it, might apply wholesale or......I think....selectively, to sort out specific 'problems'.

7 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

No...not in this case....the land, property must be bought with Thai money.....it what she signs for re the Sin Suan Tua.

As I say....I doubt anything will come of it, but legally the threat remains if foreign money is seen as the source of a purchase.

It is her money. You sent her the money and she bought the property with her money. It isn't complicated and it is 100% legal. Now if there is a second agreement stipulating that she is required to split the proceeds in any manner with you upon selling the property, the transaction is illegal.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

I understand the point, but I think you are stretching the practical risk.

The Sin Suan Tua form is there to confirm the land is your wife’s personal property, not joint marital property you can claim later. That is different from saying every Thai wife is at risk because family money helped buy a home. Again, the real issue is still hidden foreign ownership. If there is a fake owner, fake marriage, nominee company, or hidden agreement showing she only holds it for you, that is different.

I stress this because I know many are in the same situation as you. I am not registered married in Thailand, so I have no personal feelings about it. But for those who are in the exact situation as you, I would say the fear is exaggerated, and there is no need to lose sleep at night over a government takedown.

I agree.....if I were a beating man I'd say it will come to nothing.....but as your own research shows.....the seed is there.

23 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

My cleaner told me last week that a friend / customer farang transferred his house to her, panic has started

And for what reason did her client transfer it? You cannot trust every story or every reason given second hand.

If I believed everything a Western expat or a Thai woman told me, where would that leave me? I would never have done anything in Thailand. Zero, nothing. I would have lived alone in a rented condo, if I ever made a move to Thailand at all.

11 minutes ago, atpeace said:

It is her money. You sent her the money and she bought the property with her money. It isn't complicated and it is 100% legal. Now if there is a second agreement stipulating that she is required to split the proceeds in any manner with you upon selling the property, the transaction is illegal.

The law requires that land purchased by a Thai national married to a foreigner must be that Thai person's personal property (Sin Suan Tua). The "Letter of Confirmation" you sign at the Land Office is a formal legal statement that the money is not yours and that you have no claim to it.

If the authorities decide to investigate—and they find proof that the funds actually originated from your foreign bank account—you have effectively made a false declaration to a government official.

9 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

I agree.....if I were a beating man I'd say it will come to nothing.....but as your own research shows.....the seed is there.

Enough to understand the concern, not enough to lose sleep over it.

2 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

The law requires that land purchased by a Thai national married to a foreigner must be that Thai person's personal property (Sin Suan Tua). The "Letter of Confirmation" you sign at the Land Office is a formal legal statement that the money is not yours and that you have no claim to it.

If the authorities decide to investigate—and they find proof that the funds actually originated from your foreign bank account—you have effectively made a false declaration to a government official.

NO, it can be your money as long as it was gifted to your wife. It really isn't complicated.

The Sin Suan Tua you mentioned above is confirmation that it isn't joint marital property. Who is telling you this?

Below is how it is handled legally:

The Mandatory Process: The "Letter of Confirmation"

When your wife goes to register the land title, both of you must sign an official Land Department document called a Letter of Confirmation.

By signing this, you and your wife jointly declare under oath that:

• The money used to buy the property belongs exclusively to your wife as her personal asset (Sin Suan Tua).

• The money is not joint marital property (Sin Somros).

• You, the foreign spouse, have no legal or beneficial claim to the land.

Because you are declaring the funds are completely hers, transferring the money to her account to make the purchase fits cleanly within this legal framework.

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Enough to understand the concern, not enough to lose sleep over it.

I'm certainly not losing any sleep as I'm the the freeloader......my wife worked for the British MoD for 13 years, paid for everything we have and has, as they say, all the receipts.

11 minutes ago, atpeace said:

NO, it can be your money as long as it was gifted to your wife. It really isn't complicated.

The Sin Suan Tua you mentioned above is confirmation that it isn't joint marital property. Who is telling you this?

Below is how it is handled legally:

The Mandatory Process: The "Letter of Confirmation"

When your wife goes to register the land title, both of you must sign an official Land Department document called a Letter of Confirmation.

By signing this, you and your wife jointly declare under oath that:

• The money used to buy the property belongs exclusively to your wife as her personal asset (Sin Suan Tua).

• The money is not joint marital property (Sin Somros).

• You, the foreign spouse, have no legal or beneficial claim to the land.

Because you are declaring the funds are completely hers, transferring the money to her account to make the purchase fits cleanly within this legal framework.

This is the "million-baht question" for many foreign-Thai couples. In 2026, with the government’s heightened focus on nominee structures and illegal landholding, the authorities are looking closer at the "money trail.

Whilst the system has always recognised this transfer of wealth as being within the family the authorities could argue that your wife is acting as a "nominee" to bypass the prohibition against foreigners owning land. Even though you are married, if they classify it as a nominee arrangement rather than a legitimate purchase by a Thai spouse, it becomes an illegal landholding under the Land Code.

So this isn't about what has always been the case, what the precedent has been, what people understand the situation to be............it's about Anutin and how the Thai authorities may try to interpret the law to their own ends.

Ultimately I think it will be kept as surgical intervention against specific individuals rather than a sweeping action taken against ordinary folk.

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

The land I build my house on is in Thai name, not my wife as I'm not married.

Contract was made up by a lawyer, which states that I loaned the money for the purchase, and the mortgage is registered at the land office, and noted on the back of the Chanote.

The house is in my name, with building licence in my name, and I have a 3 year lease on the land.

Leases of less than 3 year do not require registration, and can legally auto-renew.

That works just make sure you don't forget to be super friendly at the end of year 3. I just figured I would not worry about legal rights and give her the property if the marriage ended. Makes budgeting for the future less questionable.