Briton Arrested For Encroaching On Public Land

[sriracha john]

Briton nabbed for encroaching on public land

BANGKOK, March 18 (TNA) - A British businessman was arrested on Tuesday for allegedly encroaching on public land on the southern resort island of Samui, according to a senior officer at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI).

DSI spokesman Pol. Col. Narat Sawetanant said at a press conference on Tuesday that Laurence Daniel James Fay, 32, was to face charges. Mr. Fay is accused of hiring a Thai nominee to run a real estate company.

As founder of Sabai Thani Property Co Ltd, Mr. Fay purchased several plots of public land on Samui Island before constructing a condominium and housing community, according to the spokesman.

Col. Narat added Mr. Fay owned 49 per cent of the company shares, but that he had hired a number of Thai nationals to possess the other remaining 51 per cent of the shares, making him the de facto owner of the company.

DSI will ask the Land Department to revoke the company's ownership, which might affect a large number of Sabai Thani clients, said the DSI spokesman.

If found guilty, the suspect might face a maximum of three years imprisonment.

*If an ever-helpful mod could please modify.... The thread title should read* :

Briton Arrested For Encroaching On Public Land

thank you...

Edited March 19, 2008 by sriracha john

[Scott]

So now there will be one poor Brit and a bunch of rich Thai nominees!

[sriracha john]

I see this goes back to the Bandidos gang operating on Samui...

British 'land developer' arrested

Another member of the Bandidos motorcycle gang, suspected of involvement in the drug trade and money laundering, has been arrested in Koh Samui by the Department of Special Investigation. Pol Col Pravuth Wongsinil said Lauren Daniel James Fray, 32, is a British national and owner of Sabai Thani Property Co. "Mr Fray entered Thailand as a tourist and used loopholes in Thai laws to buy and sell public land and real estate with the assistance of Thai lawyers," he said. A source said Fray held 49% of the company and used the names of employees to hold another 51% stake. He did not put his own money into the company. Fray bought property in Laem Mai Kaen. The DSI found the property belonged to the Treasury Department. Fray divided the land into nine plots. Thais who conspired with him pretended to buy them. Fray sold the sections for 22 million baht each to Sabai Thani in order to allow foreigners to occupy the land and houses as juristic persons. "This caused the state to lose more than 70 million baht in taxes," DSI spokesman Pol Col Narat Sawettanant said. Fray is charged with illegal buying and selling of land.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/19Mar2008_news06.php

[sriracha john]

Will the Briton be the first test case whereby he would be caged by the Prime Minister himself and be put on public display at Sanam Luang????

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1879302

[taxexile]

go to this interesting thread for more facts about sabai thani , this piece of land and the people involved.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...=69299&st=0

many posts on that fascinating thread seem to have been written by people with uncanny foresight.

Edited March 19, 2008 by taxexile

[Thai at Heart]

Briton nabbed for encroaching on public land

BANGKOK, March 18 (TNA) - A British businessman was arrested on Tuesday for allegedly encroaching on public land on the southern resort island of Samui, according to a senior officer at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI).

DSI spokesman Pol. Col. Narat Sawetanant said at a press conference on Tuesday that Laurence Daniel James Fay, 32, was to face charges. Mr. Fay is accused of hiring a Thai nominee to run a real estate company.

As founder of Sabai Thani Property Co Ltd, Mr. Fay purchased several plots of public land on Samui Island before constructing a condominium and housing community, according to the spokesman.

Col. Narat added Mr. Fay owned 49 per cent of the company shares, but that he had hired a number of Thai nationals to possess the other remaining 51 per cent of the shares, making him the de facto owner of the company.

DSI will ask the Land Department to revoke the company's ownership, which might affect a large number of Sabai Thani clients, said the DSI spokesman.

If found guilty, the suspect might face a maximum of three years imprisonment.

*If an ever-helpful mod could please modify.... The thread title should read* :

Briton Arrested For Encroaching On Public Land

thank you...

Under the current law, aren't the nominees supposed to get into trouble for this also?

[haybilly]

So now there will be one poor Brit and a bunch of rich Thai nominees!

I'm sorry to say that I don't feel too sorry for this guy--he's twisted the laws to suit his own ends, as have a whole lot of other ex-pats, and on top of this he's made a dumb mistake --now his house of cards have fallen--I feel sorry for the genuine people who've bought their dream home, or whatever, and now are in a serious predicament.

[xbusman]

Lets hope that the people who purchased property from him have not invested more than they can walk away from CAUSE.... it looks like walkin time...

[cclub75]

That's a perfect illustration of the vicious power of the "legal fog"... that Thai authorities love so much...

How many times I've heard that the Foreign Business Act was irrelevant ? That this law was not enforced ?

Indeed. FBA was and continues to be not enforced... Until.... Until the day one powerfull thai decides to nail you.

Just to remind you also that the most famous thai nominees maker is Mister Thaksin (first with the case of assets concealment in 2001, when he put assets in the name of his mai, chauffeur)... and when he sold his group Shin to Temasek.

But I guess, that doesn't count.

What does count is that a small farang can be nailed, at any time, if necessary.

[BigSnake]

A Greed Brit, I wonder???

[Foggy Bottom]

So far, all the posters missed the most significant part of the OP

Col. Narat added Mr. Fay owned 49 per cent of the company shares, but that he had hired a number of Thai nationals to possess the other remaining 51 per cent of the shares, making him the de facto owner of the company.

If this is the new interpretation of 49% ownership (i.e. de facto ownership) then expect this government to do what Thaksin did with the telecoms industry back in 2001-2 when he reduced the maximum foreign stockholding to 25% (before of course increasing it back o 49% immediately before selling Shin to Temasek).

I think the statement by Col. Narat needs further explanation and clarification - from him or his superiors, and most certainly by someone from the MFA and BOI.

Very worrying as what Fay did regarding shareholding is exactly what the law allows.

Is there a further whipping of farang businesses in the offing?

Edited March 19, 2008 by Gaz Chiangmai

[misterman21]

Hold the bus here! How many peope reading this post have - through a thai liar (sorry lawyer) - set up a company with the same 49/51 structure. The nominees being hired by the lawyer on behalf of the client - as advised by the lawyer.

Doesnt this open a huge can of worms - again! Doesnt bode well for the property market - or am i missing something?

A man walks into a recently complete condo block in Pattaya and says i would like to by a condo. The sales girl advises him that the current ratio of ownership is 49% ferang and 8% thai and the most deserible units are sold. She goes on to advise him that he can not buy one of the remaining less desireable 43% as thais must hold 51%. However, she adds you can still buy by setting up an illegal company which is perfectly normal. The guy walks out shaking his head thinking where is the logic!!

Edited March 19, 2008 by misterman21

[thairookie]

Briton nabbed for encroaching on public land

BANGKOK, March 18 (TNA) - A British businessman was arrested on Tuesday for allegedly encroaching on public land on the southern resort island of Samui, according to a senior officer at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI).

DSI spokesman Pol. Col. Narat Sawetanant said at a press conference on Tuesday that Laurence Daniel James Fay, 32, was to face charges. Mr. Fay is accused of hiring a Thai nominee to run a real estate company.

As founder of Sabai Thani Property Co Ltd, Mr. Fay purchased several plots of public land on Samui Island before constructing a condominium and housing community, according to the spokesman.

Col. Narat added Mr. Fay owned 49 per cent of the company shares, but that he had hired a number of Thai nationals to possess the other remaining 51 per cent of the shares, making him the de facto owner of the company.

DSI will ask the Land Department to revoke the company's ownership, which might affect a large number of Sabai Thani clients, said the DSI spokesman.

If found guilty, the suspect might face a maximum of three years imprisonment.

*If an ever-helpful mod could please modify.... The thread title should read* :

Briton Arrested For Encroaching On Public Land

thank you...

Would be good if you could provide the URL too.

[sriracha john]

http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=3333

[Seneque]

They suddenly realised this 'encroachment' thing AFTER everything was built ....

[Gravelrash]

Didn't i just read here about samui land now being more expensive than phuket? Hmmm, he's enroached on public land so he is arrested, obviously this type of thing has never happened before. And of course no one noticed until the project was finished.

So what will happen to the project? Who will end up owning it?

How has being a 49% owner of a company broken the law? Don't people generally choose who they wish to be involved in business with and choose Thai partners accordingly?

The guy may well be a crook or not, but something sure don't look right here, or it has been poorly announced.

[Flatouthruthefog]

Didn't i just read here about samui land now being more expensive than phuket? Hmmm, he's enroached on public land so he is arrested, obviously this type of thing has never happened before. And of course no one noticed until the project was finished.

So what will happen to the project? Who will end up owning it?

How has being a 49% owner of a company broken the law? Don't people generally choose who they wish to be involved in business with and choose Thai partners accordingly?

The guy may well be a crook or not, but something sure don't look right here, or it has been poorly announced.

Poorly announced, poorly written and poorly thought out all down the line, yes! Firstly it should have been "Arrested for allegedly........." etc etc.

No 1: Arrested not 'nabbed', that horribly trite little word which I suspect comes from the US and conjures up visions of a policeman feeling the collar of someone doing something fairly trivial such as dropping litter. Also, of course, it has fewer letters than 'arrested' and is thus more attractive to the dolts among newspaper headline writers.

No 2 and rather more vital: The man cannot be said to have DONE anything wrong until and unless he is convicted in court! So the (rather cumbersome) word 'allegedly' is vital. Another way of doing this which satisfies the law (and headline writers) is the phrase 'Court told', as in 'Foreigner fleeces condo buyers - court told.' In other words he is accused of this but the court has yet to decide if the allegations are true. The BP and The Nation should also learn these elementary principles of journalism.

Er, I think I'm driving quickly off topic here, down a long cul-de-sac and so will now shut up. Sorry. Carry on.

[dkstoney]

Maybe if they'd just let foreigners own something the foreigners wouldn't have to go through all of this sneakiness.

Screw them if they can't handle the competition.

[dee123]

So now there will be one poor Brit and a bunch of rich Thai nominees!

I'm sorry to say that I don't feel too sorry for this guy--he's twisted the laws to suit his own ends, as have a whole lot of other ex-pats, and on top of this he's made a dumb mistake --now his house of cards have fallen--I feel sorry for the genuine people who've bought their dream home, or whatever, and now are in a serious predicament.

....agree,but again if they knew of the "golden rule"....they will be allright....and the price of the land turned out to be "rent"

[simon43]

I think that his company set-up is probably where he may only have 49% of the shares, but that he has configured the company so that he has more voting rights than the other 51%, thereby being able to control the company. That is illegal AFAIK, since this is a company owning land.....

Simon

[Prakanong]

Maybe if they'd just let foreigners own something the foreigners wouldn't have to go through all of this sneakiness.

Screw them if they can't handle the competition.

Its like many of the law's put in place to protect Thai business from outside business and its not just real estate.

Now you can argue if these law's are good or bad or if they do more harm than good and cite different economic models from Japan to the anglo saxon one all you want.

Thing is its the law now and if foreigners get burned its entirely their own fault - they should know the law, find out from themselves and not from other foreigners who are dishonest.

If you do not like the Thai business law's there is always other area's to operate.

[cclub75]

So far, all the posters missed the most significant part of the OP

Col. Narat added Mr. Fay owned 49 per cent of the company shares, but that he had hired a number of Thai nationals to possess the other remaining 51 per cent of the shares, making him the de facto owner of the company.

If this is the new interpretation of 49% ownership (i.e. de facto ownership) then expect this government to do what Thaksin did with the telecoms industry back in 2001-2 when he reduced the maximum foreign stockholding to 25% (before of course increasing it back o 49% immediately before selling Shin to Temasek).

I think the statement by Col. Narat needs further explanation and clarification - from him or his superiors, and most certainly by someone from the MFA and BOI.

Very worrying as what Fay did regarding shareholding is exactly what the law allows.

Is there a further whipping of farang businesses in the offing?

Several points :

-this "interpretation" is not new. They are talking about it since... october 2006... when they officially launched the process of amending the FBA, with FBA 2, and this idea of "control" (voting rights actually).

The principle is easy : if you have minority shares but that you control the company (nominees and/or dual share system), then FBA 2 provisions shall apply.

Does it make sense ? Yes of course.

Is it good for investor confidence : no of course not. Basic idea : people don't put money into something they do not, can not control. Period.

Everything is explained here.

-We can't say that it's a surprise. Everything is on the cards, in front of us, since a long time.

-this issue has nothing to do with the BOI.

-we have to repeat that foreigners can own 100 % of a company... provided that the business of this company is not listed on the List 1, 2 and 3 of the Foreign Business Act.

-So to summarize : you want to create a factory that produces cars or Mickey Mouse glasses : you can, no problem, and you can even ask for BOI privileges too.

You want to create a company to manage a restaurant, a retail shop, or to... own land... you can't own more than 49 %. Period. You will have to use nominees (illegal) and/or dual share system (legal) that will give you the control over the company.

It's to close this "loophole" of the dual share system that some powerfull thai people try like crazy to amend FBA with FBA 2.

At the end of the day, this power play has of course nothing to do with national interest : it's just to protect thai businesses and keep foreigners at bay from the services businesses (the famous List 3 of FBA).

That's the core of the issue. Everybody understand that foreigners can't operate a weapons, a media or mining companies in Thailand (list 1 and 2). The issue (the real money) is the services. The list 3. The most lucrative.

Last point : because thai authorities love the "legal fog", because they use it as a leverage, you can read on the FBA that a foreigner can't own a List 3 business. Forbidden. “unless permitted by the Director-General with the approval of the Committee.”

You can "ask" for a licence... Isn't that beautifull ?

That's the trick : Thailand can officially say "our services area is indeed open to foreigners"... but in fact no.

[Foggy Bottom]

cclub75

I hear what you are saying and agree (mostly) - I've been one of the "lone voices" for years saying that foreigners could own 100% of their business provided it was off the FBA (and before that the ABL) lists, and not in the Royal Decree list.

However this is going beyond FBA2 - it's not about voting rights or otherwise in the share structure

Col. Bignut (or whatever his name was) was making a statement about the straight position that 49% shareholding is de facto ownership - now anyone with the slightest element of maths or business education knows that 49% is NOT majority and therefore cannot be controlling - yet that is what he said (and without reference to voting rights, preferential shares etc).

I do not believe for one moment that Col Nutcase examined the corporate share structure before making his pronouncement.

What I believe he did was make an emotive nationalistic sound-bite for the media, one that he knew would appeal to every King & Country loving Thai, and which after being bandied around over a few LaoKhao's will enter Thai lore as law in the popular mindset. Down the road, that will cause issues for more than a few foreigners.

Compare it to the lore that Thai women married to foreigners are forbidden to buy additional land in their own name - there is zero basis for it in law, and several years ago on Thai TV Channel 11's English language late night news, the head of the Thai Land Agency stated this categorically in a lengthy interview. In fact, he repeated it several times and confessed that the prohibition was one of cultural adoption based on rumour and prejudice amongst his staff. Lore, not law.

Col. Empty Coconut's pronouncement is already doing the rounds here in Chiangmai (amongst the Thais) and I've already heard from one non-service business owner that they were asked by their staff what percentage of they shares they own, and if they control the company because of that - such questioning is far more likely amongst non-service businesses because of the level of qualifications of the admin and office staff in factories etc. The worrying implication behind the question (for him) was the extremely subtle hint that he was on a sticky wicket if the Thai shareholders ganged up on him - implied with a knowing smile of course.

Beware of the lore - it'll get you before the law does.

[quiksilva]

I don't recommend company structures to anyone, but the main point here is that this guy has stretched the points of tolerance a little too far. This is not a guy getting kicked out of his house.

He used the company structure to own land for development purposes, a List 1 restricted business. Then he went ahead and developed a condominium tower and a housing estate, on public land.

He was asking for trouble.

Edited March 20, 2008 by quiksilva

[A_Traveller]

Not wishing to derail the 49/51 percent argument too far, but in many jurisdictions, a single holder of 25% or more would, in legal effect, be viewed as holding a controlling interest, and be reasonably described as 'de-facto' owner. There have been under the radar legal discussions here, in part engendered by FBA 2 et al, that the 7 sponsors requirement, {which is to be changed to 3} leads to an anomalous position. Since the 6 'others' may have 51% between them, the, often, single holder of 49% could {and many argue should} be viewed as the controlling stakeholder, with concomitant issues for legal treatment.

Regards

PS I'd also take the view that those who choose to own a single dwelling through the company route have less to be concerned about than the subject of this thread.

Edited March 20, 2008 by A_Traveller

[taxexile]

not only is he allegedly involved with the Bandidos

if you have ever seen mr.fay , it would be hard to imagine him as a bandido member.

when i met him he looked just liked hed stepped out of a city of london accountants office , charcoal flannel trousers , black polished brogues , and long sleeved white shirt and a plumpish roly poly look to him.

when the bandidos were out getting their tattoos , mr. fay was either helping his mum with the shopping or at choir practice !

but appearances can be very deceptive.

had a bright red 60's classic corvette i seem to remember.

seemed a decent enough chap.

the project sales were managed by martellos , a reputable international development company.

i suspect greed , dark forces and invisible hands are what brought this upon him , rather than a flagrant disregard for the law , and it will be "the lore" that breaks him as gazcm puts it.

Edited March 20, 2008 by taxexile

[Foggy Bottom]

Traveller - the 25% rule is a stock market condition for publicly listed corporates - once a single shareholder acquires (in the UK I think it's 20%) of the stock, they have to declare if they'll be making a takeover bid or lose the right to do so for X years.

If you take a high profile company and household name - in this case I'll use eBay as I have the figures to hand - the founder and original creator, Pierre Omidyar, retains a 25% stake in the company but continually declares he has no intention of running the company or influencing the management of it, therefore he is not a defacto controller or owner under stock market rules.

Obviously in cases like Richard Branson and Virgin, or Bill Gates and Microsoft (whose stake ratios I don't have) they are popularly held as the company owners even though its possible they now have only minor stockholdings, however in their cases as global names, the brand and the person are inseperable to the public mindset.

In a case like Fay's - Who? - that type of public perception is not applicable

Col big fish in a little pond, should be reprimanded for his comment - it was out of order for such a "high" ranking official - and unqualified, which leads to distortion of public understanding.

[taxexile]

Sure, he, like many, many other foreigners operating in this country illegally or even in a grey area thought he'd never get caught or punished, but that doesn't make what he was doing any less legal nor does it make it the fault of the Thais for bringing him to heel.

agreed.

[Japhrodisiac]

There do appear to be dark forces at play. Remember the fate of the previous 3 "Bandidos" members arrested? One was released quickly, as there was no evidence to hold him, one was released after 17 months in prison, due to lack of evidence, and one was found guilty to a lesser charge, after 17 months in prison pending trial. There are a few things that I know, and many that I do not, but consider that :

- The land was originally purchased from a Bank (I think it was Siam Commercial Bank...?)

- The development is several years old, with owners living full time on the estate

- The nice chap who lodged the complaint that led to the arrest of the previous 3 "gang members" fled the country

- The nice chap who lodged the complaint that led to the arrest of the previous 3 "gang members" made a list of dozens of people that were allegedly involved in criminal activity on the island and gave this list to the DSI

- Laurence Fay was not only named on the list, but took it upon himself to take the lead in clearing the air about what a load of hogwash this all was - accusations without evidence, naming all sorts of normal, upstanding people and then the accusor just ran away, he never showed up in court to support his testimony

- Thus, he may have targeted himself as the prime suspect in a huge potential loss of face for the DSI

- He was arrested

[taxexile]

and one was found guilty to a lesser charge, after 17 months in prison pending trial

was that Kim Lindegaard Nielsen ?

is he still around or was he deported back to scandinavia on his release to face charges there?