Koh Samui Land Prices Take Off

[ClaudeFeller]

I might be unfair but JJ talks like a real estate agent and High Diver is giving more facts.

[mattias33]

I might be unfair but JJ talks like a real estate agent and High Diver is giving more facts.

Thats your oppinion. But as long as nobody is backing up statements its a good old "my daddy is stronger than your daddy"-kindergarden discussion and its getting a bit boring by now, since we seen them in many threads before. All this "facts" must come from somewhere? Why not post some documents that says what the law is? Im sure you or highd. must have such papers since you know the law that good? Or at least you must know where to find them? Or were do you get your facts from? Allthough it sounds to me that you know what you talk about the debate gets more interesting for everybody if your own request (back up statements) is followed.

Btw, i do have the oppinion that you are right. Thats why i myself buy everything in my wifes name (that and the fact that i dont want to be in the taxsystem), but still, back up the statements and take the guess-factor out off the question. Im sure you can do it!

Edited May 11, 2008 by mattias33

[Nirvana]

More and more blabla..

Who is running a Thai company with class A and class B shares together with land registered on the name of th company? And can sb link the legal background (original thai)?

And still how does the ordinary bloke run a company and show its trading plus pay tax on the trading profit do it if he does not want to run a biz in Thailand or lie about doing so and pay tax on non-existent trading profits?

Whatever the law says we al know its actually against the "Spirit of the law", - its a getaround. One day someone might just start applying the law properly and then we will say - OK for the agents as they are long gone but some owners are going to be left owning a sick puppy or worse. It just needs a natinalist govt or for popularist policies after a few Thai's criy foul.

agree , well said.

[gazza44]

Land prices have been steady for pass few years with growth as you would expect for a country developing. I notice many say about no infastructure but thats is not the case now in samui drainage is being done throughout the island and the roads ae being done also the rest of the utilities are perfectly good. Once the island has its own city status away from Suratthani then the monies made on Samui will be re-invested on Samui this is now about to happen. I am a developer on the island and have a plot off land that building has started on and like everyone say's we have chosen to sell under the condo licence for the 49% foreign onership with the remaining 51% being leased. 30 years people say not sure if long enough apart from a very small minority I do ot know many people who buy a house or apartment and keep it for that long wether as a home or investment most people look to better there home change several times during their life and as for investment anyone with any business sense has income for maybe 20 years max then sells the investment with years remaining making a profit I know as that is how it has worked for many of us. I am talking hundreds just in Thailand not just a few people no different in all the people english, european or american that bought in Spain many years ago now recently selling all will say they made money and enjoyed the investment.

I have recently had an offer for my project of 65,million baht and we have only just started building and selling off plan but it is easy to see the profit that can be made this is nearly 100% profit on what i have paid to get to this stage with the land purchase and legal matters and building permits ect and am considering the offer as good business sense 2yrs to get to this stage and could walk away now and make such a profit.

I see written doom and gloom that its not safe my company is set up properly we pay tax yearly after annual audit have work permits for foreign employees and use a law firm that is joint thai and english that are international not just local to the island. Its is as safe as anywhere in the world no one knows whats around the corner as many due to the so called credit crunch have found out. (Credit crunch) a con by banks and governments to kerb spending by us normal folk remember the old saying only the rich get richer.

All legal all safe and the way to do it not look at the so called ways around the law people should do things within the law and then you have no problems Thailand has to allow this as it wants to be part of the democratic world not a regime and do you really thing the big major companies would invest in thailand if it were not safe I dont think so.

[Rooo]

http://www.thailawforum.com/foreignbusines...amendments.html

[ClaudeFeller]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

[Rooo]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

Claude,

Not everyone is a land speculator or developer.Not everyone has a Thai wife.All that I am pointing out to you,is that the amendments to the act have not passed.If you are married to a Thai national & you purchase land & house in their names,what portion do you own?At least with a Thai national partner with a correct set up & structure of Co,I know where I stand. Of course we can argue about usage for life time & so on in marriage situations.

Now if you look at the FBA act,nothing stops you from setting up a co,that purchases the land.The co can set it's own articles of association.Re share holding, please refer to BOI guidlines.

My main point with all my comments are in response to your blanket statement saying forigners cannot own land.I reitarate that I agree as an individual you can't but as a Co you can through your share holding & have a substantial interest.

It goes on & on & on.

[BigC]

as far as the poperty side its dead. business side everything due to a ression round the corner. best start saving money. noticed more shops for rent now. rain don't help

[pliny]

Roo, I don't think anyone is disputing what you are saying about company ownership etc.,etc., but my point which as far as I am aware no one could gainsay is that incorporating a company whose sole purpose is to apportion interest in land and property for one person's exclusive and permanent use is patently a vehicle to circumvent the prohibition on that foreigner owning land in his own right. As such, it would be vulnerable to changes in policy which currently tolerate this loophole and the bottom line may well be a forced sale within 1 year or face seizure.

Sure it's fine if everyone is doing it and because the Thai are making a bundle out of the consequential rise in land prices the cosy notion that it has ' official sanction ' is habitually fostered by vested interests who are only too happy to ramp the market up. But, ultimately, it is the farang who will be missing a chair when the music stops.

[Nirvana]

Roo, I don't think anyone is disputing what you are saying about company ownership etc.,etc., but my point which as far as I am aware no one could gainsay is that incorporating a company whose sole purpose is to apportion interest in land and property for one person's exclusive and permanent use is patently a vehicle to circumvent the prohibition on that foreigner owning land in his own right. As such, it would be vulnerable to changes in policy which currently tolerate this loophole and the bottom line may well be a forced sale within 1 year or face seizure.

Sure it's fine if everyone is doing it and because the Thai are making a bundle out of the consequential rise in land prices the cosy notion that it has ' official sanction ' is habitually fostered by vested interests who are only too happy to ramp the market up. But, ultimately, it is the farang who will be missing a chair when the music stops.

Wholeheartedly agree with the above.

[billymitchell]

It's pretty simple really, it's called preferential voting shares (a director of said company would have those), it's done all over the civilized world, certainly it's not germaine to Thailand. As a director of said company, with preferential voting shares, you control the decisions, financial, etc. of said company. As Roo stated, a properly set up company is perfectly legal in Thailand. The main thing is that it has to show proper capitalization, show a profit and pay taxes on said profit. How your company achieves that is, of course, your own business. There is no current law in Thailand that prevents any of what I have said and I seriously doubt there will be in the future.

that is not realy 100% true...

under thai law a thai company must be at least 51% controled. and not just owned.

the preferential isa hoax devised by some lawyers to give Farrangs a false sens of security. however it does not according to the law and if a forigner is in total controll of a company, under las it is deemd as alien.

for a Thai company to be legit the thai share holders must have voting rights according to the share ownership in the company.

As I said, you may want to revisit that statement, check your regulations, and perhaps take a spelling course, since it was somewhat difficult to decipher your posts.

[simey]

Sometimes the posts on a subject like this seem more split according to personal circumstance - those owning property or profiting from trading property insist it is on the up, those without want to beleive the opposite. There is no doubt that there is a huge investment in the island right now from abroad, a lot of very rich people are banking on the US led recession to make a lot of money. And to those who say the risks are too high to own land/property (ignoring the legal concerns over the word 'own') I'm sure that all the people with foreclosed properties in the dying market that is the US might now be wishing they had taken a risk and bought here, and that market is nowhere near the bottom yet.

[billymitchell]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

Claude,

Not everyone is a land speculator or developer.Not everyone has a Thai wife.All that I am pointing out to you,is that the amendments to the act have not passed.If you are married to a Thai national & you purchase land & house in their names,what portion do you own?At least with a Thai national partner with a correct set up & structure of Co,I know where I stand. Of course we can argue about usage for life time & so on in marriage situations.

Now if you look at the FBA act,nothing stops you from setting up a co,that purchases the land.The co can set it's own articles of association.Re share holding, please refer to BOI guidlines.zing

My main point with all my comments are in response to your blanket statement saying forigners cannot own land.I reitarate that I agree as an individual you can't but as a Co you can through your share holding & have a substantial interest.

It goes on & on & on.

As a "newbie" I only joined in this discussion to support your position, which is BTW, 100 percent correct legally. It's absolutely amazing how much ignorance and disinformation on current Thai law is being given by people like Highdiver, et.al. Personally, I'm out of here, good luck fighting the morons, Roo.

[ClaudeFeller]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

Claude,

Not everyone is a land speculator or developer.Not everyone has a Thai wife.All that I am pointing out to you,is that the amendments to the act have not passed.If you are married to a Thai national & you purchase land & house in their names,what portion do you own?At least with a Thai national partner with a correct set up & structure of Co,I know where I stand. Of course we can argue about usage for life time & so on in marriage situations.

Now if you look at the FBA act,nothing stops you from setting up a co,that purchases the land.The co can set it's own articles of association.Re share holding, please refer to BOI guidlines.zing

My main point with all my comments are in response to your blanket statement saying forigners cannot own land.I reitarate that I agree as an individual you can't but as a Co you can through your share holding & have a substantial interest.

It goes on & on & on.

As a "newbie" I only joined in this discussion to support your position, which is BTW, 100 percent correct legally. It's absolutely amazing how much ignorance and disinformation on current Thai law is being given by people like Highdiver, et.al. Personally, I'm out of here, good luck fighting the morons, Roo.

So you know as a newbie what is 100 % correct? Show us the laws and stop talking about "ignorance and disinformation" until you cannot proove that you are right.

BTW I bought land on a thai owned company in 1997 and already in 2002 I changed ownership to my wife because "rumours" were saying it could be dangerous. If the Samui Land Office has approved some "deals" in the pasttime this does not mean that they were correct, it just means that the Land Office is corrupt from head to foot. And be aware that right now they are investigating on many fake companies...

[mattias33]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

Claude,

Not everyone is a land speculator or developer.Not everyone has a Thai wife.All that I am pointing out to you,is that the amendments to the act have not passed.If you are married to a Thai national & you purchase land & house in their names,what portion do you own?At least with a Thai national partner with a correct set up & structure of Co,I know where I stand. Of course we can argue about usage for life time & so on in marriage situations.

Now if you look at the FBA act,nothing stops you from setting up a co,that purchases the land.The co can set it's own articles of association.Re share holding, please refer to BOI guidlines.zing

My main point with all my comments are in response to your blanket statement saying forigners cannot own land.I reitarate that I agree as an individual you can't but as a Co you can through your share holding & have a substantial interest.

It goes on & on & on.

As a "newbie" I only joined in this discussion to support your position, which is BTW, 100 percent correct legally. It's absolutely amazing how much ignorance and disinformation on current Thai law is being given by people like Highdiver, et.al. Personally, I'm out of here, good luck fighting the morons, Roo.

So you know as a newbie what is 100 % correct? Show us the laws and stop talking about "ignorance and disinformation" until you cannot proove that you are right.

BTW I bought land on a thai owned company in 1997 and already in 2002 I changed ownership to my wife because "rumours" were saying it could be dangerous. If the Samui Land Office has approved some "deals" in the pasttime this does not mean that they were correct, it just means that the Land Office is corrupt from head to foot. And be aware that right now they are investigating on many fake companies...

Claude, why do you feel everybody except you need to provide proof for teir statements? Are you the only one that are aloud to bs without proof? Did i miss that part in the forum-rules?

[jingjaijing]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

Claude,

Not everyone is a land speculator or developer.Not everyone has a Thai wife.All that I am pointing out to you,is that the amendments to the act have not passed.If you are married to a Thai national & you purchase land & house in their names,what portion do you own?At least with a Thai national partner with a correct set up & structure of Co,I know where I stand. Of course we can argue about usage for life time & so on in marriage situations.

Now if you look at the FBA act,nothing stops you from setting up a co,that purchases the land.The co can set it's own articles of association.Re share holding, please refer to BOI guidlines.zing

My main point with all my comments are in response to your blanket statement saying forigners cannot own land.I reitarate that I agree as an individual you can't but as a Co you can through your share holding & have a substantial interest.

It goes on & on & on.

As a "newbie" I only joined in this discussion to support your position, which is BTW, 100 percent correct legally. It's absolutely amazing how much ignorance and disinformation on current Thai law is being given by people like Highdiver, et.al. Personally, I'm out of here, good luck fighting the morons, Roo.

So you know as a newbie what is 100 % correct? Show us the laws and stop talking about "ignorance and disinformation" until you cannot proove that you are right.

BTW I bought land on a thai owned company in 1997 and already in 2002 I changed ownership to my wife because "rumours" were saying it could be dangerous. If the Samui Land Office has approved some "deals" in the pasttime this does not mean that they were correct, it just means that the Land Office is corrupt from head to foot. And be aware that right now they are investigating on many fake companies...

Claude, why do you feel everybody except you need to provide proof for teir statements? Are you the only one that are aloud to bs without proof? Did i miss that part in the forum-rules?

Agreed, again both you and Highdiver at the ones who need provide the proof you say its is unlawful okay then please tell us what law(s) exactly and what part of the law(s). BTW asking me to prove it is not unlawful is illogical and unpraticable, that would be requiring me to "prove a negative" to "prove what is not"...now if there it is true that the Land Code, for instance, says that company that is merely controlled by non-Thais is a non-Thai company, as Highdiver claims, then it ought to be very easy to tell us where exactly it says that...so please do educatue us Claude and Highdiver. However, if you cannot, which you will not be able to without resorting to "spirit of the law" arguments...which BTW makes the actual law pretty meaningless, and when you cannot I hope you both the integrity to admit it here.

[mattias33]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

Claude,

Not everyone is a land speculator or developer.Not everyone has a Thai wife.All that I am pointing out to you,is that the amendments to the act have not passed.If you are married to a Thai national & you purchase land & house in their names,what portion do you own?At least with a Thai national partner with a correct set up & structure of Co,I know where I stand. Of course we can argue about usage for life time & so on in marriage situations.

Now if you look at the FBA act,nothing stops you from setting up a co,that purchases the land.The co can set it's own articles of association.Re share holding, please refer to BOI guidlines.zing

My main point with all my comments are in response to your blanket statement saying forigners cannot own land.I reitarate that I agree as an individual you can't but as a Co you can through your share holding & have a substantial interest.

It goes on & on & on.

As a "newbie" I only joined in this discussion to support your position, which is BTW, 100 percent correct legally. It's absolutely amazing how much ignorance and disinformation on current Thai law is being given by people like Highdiver, et.al. Personally, I'm out of here, good luck fighting the morons, Roo.

So you know as a newbie what is 100 % correct? Show us the laws and stop talking about "ignorance and disinformation" until you cannot proove that you are right.

BTW I bought land on a thai owned company in 1997 and already in 2002 I changed ownership to my wife because "rumours" were saying it could be dangerous. If the Samui Land Office has approved some "deals" in the pasttime this does not mean that they were correct, it just means that the Land Office is corrupt from head to foot. And be aware that right now they are investigating on many fake companies...

Claude, why do you feel everybody except you need to provide proof for teir statements? Are you the only one that are aloud to bs without proof? Did i miss that part in the forum-rules?

Agreed, again both you and Highdiver at the ones who need provide the proof you say its is unlawful okay then please tell us what law(s) exactly and what part of the law(s). BTW asking me to prove it is not unlawful is illogical and unpraticable, that would be requiring me to "prove a negative" to "prove what is not"...now if there it is true that the Land Code, for instance, says that company that is merely controlled by non-Thais is a non-Thai company, as Highdiver claims, then it ought to be very easy to tell us where exactly it says that...so please do educatue us Claude and Highdiver. However, if you cannot, which you will not be able to without resorting to "spirit of the law" arguments...which BTW makes the actual law pretty meaningless, and when you cannot I hope you both the integrity to admit it here.

The normal procedure when it comes to highdiver and claud is they just ad post after post with their "knowledge" but when somebody ask for the links or proof for their "theories" they usually dissapear and thread dies.

Imo both claud and highdiver have worked hard in the Samui forum to become the realestate and law "experts". Always commenting and debating these issues. I Think now its getting time to prove that you know what you talk about.

Challenge:

Highdiver or claud. Next long post you do, provide links/documents that prove you statements.

My guess:

No more comments from claud or highdiver in this thread. But a month from now a new thread comes up and you are back with your "expertis". But i will come back with the same challenge also then.

Fun, aint it?

[Maestro]

A post containing a flame, another post containing libellous slander and the replies to these two posts have been deleted.

--

Maestro

[nod]

It is without a doubt true that foreigners are not allowed to to own land in Thailand. Just get the second line of the Thai National Anthem translated! What will be fascinating is,when the the issue of a foreign controlled Thai company,owning land is ever tested in an International Court of Law. The reason being that, when said company was formed, its setup had to go forward for approval as a "properly constituted Thai Entity. At this point, assuming it was approved, it would have been stamped and approved by an Officer of the Thai Government, and the the fee given and accepted by said Officer of The Thai Government. At the same time, when the land purchase passed through the Land Office for approval it would then have had to have been approved by another Officer of The Thai Government and a fee given and accepted by the said Officer of The Thai Goverment. At the end of the day, these Officers whether they acted correctly or not were appointed by the Thai Government. This will be the issue that will be tested. The result, if it ever happens, will be truly fascinating.

In the UK we have lost "ownership" of much of our Capitol City and millions of square miles of our countryside and towns to foreigners (some of them Thais) but over time, I have comforted myself by the fact that whatever else happens, they cannot put it in a suitcase and take it home with them. It will always be the UK. When that is eventually realised here, maybe people will be able to feel more relaxed about this issue. By the way, if you don't want it to go into foreign hands, start blaming the sellers as well as the buyers!

[billymitchell]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

Claude,

Not everyone is a land speculator or developer.Not everyone has a Thai wife.All that I am pointing out to you,is that the amendments to the act have not passed.If you are married to a Thai national & you purchase land & house in their names,what portion do you own?At least with a Thai national partner with a correct set up & structure of Co,I know where I stand. Of course we can argue about usage for life time & so on in marriage situations.

Now if you look at the FBA act,nothing stops you from setting up a co,that purchases the land.The co can set it's own articles of association.Re share holding, please refer to BOI guidlines.zing

My main point with all my comments are in response to your blanket statement saying forigners cannot own land.I reitarate that I agree as an individual you can't but as a Co you can through your share holding & have a substantial interest.

It goes on & on & on.

As a "newbie" I only joined in this discussion to support your position, which is BTW, 100 percent correct legally. It's absolutely amazing how much ignorance and disinformation on current Thai law is being given by people like Highdiver, et.al. Personally, I'm out of here, good luck fighting the morons, Roo.

So you know as a newbie what is 100 % correct? Show us the laws and stop talking about "ignorance and disinformation" until you cannot proove that you are right.

BTW I bought land on a thai owned company in 1997 and already in 2002 I changed ownership to my wife because "rumours" were saying it could be dangerous. If the Samui Land Office has approved some "deals" in the pasttime this does not mean that they were correct, it just means that the Land Office is corrupt from head to foot. And be aware that right now they are investigating on many fake companies...

OK, I said I was gone from from this discussion, but your I think I need to set this straight. First of all, I am a newbie as to this forum, but hardly a newbie to Thai law or international corporate law. Thai law is readily available to anyone who has half a brain and can read. You and Highdiver should do a little more of that. You two have come down on Roo for merely stating facts about the law, while conveniently providing none of your own to dispute him. Highdiver's points about preferential voting shares in Thailand are so off-base and completely wrong, I don't know where to begin. Please read a little more about Thai law before posting. I can not save you from your ignorance, I can only provide you a lamp. BTW, you should carefully read the previous posters content about the Thai government's acceptibilty of said companies and make your own determination as to their "illegality".

[highdiver]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

Claude,

Not everyone is a land speculator or developer.Not everyone has a Thai wife.All that I am pointing out to you,is that the amendments to the act have not passed.If you are married to a Thai national & you purchase land & house in their names,what portion do you own?At least with a Thai national partner with a correct set up & structure of Co,I know where I stand. Of course we can argue about usage for life time & so on in marriage situations.

Now if you look at the FBA act,nothing stops you from setting up a co,that purchases the land.The co can set it's own articles of association.Re share holding, please refer to BOI guidlines.zing

My main point with all my comments are in response to your blanket statement saying forigners cannot own land.I reitarate that I agree as an individual you can't but as a Co you can through your share holding & have a substantial interest.

It goes on & on & on.

As a "newbie" I only joined in this discussion to support your position, which is BTW, 100 percent correct legally. It's absolutely amazing how much ignorance and disinformation on current Thai law is being given by people like Highdiver, et.al. Personally, I'm out of here, good luck fighting the morons, Roo.

So you know as a newbie what is 100 % correct? Show us the laws and stop talking about "ignorance and disinformation" until you cannot proove that you are right.

BTW I bought land on a thai owned company in 1997 and already in 2002 I changed ownership to my wife because "rumours" were saying it could be dangerous. If the Samui Land Office has approved some "deals" in the pasttime this does not mean that they were correct, it just means that the Land Office is corrupt from head to foot. And be aware that right now they are investigating on many fake companies...

Claude, why do you feel everybody except you need to provide proof for teir statements? Are you the only one that are aloud to bs without proof? Did i miss that part in the forum-rules?

Agreed, again both you and Highdiver at the ones who need provide the proof you say its is unlawful okay then please tell us what law(s) exactly and what part of the law(s). BTW asking me to prove it is not unlawful is illogical and unpraticable, that would be requiring me to "prove a negative" to "prove what is not"...now if there it is true that the Land Code, for instance, says that company that is merely controlled by non-Thais is a non-Thai company, as Highdiver claims, then it ought to be very easy to tell us where exactly it says that...so please do educatue us Claude and Highdiver. However, if you cannot, which you will not be able to without resorting to "spirit of the law" arguments...which BTW makes the actual law pretty meaningless, and when you cannot I hope you both the integrity to admit it here.

The normal procedure when it comes to highdiver and claud is they just ad post after post with their "knowledge" but when somebody ask for the links or proof for their "theories" they usually dissapear and thread dies.

Imo both claud and highdiver have worked hard in the Samui forum to become the realestate and law "experts". Always commenting and debating these issues. I Think now its getting time to prove that you know what you talk about.

Challenge:

Highdiver or claud. Next long post you do, provide links/documents that prove you statements.

My guess:

No more comments from claud or highdiver in this thread. But a month from now a new thread comes up and you are back with your "expertis". But i will come back with the same challenge also then.

Fun, aint it?

Mattias 33

joining us after 3 months...

Its nice to have guests pop in from time to time and share some views

Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. wait.... what is your view??? apart from slandering myself and Claude you did not realy say much did you??

In the past we have discussed this extensively including refrences to the laws and codes that have an impact on the satus of a company and land owning regulations.

I do agree with you that every discussion on real estate at some point or other the issues of land ownership and company legal status will be posted again when some "ignorent poster" who bought land 2 days ago will bring up the same question.

there is no point in referring links and data bases of laws every time this issue is raised specially to those who dont want to read it and dont wish to understand.

if you are inrested in some light readin please read the samuiforsale.com

that should give you some idea how things are not that simple or easy as you may think they are.

[Nirvana]

if you are inrested in some light readin please read the samuiforsale.com

that should give you some idea how things are not that simple or easy as you may think they are.

interesting site . thanks

[highdiver]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

Claude,

Not everyone is a land speculator or developer.Not everyone has a Thai wife.All that I am pointing out to you,is that the amendments to the act have not passed.If you are married to a Thai national & you purchase land & house in their names,what portion do you own?At least with a Thai national partner with a correct set up & structure of Co,I know where I stand. Of course we can argue about usage for life time & so on in marriage situations.

Now if you look at the FBA act,nothing stops you from setting up a co,that purchases the land.The co can set it's own articles of association.Re share holding, please refer to BOI guidlines.zing

My main point with all my comments are in response to your blanket statement saying forigners cannot own land.I reitarate that I agree as an individual you can't but as a Co you can through your share holding & have a substantial interest.

It goes on & on & on.

As a "newbie" I only joined in this discussion to support your position, which is BTW, 100 percent correct legally. It's absolutely amazing how much ignorance and disinformation on current Thai law is being given by people like Highdiver, et.al. Personally, I'm out of here, good luck fighting the morons, Roo.

So you know as a newbie what is 100 % correct? Show us the laws and stop talking about "ignorance and disinformation" until you cannot proove that you are right.

BTW I bought land on a thai owned company in 1997 and already in 2002 I changed ownership to my wife because "rumours" were saying it could be dangerous. If the Samui Land Office has approved some "deals" in the pasttime this does not mean that they were correct, it just means that the Land Office is corrupt from head to foot. And be aware that right now they are investigating on many fake companies...

OK, I said I was gone from from this discussion, but your I think I need to set this straight. First of all, I am a newbie as to this forum, but hardly a newbie to Thai law or international corporate law. Thai law is readily available to anyone who has half a brain and can read. You and Highdiver should do a little more of that. You two have come down on Roo for merely stating facts about the law, while conveniently providing none of your own to dispute him. Highdiver's points about preferential voting shares in Thailand are so off-base and completely wrong, I don't know where to begin. Please read a little more about Thai law before posting. I can not save you from your ignorance, I can only provide you a lamp. BTW, you should carefully read the previous posters content about the Thai government's acceptibilty of said companies and make your own determination as to their "illegality".

1. I never argued with ROO please do read before posting

2. one would expect a little modesty even though you seem to think you know the Thai law...

3. As for reading lets do start wih a little light reading.. and after reading alll the following we can disucss the issue again

the land code sections 94, 96, 97, 98 and referencing 113, 111

the civil code section 66

and at the end of the day since you are not ""new"" to the law then please advise us of your legal position on forigners setting up companies to buy land thus circumventing the law forbidding forigners to own land... is your position that because they set it up using prferntial shares makes it more legal as land ownership applies??

[mattias33]

Roo,

what you want to tell us?

It is "common sense" among the residents here that buying land on a Thai company is pretty dangerous.

Whoever is pretending the opposite has to proove it.

For a farang there is no way to control a company by majority of shares except by running a BOI company. This is the common sense.

Claude,

Not everyone is a land speculator or developer.Not everyone has a Thai wife.All that I am pointing out to you,is that the amendments to the act have not passed.If you are married to a Thai national & you purchase land & house in their names,what portion do you own?At least with a Thai national partner with a correct set up & structure of Co,I know where I stand. Of course we can argue about usage for life time & so on in marriage situations.

Now if you look at the FBA act,nothing stops you from setting up a co,that purchases the land.The co can set it's own articles of association.Re share holding, please refer to BOI guidlines.zing

My main point with all my comments are in response to your blanket statement saying forigners cannot own land.I reitarate that I agree as an individual you can't but as a Co you can through your share holding & have a substantial interest.

It goes on & on & on.

As a "newbie" I only joined in this discussion to support your position, which is BTW, 100 percent correct legally. It's absolutely amazing how much ignorance and disinformation on current Thai law is being given by people like Highdiver, et.al. Personally, I'm out of here, good luck fighting the morons, Roo.

So you know as a newbie what is 100 % correct? Show us the laws and stop talking about "ignorance and disinformation" until you cannot proove that you are right.

BTW I bought land on a thai owned company in 1997 and already in 2002 I changed ownership to my wife because "rumours" were saying it could be dangerous. If the Samui Land Office has approved some "deals" in the pasttime this does not mean that they were correct, it just means that the Land Office is corrupt from head to foot. And be aware that right now they are investigating on many fake companies...

Claude, why do you feel everybody except you need to provide proof for teir statements? Are you the only one that are aloud to bs without proof? Did i miss that part in the forum-rules?

Agreed, again both you and Highdiver at the ones who need provide the proof you say its is unlawful okay then please tell us what law(s) exactly and what part of the law(s). BTW asking me to prove it is not unlawful is illogical and unpraticable, that would be requiring me to "prove a negative" to "prove what is not"...now if there it is true that the Land Code, for instance, says that company that is merely controlled by non-Thais is a non-Thai company, as Highdiver claims, then it ought to be very easy to tell us where exactly it says that...so please do educatue us Claude and Highdiver. However, if you cannot, which you will not be able to without resorting to "spirit of the law" arguments...which BTW makes the actual law pretty meaningless, and when you cannot I hope you both the integrity to admit it here.

The normal procedure when it comes to highdiver and claud is they just ad post after post with their "knowledge" but when somebody ask for the links or proof for their "theories" they usually dissapear and thread dies.

Imo both claud and highdiver have worked hard in the Samui forum to become the realestate and law "experts". Always commenting and debating these issues. I Think now its getting time to prove that you know what you talk about.

Challenge:

Highdiver or claud. Next long post you do, provide links/documents that prove you statements.

My guess:

No more comments from claud or highdiver in this thread. But a month from now a new thread comes up and you are back with your "expertis". But i will come back with the same challenge also then.

Fun, aint it?

Mattias 33

joining us after 3 months...

Its nice to have guests pop in from time to time and share some views

Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. wait.... what is your view??? apart from slandering myself and Claude you did not realy say much did you??

In the past we have discussed this extensively including refrences to the laws and codes that have an impact on the satus of a company and land owning regulations.

I do agree with you that every discussion on real estate at some point or other the issues of land ownership and company legal status will be posted again when some "ignorent poster" who bought land 2 days ago will bring up the same question.

there is no point in referring links and data bases of laws every time this issue is raised specially to those who dont want to read it and dont wish to understand.

if you are inrested in some light readin please read the samuiforsale.com

that should give you some idea how things are not that simple or easy as you may think they are.

Thanks for the nice welcome back! Happy to hear it.

The third post on page 3 is where i give my point of view on the topic "koh samui land prices take off". I will not repeat it. Its there to read if you are interested.

What i did not give my view on is the off topic contest in who no more about thai law and that is for 3 reasons:

Nr 1: Its completely off topic.

Nr 2: Im not qualified to discuss these issues. I dont know thai-law and i have almost no experience in real estate.

Nr 3: Everytime somebody add something in these questions except for you and claude we are either to prove what we speak about or shut-up.

Keep twisting words to make it sound better. To me a guy that always post in these issues like he know the thai-law by heart and is a real expert, but cant bring a single link or a single document to prove his case, not so impressive. Quite honestly i dont think you are the expert you claim to be.

Am i wrong?

[Rooo]

HighDiver,

The one statement I answered to, was Claude stating a foreigner can not own land.My answer was , if you set up a proper Thai co with a Thai national you can.The company does, not you as an individual.

Never mentioned preferential shares.

Now you can answer me this,if I follow the letter of the law,then I own 49% of the said company,which in turn owns the land.Am I correct? Did I say anything wrong?I hence own through the company 49% of the land.Yes or No?Now this is only a hyperthetical example,just trying to get my point across.This is following the letter of the Law.

Protection of your interests,share distribution,voting rights have never been mentioned.

Edited May 14, 2008 by Rooo

[ClaudeFeller]

Yesterday I went for a couple of beers with some developpers from high end market in Phuket. They sell all the Villas under the thai company model. They use proxy shareholders and they have "influential" BKK lawyers. And they know that is not legal.

Roo, what is 49 % ownership? It is less than 51 %. You own nothing with 49 %.

[mattias33]

Yesterday I went for a couple of beers with some developpers from high end market in Phuket. They sell all the Villas under the thai company model. They use proxy shareholders and they have "influential" BKK lawyers. And they know that is not legal.

Roo, what is 49 % ownership? It is less than 51 %. You own nothing with 49 %.

How the f... did i pass engineer-class???? 49 % is Nothing???

Have to take some more math-classes, i missunderstood it all........in my dumbness i thought 49 % was close to half, hahaha, silly me!

Once again thanks to claude for the brilliant education you provide. You are a genius and a true hero. Learn from you every post you make!

[Dingojoe]

Yesterday I went for a couple of beers with some developpers from high end market in Phuket. They sell all the Villas under the thai company model. They use proxy shareholders and they have "influential" BKK lawyers. And they know that is not legal.

Roo, what is 49 % ownership? It is less than 51 %. You own nothing with 49 %.

How the f... did i pass engineer-class???? 49 % is Nothing???

Have to take some more math-classes, i missunderstood it all........in my dumbness i thought 49 % was close to half, hahaha, silly me!

Once again thanks to claude for the brilliant education you provide. You are a genius and a true hero. Learn from you every post you make!

I think what Claude is getting at is that you dont own all the land and you own actualy only own less than half

and in some peoples opinions if you pay the full amount for something and only get to own less than half of it, ( then your a bloody idiot) ohh thats my opinon.

Claudes opinion seems to be that you might as well own none of it, because less than half in actual reality gives you no rights if your other share holders get together a veto everything.

[ClaudeFeller]

Matthias,

why do you think there is a limit of foreign shareholders of less than 50 %? Because it is a Thai company and thus controlled by Thai nationals.

Anyway I just want to clear up for myself about the legal situation. I dont mind if some of us are feeling save with the common procedure.

[mattias33]

Matthias,

why do you think there is a limit of foreign shareholders of less than 50 %? Because it is a Thai company and thus controlled by Thai nationals.

Anyway I just want to clear up for myself about the legal situation. I dont mind if some of us are feeling save with the common procedure.

If you by "nothing" ment the control in the company im with you. Some friends i know are aware that the 7 shareholders that have 51 % have the control if they ever team up, but they just settle with the thought of owning 49 % of something valueble. Personaly i never beleived anybody that claim they are in control when they own 49 %. Even if the other 7 shareholders have less shares each and dont know eachother. I would never do buisness this way, way to risky for me. Thats just a personal view on it and im not claiming anything i say to be facts, i really dont have a clue...