So, You Want To Own Property (land) In Thailand?

[ThaiLawOnline]

This article was written 3 years ago (according to the author) by William Jarvis. I've never met him, I don't have any business with him, I believe he doesn't live in Thailand anymore but this article is quite good and I wanted to post it here because so much is said... and often it's not accurate.

This article doesn't talk about superficies. I would disagree on the section about usufructs when it says "let's wait and see". It was written 3 years ago, usufructs have been tested in Court, and it's inside the Thai commercial and civil since it's adoption (I believe). It's not a "hot topic". Maybe it was under Thai law because it was new to use it... but it's there, and very old in civil and roman law. Easemen would be what we call in Civil law: servitudes or other real rights.

I believe this article is a very nice summary of the situation concerning property in Thailand for foreigners, with the exceptions of Condominiums. This is about LAND. I could also add that the law about companies will change on First of July 2008 and only 3 shareholders will be needed. The right of habitation mentionned in this article is normally restricted to the house, which makes a usufruct more attracted.

However, it's one of the best article I've seen written in English about property (land) in Thailand. It is NOT my work and William can be seen on this forum sometimes....

Sebastian.

=====================================

So you want to own property in Thailand?

* Note: the following is intend only to provide the reader with an overview of the issues that need to be considered when buying property (read "land") in Thailand; it is not intended to be a comprehensive guide, nor is it intended to constitute legal advice. In the event that you are contemplating buying property in Thailand, it is strongly recommended you seek the advice of a reputable lawyer in Thailand.

At some point or another, nearly every foreigner who makes the decision to live in Thailand long-term will consider whether or not to buy property here. However, unlike [likely] the case in their home country, a quick search of Google will show that purchasing property in Thailand is nothing if not fraught with risk. The following is intended as a brief Guide providing an overview of the issues at-hand for just such a group of foreigners.

Section 86 of the Land Code

In effect, Section 86 of the Land Code 1954 ("Land Code") places a general prohibition on foreigners owning land in Thailand by providing, inter alia, that:

"aliens may acquire land [in Thailand] by virtue of the provisions of a treat giving the right to own immovable properties* and subject to the provisions of this Code."

[* note: By virtue of Section 139 of the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand ("CCC"), "immovable properties" denotes "land or things fixed to, or forming a body with, land"]

As, currently, there is no "provisions of a treaty" in place "giving [foreigners] the right to own immovable properties"; foreigners are generally not permitted to own land, unless (i) the provisions of the Land Code afford others; or (ii) other specific Thai law is in place which affords foreigners this right.

Having said that there is a general prohibition on foreigners owning land in Thailand, by virtue of the aforementioned Land Code and other specific Thai law in place, foreigners may acquire and own land in Thailand in any one or more of the following three (3) circumstances:

1 Section 96 bis of the Land Code

Enacted in 2002 by virtue of the Ministerial Regulations Governing Bases, Procedures and Conditions Respecting Acquirement of Land for Use as a Residence of Aliens (2002), Section 96 bis of the Land Code permits a foreigner to acquire and own land in Thailand, with the following conditions:

( a ) the aggregate area of land purchased cannot be more than 1 Rai (equivalent to approximately 1,600 sq. meters)

( b )the foreigner must import into Thailand a sum of not less than Baht 40 million

( c )the Baht 40 million imported into Thailand must be invested in any one or more of the following investments for a period of not less than 5 years:

(i) government bonds, bonds issued by the Ministry of Finance which secure capital or interest, Bank of Thailand bonds, and/or bonds issued by Thai State Enterprises (as defined under the State Enterprises Act)

(ii) a property mutual fund or mutual fund for resolving the financial problems of financial institutions under the laws and regulations set out by the Stock Exchange of Thailand

(iii) the share capital of either a private or public company that has been afford investment promotion privileges

(iv) any investment declared an eligible investment by the Board of Investment

( d ) permission must be sought, and be given, by the Minster of Interior.

Moreover, in addition to the above, it is important to note the following:

(i) the investment of Baht 40 million does not include the amount you will pay as the purchase price of the property, nor any repairs/upgrades you make to the property;

(ii) the property purchased must be used for your own, or your family's, residential purposes

(iii) the property cannot be used in a manner deemed contrary to the good morals and local custom of the people of Thailand, e.g. you cannot use the property as a casino

(iv) if the Minster of Interior gives you his consent to purchase the property, you (or your family) must take up residence in the property within a period of 2 years from the date on which you register ownership of the land

If you fail to abide by any of these requirements, you will be required to sell the land within a period of not less than 180 days nor more than 1 year; failing which, the Director-General of the Department of Land has the power to sell the property on your behalf.

2 Section 93 of the Land Code

Section 93 of the Land Code permits foreigners to own land in Thailand in the event that they acquire the ownership of such land by virtue of being the lawful heir to an estate. Nevertheless,

(i) permission from the Minster of Interior to the ownership of the land needs to be sought and obtained

(ii) the aggregate area of land allowed to be owned cannot exceed that permitted by law; for example, 1 Rai for residential purposes; but it is possible to owner a large area if the land is commercially used, such as a farm – for the exact area currently allowed, reference needs to be made to the regulation issued

failing which, as is the case under Section 96 bis of the Land Code, you will be required to sell the land within a period of not less than 180 days nor more than 1 year; failing which, the Director-General of the Department of Land has the power to sell the property on your behalf.

3 Foreign Company

The term 'alien', as used in Section 86 of the Land Code denotes both individuals and corporate entities. Nevertheless, there are certain circumstances under which a foreign company may be able to acquire ownership of land in Thailand. The two most outstanding examples of this are under:

(i) the Notification of the Board of the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand No. 3/2535 (1992), issued under the Industrial Estate Authority Act of Thailand 1979

(ii) by virtue of Section 27 of the Investment Promotion Act 1977.

Even here though, the foreign company will have placed upon them severe eligibility requirements and will be forced to sell the property if they fail to maintain their eligible status.

What are my alternatives?

As you can no doubt see, being a foreign resident in Thailand is not all together conducive with owning property here. This is not to say, however, that you do not have alternative mechanism that you can make use of. The following are a few of the more common ones currently in place:

1 Thai Limited Company

The general prohibition in place under Section 86 of the Land Code relates to foreigners (the word actually used is "aliens", as is the common practice under Thai legislation – because the translation [in Thai] of the word "foreigner" normally denotes a Westerner, whereas "alien" is the broader term used for all non-Thais). In this regard, by virtue of Sections 97 and 98 of the Land Code, a "foreigner" is deemed to include:

(i) a private or public company with more than 49 per. cent. of its registered capital held by foreigners, or where more than half the shareholders of the company are foreigners (regardless of the capital held by them)

(ii) a limited partnership or registered ordinary partnership with more than 49 per. cent. of its registered capital held by foreigners, or where more than half the partners of the partnership are foreigners (regardless of the capital held by them)

(iii) associations or co-operatives where more than half the members are foreigners, or which has as its major objective to operate to the benefit, or substantially to the benefit, of foreigners' interests

(iv) foundations (charitable organisations) that have as their major objective to operate to the benefit, or substantially to the benefit, of foreigners' interests

(v) non-Thai nationals.

As a result of this restriction and definition, it is possible to own land in Thailand by means of a vehicle commonly known as "a Thai majority owned but foreign controlled company". In short, it is generally accepted corporate practice in Thailand that a company can be structured along a preference share structure whereby the majority in both capital and shares can be held by Thais, but where the controlling interest over the company's management and affairs vests with foreigners.

However, before you can consider incorporating a Thai company to own the land on your behalf, you do need to consider the following issues very carefully:

(i) Under Section 150 of the CCC, an act is voided if its object is expressly prohibited by the laws of Thailand. As foreign ownership of land in Thailand is a general prohibition by means of default (i.e. there are no treaties in place which allow for foreign ownership of land), it is questionable whether or not this constitutes an express prohibition (which is the requirement under Section 150). That said, some academics do hold that the Thai company structure set out above is voidable under Section 150. The honest truth is, the jury is still out on this issue.

(ii) Under Section 1097 of the CCC, the formation of a limited company requires the participation of, at minimum, 7 shareholders. At least 4 of these need to be Thai. That said, Section 113 of the Land Code specifies that "any Thai who acquires land as an agent of a foreigner or juristic person under Sections 97 and 98 of the Land Code shall be punished with a fine not exceeding 20,000 Baht or an imprisonment not exceed 2 years, or both." As is the case with Section 150, a number of Thai academics hold that Thais holding shares in Thai companies incorporated for the purpose set out above are falling foul of Section 113 of the Land Code.

It is, however, generally accepted that if the company is a revenue generating company, as well as holding the land, then these problems are mitigated, but not all together eradicated. Moreover, although the shareholding limit under the definition set out in Sections 97 and 98 is 49 per. cent., it is generally accepted that prudent practice demand that the maximum foreign shareholding level be 39 per. cent., or less, in the company.

In the event that holding land in Thailand by means of a "a Thai majority owned but foreign controlled company" appeals to you, you should review the article on this subject for further issues you'll need to consider.

2 Thai spouse/child

Prior to 2001, any Thai [female] national who married a foreigner automatically lost her right to own land in Thailand. A number of reasons for this Draconian law were advanced, but the truth of the matter can be located in Section 1470 of the CCC, which stipulates that all property acquired after a marriage, under Thai law, is the common property of the husband and wife (minus any pre-nuptial agreement). As foreigners were not allowed to own land in Thailand, to avoid them having a common interest in land, neither were their spouses (and, it is worth noting, the wording used is spouse; thus, in theory, the law applied equally to Thai husbands with foreign wives. But, as the Thai husband was not required to change his surname, whereas the wife was (under Thai law in place at that time), the authorities rarely knew he was married to a foreigner).

Following the publication of the Notification of the Ministry of Interior re Application for the Acquisition of Land by Thai National Who Has or Used to Have Alien Spouse and Juvenile Child of Alien Who Has Thai Nationality (published on 4 October 2001) this prohibition was lifted and Thai spouses of foreign nationals are now allowed to own land provided that the foreign spouse confirms in writing that all of the money used to purchase the land belongs to the Thai national spouse and that the foreign spouse has no claim over this money or the property as a common property of the marriage. As a result, foreigners married to Thais, or with half-Thai children, can use them as a vehicle to own land, provided that they accept they have no interest or claim over the land. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, under Section 93 of the Land Code, they can be named as heirs under a lawful will.

3 Own the house, but not the land

The general restriction in place under Section 86 of the Land Code relates to foreign ownership of land, there is nothing stopping you, as a foreigner, from owning a house. However, how practical would it be to own land, if you did not own the land? To answer that, you need to consider the following:

( a ) Lease: Under Title IV (Hire of Property): Chapter 1 of the CCC it is possible for a foreigner to lease land in Thailand; subject to two qualifications:

(i) if the lease agreement is for more than 3 years, then the lease needs to be made in writing and registered at the Land Office (Section 538; and

(ii) if the duration of the lease exceeds 30 years, the period will be reduced to 30 – which period may be renewed, but not for a period in excess of 30 years from the time of renewal (Section 540).

Thus, subject to the above restrictions, you can enter into a lease agreement with the land owner, and thereafter build and own the house on the land.

In the event that holding land in Thailand by means of a "lease arrangement" appeals to you, you should review the article on this subject for further issues you'll need to consider.

( b ) Habitation: under Sections 1402 – 1409 of the CCC, a person inhabiting land has certain rights to that land, notwithstanding the fact they may not own the land. Thai law also has the concept of 'adverse possession', where you can acquire ownership of land if you inhabit it for a sufficiently long enough period without the express objection of the land owner; but this does not apply to foreign nationals.

( c ) Usufruct: currently a hot topic, usufruct allows the possessor of the land to posses and enjoy the land and to manage the land. Questions have been raised, however, whether foreigners making use of this structure is the acceptable manner in which its use was intended. We can only wait and see what the outcome will be.

( d ) Easement: it is possible for a Thai national (indeed Thai law itself) to provide a foreign national with an easement over the land – such as a right of access / right of way. The degree to the amount of area that an easement of such nature can be granted (i.e. 2 Rai?) is the debating point.

4 Become a Thai national/citizen

If you still want to own land in Thailand, and none of the above mechanisms works for you, then you are going to need to consider becoming a Thai citizen. In such an event, under Section of Thailand's Nationality Act B.E. 2508 (1965), as amended by Act B.E. 2535 (1992) Nos. 2 & 3, a foreigner can apply to become a Thai national if they possess the following qualifications:

( a ) become sui juris in accordance with Thai law and under the law under which the applicant has nationality;

( b )has good behaviour;

( c ) is regularly employed;

(d) has been domiciled in Thailand for a period of not less than 10 years;

(e) has knowledge and skill of Thai language sufficient to meet the requirements prescribed by the regulations under the act.

Conclusion

Although property ownership in Thailand can be problematic, it is not impossible. You will however need three essential requirements: (1) an ability to think outside of the box to construct a mechanism that best suits your needs; (2) plenty of patience; and (3) enough cash not to worry about the money you just invested in the Thai property. It is the last of these you should keep in the forefront of your mind: never invest in Thai property more than you are willing to walk away from.

© Copyright ownership of this article belongs to William Jarvis. You are free to copy this article at liberty and you are also free to quote from this article in full. In either case you are asked, as a matter of courtesy, to make reference to the author as being just that. To this end, while not being particularly fussy, the author views the act of 'passing off' as being a particularly repugnant act done by those too stupid to work things out for themselves. Please respect my views on that – it's not asking a lot!

[Khun Jean]

And the short version:

You can not own land in Thailand.

Lease and usufruct is not ownership as you are not able to sell or transfer it when you want.

The chance for Thai citizenship is 0.01% maybe lower.

How to live in Thailand when you don't want to rent but still want to pay rent upfront for 30 years for a lease (which is in practicality also rent) or a usufruct (also like rent) so you can 'feel' like you own it.

If you can't sell it at will, you don't own it. That simple.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Khun Jean

[Burgernev]

Agree about 'ownership', but I 'own' properties here through Limited Company and Lease because I don't consider it a risk, I don't believe in enriching landlords and I'm not scared of the dark.

But of all the people I know here that rent, I haven't met one yet (honestly) who is renting because of concern over the ownership laws, they all rent because they can't afford to buy.

When it comes to Condo's, which you can own, the one's who do not buy (I believe because they can not) blame it on 'their' notion that the prices will drop to 500Baht/Sq.M. a week next Tuesday.

Maybe I need to get out more, but I don't believe these scaredy-cats really exist.

Only one of the above is certain, that a landlord will take your money and it will never be yours again.

Burgernev

Edited June 27, 2008 by Burgernev

[johnnyk]

Every country has laws/rules/regs tucked away just in case the government ever feels the need to use them.

People would be very surprised if they investigated their own country's laws; they would find all sorts of nasties that could be used to make their lives miserable.

Edited June 27, 2008 by johnnyk

[Burgernev]

No No Johhny you got it wrong my friend.

The government do not actually know what us tricky farangs are up to.

When they find out next month, we will all be homeless.

Me and you will be sleeping on the floor of the U-Turn, it's ok I know the owner, a nice Canadian chap

Burgernev

Edited June 27, 2008 by Burgernev

[dsfbrit]

Agree about 'ownership', but I 'own' properties here through Limited Company and Lease because I don't consider it a risk, ... not scared of the dark...

Maybe I need to get out more, but I don't believe these scaredy-cats really exist.

Only one of the above is certain, that a landlord will take your money and it will never be yours again.

Burgernev

I own a house and land via the company route and do not understand why you dont consider it to be a risk. Never mind the constant 'threat' of the FBA changes (its on, its off, its on, its off) hanging over us, there is the slim possibility that the authorities will actually enforce the current company/land laws. I too am not afraid of the dark, its more whats in it that I cannot see that concerns me.

I don't lose any sleep over my company structure, so accept the risks. However, I still may move the property into a USUFRUCT in my wife's name, mainly because the transfer taxes etc... are minimal for the next year and now would be the time to do it. I don't really know why I would do this though as the USUFRUCT has risks as well.

On balance though, the company structure, with all its flaws still seems the best of a bad job, so I may not do anything.

Edited June 28, 2008 by dsfbrit

[AnnyLing]

But of all the people I know here that rent, I haven't met one yet (honestly) who is renting because of concern over the ownership laws, they all rent because they can't afford to buy.

When it comes to Condo's, which you can own, the one's who do not buy (I believe because they can not) blame it on 'their' notion that the prices will drop to 500Baht/Sq.M. a week next Tuesday.

Finally somebody spelled it out!

[AnnyLing]

The government do not actually know what us tricky farangs are up to. When they find out next month, we will all be homeless.

[Burgernev]

I own a house and land via the company route and do not understand why you dont consider it to be a risk.

Because the Government welcome foreign investment, can close these loop-holes ifthey wish but do not and because no-one has ever had their property taken away yet. To me it'll never happen so not a risk I think about. If they do and some bloke in Pattaya is the first, I'll be straight down the land office getting a lease on the Limited Company land.

Never mind the constant 'threat' of the FBA changes (its on, its off, its on, its off) hanging over us

What changes to the FBA ? The last lot proposed did not affect FBA List 3 companies that we have to hold our property.

Burgernev

Edited June 28, 2008 by Burgernev

[Burgernev]

However, I still may move the property into a USUFRUCT in my wife's name

The only thing with lease or usufruct is you have to sign over land to a Thai. Then there's no changing to other options IF the Thai does not allow it.

With the Limited Company you can decide in future to take up other options. Say 70/90 year leases come in, under Company you can change to that. If you're already on a 30 year lease I don't think you can 'upgrade' to the new longer lease if the landowner says no. I do not believe a clause in the lease agreement between you and current landowner, permitting you to upgrade to any new government lease terms, would hold if say the landowner sold the land to his brother??

Burgernev

Edited June 28, 2008 by Burgernev

[beginner]

1/. I don't believe in enriching landlords and I'm not scared of the dark.

2/. But of all the people I know here that rent, I haven't met one yet (honestly) who is renting because of concern over the ownership laws, they all rent because they can't afford to buy.

3/. Only one of the above is certain, that a landlord will take your money and it will never be yours again.

Burgernev

About 1. The average return on property, as far as you can tell in this land of half-truths, outright lies and dodgy statistics , is probably less than the return on bank deposited money in safe offshore accounts.

Averages are just that and include some properties that have exceeded the average and done very well but many others that have failed to achieve a reasonable rate of return.

As you mention 'afford to buy' I assume you are talking about small scale landlords and investors and not mega corporations with large financial resources.

Landlords often claim that they have made good returns but this is not really true unless they have actually sold the property and received the capital appreciation they claim.

The East side of Pattaya is littered with unfinished projects, completed but unsaleable houses and also village estates with a large proportion of houses for re-sale. Most of them are unsaleable at the asking prices. The owners do not want to sell at the market price as this will actually capitalise their losses. As long as the house remains unsold they can claim they have lost nothing and have made a capital gain.

About 2. Pattaya and district must have hundreds, if not thousands of farangs who could buy property at the blink of an eye if they wanted to. They do not for many reasons including the sheer convenience of being able to move from one rental to another with minimum hassle and inconvenience if they want to. A year at the beach, followed by a year at a golf course followed by city centre location etc.

Do you really think that the kind of people who happily pay 60, 70 or even 100,000 baht and more monthly rent can't afford to buy?

They do not "all rent bacause they can't afford to buy".

About 3. You can say the same about developers who have developed wonderfully effective marketing strategies to part the innocent from their money. They may eventually get some or even all of it back again but if they rented and kept their capital intact then they could access it at will.

The article by William Jarvis includes the advice '3. enough cash not to worry about the money you just invested in the Thai property. It is the last of these you should keep in the forefront of your mind: never invest in Thai property more than you are willing to walk away from'.

That is another reason some people do not buy. Its also the reason why some people do buy. The loss of a few million baht will not give them any sleepless nights should it ever happen and in the meantime they have the Thai version of 'property ownership'.

[Burgernev]

Hi beginner,

About 1. The average return on property, as far as you can tell in this land of half-truths, outright lies and dodgy statistics , is probably less than the return on bank deposited money in safe offshore accounts. Landlords often claim that they have made good returns but this is not really true unless they have actually sold the property and received the capital appreciation they claim.

I've always seen property increase way in excess of "bank deposited money in safe offshore accounts" or the like. But I'm talking about over a long term. Over short term it's obviously less certain, but I don't see property as a short-term investment.

About 2. They do not for many reasons including the sheer convenience of being able to move from one rental to another with minimum hassle and inconvenience if they want to.

I agree with that. But the people I've met choose to rent principally for the convenience of moving around, not because they're worried of the 'ownership' risks. To me that's more of a 'lifestyle' choice.

About 3. You can say the same about developers who have developed wonderfully effective marketing strategies to part the innocent from their money. They may eventually get some or even all of it back again but if they rented and kept their capital intact then they could access it at will.

Not sure who you mean about "may eventually get some or even all of it back ", the developer or developer's customer ?

Cheers,

Burgernev

Edited June 28, 2008 by Burgernev

[JimmyGreaves]

Sounds as though the way to go if you have a limited company and you personnaly want to have ownership of the house as a falang is get a 3 year lease off the (your) company. No registration is needed and you just keep renewing the lease every 3 years. Is that true?

[dsfbrit]

I own a house and land via the company route and do not understand why you dont consider it to be a risk.

Because the Government welcome foreign investment, can close these loop-holes ifthey wish but do not and because no-one has ever had their property taken away yet. To me it'll never happen so not a risk I think about.... .

Never mind the constant 'threat' of the FBA changes (its on, its off, its on, its off) hanging over us

What changes to the FBA ? The last lot proposed did not affect FBA List 3 companies that we have to hold our property.

Burgernev

Hang on, hang on - just a minute ... Whether or not you personally think about a risk or you personally find it an acceptable risk does not mean it is not a risk.

Some people - in fact many people I have spoken to about this during the last 2 years - don't like it at all and do lose sleep over it.

I have debated this at length over the last couple of years on many threads and I agree with you that these risks, for me at least, are acceptable.

Especially compared to the 30 year lease.

I decided some time ago, to leave the land ownership in my company and not consider it again.

I only 'wandered' into this Thaivisa Land forum recently as I heard:

- there may be the chance of the government doing 90 year leases ( unlikely)

- the government have reduced the sales/transfer taxes (so if I wanted to do a USUFRUCT - now is the time)

- the number of Thai nominee shareholders has reduced to 3.

I have read all I need to, so bid you farewell

Edited June 29, 2008 by dsfbrit

[Marvo]

Sounds as though the way to go if you have a limited company and you personnaly want to have ownership of the house as a falang is get a 3 year lease off the (your) company. No registration is needed and you just keep renewing the lease every 3 years. Is that true?

jflundy, I'd be curious about that one too. Adding a lease always sounded like a good idea to me but I was under the impresion that a "realistic market rate" had to be paid to the company for the lease and then the company had to pay a (12.5%?) tax on something to do with the lease?

Maybe someone could enligten us and spell out the approptriate formula.

[Burgernev]

Hang on, hang on - just a minute ... Whether or not you personally think about a risk or you personally find it an acceptable risk does not mean it is not a risk

Yes I agree, that's why I was careful to say that I do not consider it a risky investment, obviously that's just my personal view.

I will not say it is not a risk or try to convince people there is no risk.

Burgernev

[BL4u]

This article was written 3 years ago (according to the author) by William Jarvis.

I would disagree on the section about usufructs when it says "let's wait and see".

Sebastian.

Isaan lawyer and or Properties: Why do you say according to the author. You know this is correct and it was posted on the <URL Automatically Removed> forum in 2005. I believe you responded to it in 2006 when you were a very newbie here in Thailand. Why dig it up again. It only says you can't own anything as a foreigner, or do you want to drag on about your usufruct crap? You probably find similar posts on Thaivisa!

[ThaiLawOnline]

BL4U:

I posted a long article about usufructs and explained everything. I started to learn usufructs in 1993.

This article was posted 2 days ago (even if 3 years old) on another forum and because of people like you, it's very nice to dig to old things. So, people know what is real or not. And I already answered on 19 May 2007 the author who posted another article about usufruct on another forum.

We still don't know if you have any qualification and refused to answer questions about them.

Believe who you want: The supreme Court of Thailand, The Civil Code of Thailand, Thai registered Lawyers who I work with everyday, a foreign registered lawyer having studied usufruct agreement, leases and civil law, or yourself, a nickname in cyberspace who just try to find fun in verbal fighting about nothing. I don't even know why I answer you...

[Burgernev]

usufruct crap

dam_n, I thought they were part of Thai law. Are you telling me they are no good BL4U, what's wrong with them ?

Burgernev

Edited June 29, 2008 by Burgernev

[Khun Jean]

We still don't know if you have any qualification and refused to answer questions about them.

Why always ask for qualifications. Has nothing to do with the WRITTEN law. Anybody can read that.

It is just that many lawyers INTERPRET the law so they can make some money.

Good advice or bad advice is not important in Thailand because none are ACCOUNTABLE.

In Thailand it is best to read the law and compare it to what lawyers say. MANY lawyers give wrong answers to simple questions.

Believe who you want: The supreme Court of Thailand, The Civil Code of Thailand, Thai registered Lawyers who I work with everyday, a foreign registered lawyer having studied usufruct agreement, leases and civil law, or yourself, a nickname in cyberspace who just try to find fun in verbal fighting about nothing. I don't even know why I answer you...

The best thing is to read what the law says, no need to believe anybody.

Like everything else in live, ultimately you are responsible for your own actions.

If i may ask 'Isaanlawyers'. Do you have a limited company? Or is asking such a question to difficult and gets my message deleted?

[ThaiLawOnline]

Do i have a Thai limited company? No. (I deleted the next sentences to answer shortly)

[WilliamJarvis]

As the author of that article, I would ask everyone to ignore it. As Seb mentions, the article was written around 3 years ago and is out of date.

Second guessing, and without wishing to sound rude, if Seb wasn't a sponsor on this board, I doubt it would have been allowed to remain.

William

Edited June 30, 2008 by WilliamJarvis

[ThaiLawOnline]

Hi William,

You posted your article somewhere else this week, and I found it very interesting.

(EDITED - Sorry, you didn't post it, but someone dragged it and I saw it THIS WEEK)

I posted it here as it you authorised it's distribution and made some comments. That's it.

I believe a forum like this one or others should try to provide nice information.

I know and you know that both of us can't always be right be will try our best.

You are not rude. I believe other people are allowed to post information too.

What is rude is people asking questions that are NOT RELATED TO THE TOPIC or THIS ARTICLE.

I don't think this article would have been banned by moderators... or maybe I am wrong.

Or there is something I don't know.

If I posted it here, William, it's surely because it's good enough!!!!

Even the people attacking me didn't attack your article!

That's incredible. The subject is not important. It's becoming personal attacks and WHO posted it.

[WilliamJarvis]

^actually, I did not post it elsewhere this week. It had been posted some time ago and was dragged up. I said there the same as I have said here, it was posted a long time ago and should be fogotten.

I would just like to have been informed that it was being considered as a post on this forum. Then I would have pointed out that it was well out of date.

[whatsoever]

Agree about 'ownership', but I 'own' properties here through Limited Company and Lease because I don't consider it a risk, ... not scared of the dark...

Maybe I need to get out more, but I don't believe these scaredy-cats really exist.

Only one of the above is certain, that a landlord will take your money and it will never be yours again.

Burgernev

I own a house and land via the company route and do not understand why you dont consider it to be a risk. Never mind the constant 'threat' of the FBA changes (its on, its off, its on, its off) hanging over us, there is the slim possibility that the authorities will actually enforce the current company/land laws. I too am not afraid of the dark, its more whats in it that I cannot see that concerns me.

I don't lose any sleep over my company structure, so accept the risks. However, I still may move the property into a USUFRUCT in my wife's name, mainly because the transfer taxes etc... are minimal for the next year and now would be the time to do it. I don't really know why I would do this though as the USUFRUCT has risks as well.

On balance though, the company structure, with all its flaws still seems the best of a bad job, so I may not do anything.

What is the UNSFRUCT system - in lay terms

[Buckwheat]

Several flaming posts have been removed.

Please keep all replies to the topic at hand and refrain from personal attacks.

Any further instances in this thread or related threads will result in holidays.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

[Guest #1man]

Thank you for that, IsaanLawyer.

A very interesting and worthwhile read that I am sure will be useful to many members.

Could you post a link to the original article please.

[ThaiLawOnline]

Several posts were deleted. Some of mine too.

I sent a personal message to Khun Jean answering, I hope, some of his questions.

I do not think I can post links on this forum. It was on another private forum.

William Jarvis is the author and he posted on this thread.

I would suggest you to contact him directly.

[Guest #1man]

Why can't you post links on the forum.?

I see you already have four in your signature

[ThaiLawOnline]

You can put them in your signature, I think, but I believe it's a rule of the forum not to make any links

to any other forum. And I believe that if I write the name of that forum, there is a filter that will delete this link.

Send me a private message and I will send you the link.

Send a message to William Jarvis and he should answer you. But I don't think we can post links to other forums....\

Look under FORUM RULES, I believe it's #18.

I will try, but if it's deleted, it's not me but a moderator or a software, etc.

It was here:

http://<URL Automatically Removed>/doing-things-legally/1...y-thailand.html