Illegal For Thai Wives Of Foreigners To Own Land

[katabeachbum]

I find this rather interesting.

www.phuketgazette.net/issuesanswers/details.asp?id=1071

Im sure some of you guys with better computerskills than me can incorporate it in a post.

The question now is,

1. Can wife borrow the money from husband and register the loan in land deed?

2. Can husband register a lease in wifes land deed?

If no on both, can husbands friend lend the money to wife and register the loan in land deed. And then transfer the loan to husband without making change in land deed?

I am not married, but I have had some problems register loan in land deed when my girlfriend purchase property. I had to bring another "girlfriend" to land office to make them believe my real girlfriend is not my spouse. She had to provide tabien baan with adress not same as my certificate of residence.

[loong]

From the Letter of Confirmation: "We [foreign husband and Thai wife] together confirm that the money which [Thai wife] shall expend on the purchase of land...is wholly Sin Tua or the personal property of [Thai wife] alone, not Sin Som Ros or the matrimonial property between husband and wife."

This leads to the question: how does money, or property in general, become Sin Tuan, ie the personal property of one of the spouses?

1. Property owned before marriage.

2. Property received as inheritance.

3. Property received as a gift???

Does money that a Thai wife receives as a gift, regardless from whom, become Sin Tuan?

3.2 In the case where a Thai national who has an alien spouse, whether legitimate or illegitimate, applies for permission to accept a gift of land during marriage or cohabitation as husband and wife. If the inquiry reveals that the acceptance of the gift is made with the intention that the land will become the separate property or personal property of the donee without resulting in the alien having co-ownership in the land, the competent official will proceed with the registration of rights and juristic act.

This is all very interesting

Reading paragraph 3.2 again...........This is not really clear, but I would say that the wife cannot accept a gift of land from her foreign husband. For somebody to gift land, they would have to be the owner and the foreigner cannot be the owner. This is probably intended to cover the situation when a Thai spouse receives a gift of land from another Thai (ie Parent).

I'm not sure about a husband making a gift of money where the intention is to buy property. If the husband lives in the property he is receiving/retaining advantage, so it would not really be considered a gift.

Just my take on things - I'm no legal expert!

It would seem to me that when they changed the law to allow wives of foreigners to buy land, they didn't really change it that much. Maybe even tightened it as this does seem to include people cohabiting as man and wife, legally married or not.

My opinion is that there is only a few ways that a Thai spouse of a foreigner can legally buy land .....

1. using money that she already had before she married

2. using the proceeds from the sale of property that she already had before she married

3. Using a transfer or gift of money from another Thai.

I would also think that it is not possible for the spouse to buy property with a bank loan, the deposit may well come from her personal money, but the repayments would be from joint property.

[loong]

the money which that Thai national will expend on the purchase of the land is wholly the separate property of that Thai national and not the community property or the jointly acquired property,

The question now is,

1. Can wife borrow the money from husband and register the loan in land deed?

2. Can husband register a lease in wifes land deed?

1. I would doubt it. I don't see that a loan from the husband would be seen as wholly the separate property of the Thai national.

2. My opinion is yes, if the property was purchased by money belonging to the wife before she married or the property was gifted by another Thai.

[monty]

How can I legally purchase property for a Thai spouse?

Having read the recent article in the Gazette about foreigners not being allowed to use their spouses to purchase property, [Phuket Gazette, May 31, “Land chief warns foreigners against buying land using Thai nominees”] I’m left wondering how it is possible for me to buy my wife a house here in Thailand?

In the country where we were married, the law of the land states that all of the money we have is now “our” money, rather than simply mine or hers.

Given this state of affairs and this apparent new legislation, is it now impossible for us to purchase a house in Thailand?

Graham Rance,Singapore/UK Friday, June 5, 2009

“As your wife is a Thai national, of course she is able to purchase property here in Thailand. If she has her own account, but doesn’t have the necessary funds, then you cannot use her as a nominee and use your own money. Such an action would see your land title revoked.

Should you decide to move forward and purchase a property together using funds from a joint bank account established either inside or outside of the Kingdom, you and your wife will have to sign an agreement stating that the house lawfully belongs to her.

In the event of a divorce, you waive all rights to a share of the property.

Under Thai law, marrying a Thai national does not grant you an entitlement to property accrued during your marriage.

The only way for a foreign national to purchase property in Thailand is to do so under the condominium 40% rule, which allows foreign nationals the right to own a total of two fifths of the floor space of a condominium development.

In summary, you and your wife may purchase a house in Thailand, but it can only be registered in her name. Should you divorce, you will be entitled to nothing.

For more information on all property-related laws, contact the Phuket Provincial Land Office at 36 Damrong Road, Muang, Phuket 83000. T: 076-212103 F: 076-212103.”

-- Phuket Gazette 05/06/2009

So in Phuket, where the first statement by Mr. Anuwat was made, they still see no problem.

The official simply says that you cannot fund your wife to buy the property as your nominee, but she can still buy land, even with money from a joint account, only you can never lay claim to it. In that case your wife is not a nominee!

[loong]

Monty, thanks to your research and what you have posted. It doesn't seem that this unidentified Land official has read the same laws, does it?

Should you decide to move forward and purchase a property together using funds from a joint bank account established either inside or outside of the Kingdom, you and your wife will have to sign an agreement stating that the house lawfully belongs to her.

The declaration that has to be signed does state that the house lawfully belongs to her, but it also declares that the money did NOT come from joint assets or from the husband.

I also thought that the condominium rule was 49%, not 40% as is stated.

Edited June 6, 2009 by loong

[Geekfreaklover]

Just thinking out loud...If a foreigner owns a company and wanted to build/buy in his parnters name, couldn't he simply employ him/her, paying a large salery and use those funds to buy the land/house.

[katabeachbum]

How can I legally purchase property for a Thai spouse?

Having read the recent article in the Gazette about foreigners not being allowed to use their spouses to purchase property, [Phuket Gazette, May 31, "Land chief warns foreigners against buying land using Thai nominees"] I'm left wondering how it is possible for me to buy my wife a house here in Thailand?

In the country where we were married, the law of the land states that all of the money we have is now "our" money, rather than simply mine or hers.

Given this state of affairs and this apparent new legislation, is it now impossible for us to purchase a house in Thailand?

Graham Rance,Singapore/UK Friday, June 5, 2009

"As your wife is a Thai national, of course she is able to purchase property here in Thailand. If she has her own account, but doesn't have the necessary funds, then you cannot use her as a nominee and use your own money. Such an action would see your land title revoked.

Should you decide to move forward and purchase a property together using funds from a joint bank account established either inside or outside of the Kingdom, you and your wife will have to sign an agreement stating that the house lawfully belongs to her.

In the event of a divorce, you waive all rights to a share of the property.

Under Thai law, marrying a Thai national does not grant you an entitlement to property accrued during your marriage.

The only way for a foreign national to purchase property in Thailand is to do so under the condominium 40% rule, which allows foreign nationals the right to own a total of two fifths of the floor space of a condominium development.

In summary, you and your wife may purchase a house in Thailand, but it can only be registered in her name. Should you divorce, you will be entitled to nothing.

For more information on all property-related laws, contact the Phuket Provincial Land Office at 36 Damrong Road, Muang, Phuket 83000. T: 076-212103 F: 076-212103."

-- Phuket Gazette 05/06/2009

So in Phuket, where the first statement by Mr. Anuwat was made, they still see no problem.

The official simply says that you cannot fund your wife to buy the property as your nominee, but she can still buy land, even with money from a joint account, only you can never lay claim to it. In that case your wife is not a nominee!

Monty, thanks for incorporating it to this post.

I think Khun Anuwat made the first statement because he was pissed off.

Farang/thai legally married in Europe bought property in thai wifes name, without farang signing anything in land office. Farang has never transfered funds to LOS, and never had a workpermit in LOS. They split up, and Phuket Provincal Court ordered all properties sold within 200 days, and funds split 50/50.

I think all they want now is to ensure the letter of Confirmation to be signed by farang for any spouse, married or not. At least I had to prove my girlfriend is not my spouse, to avoid signing it.

Edited June 6, 2009 by katabeachbum

[loong]

Just thinking out loud...If a foreigner owns a company and wanted to build/buy in his parnters name, couldn't he simply employ him/her, paying a large salery and use those funds to buy the land/house.

My impression is that her salary would be considered communal property so not eligible for use to purchase land.

[monty]

Just thinking out loud...If a foreigner owns a company and wanted to build/buy in his parnters name, couldn't he simply employ him/her, paying a large salery and use those funds to buy the land/house.

My impression is that her salary would be considered communal property so not eligible for use to purchase land.

Correct, anything earned by either partner is Sin Som Ros, or communal matrimonial property.

[katabeachbum]

I also thought that the condominium rule was 49%, not 40% as is stated.

The condominium act has been changed a few times, so farang freehold % are different pending on when applied for/completed.

Edited June 6, 2009 by katabeachbum

[monty]

Monty, thanks for incorporating it to this post.

I think Khun Anuwat made the first statement because he was pissed off.

Farang/thai legally married in Europe bought property in thai wifes name, without farang signing anything in land office. Farang has never transfered funds to LOS, and never had a workpermit in LOS. They split up, and Phuket Provincal Court ordered all properties sold within 200 days, and funds split 50/50.

I think all they want now is to ensure the letter of Confirmation to be signed by farang for any spouse, married or not. At least I had to prove my girlfriend is not my spouse, to avoid signing it.

Another strange misconception as well.

ONLY the land cannot be owned by a foreigner.

Foreigners can own as many houses as they like, only not the land it sits on.

There is not a single law which says a foreigner cannot own the structure on the land.

As such according to civil law, the house will be automatically Sin Som Ros or communal property, regardless of whose name it is in.

The only problem, is that when you buy a second hand house, the house will be registered on the land title deed, and as such both house and land will be transferred to the wife in one deal and both will fall under the declaration you signed.

In the case you are building yourself, it is easy to purchase the land in your wife's name, get a lease on it in your own name, then get the building permit in your name and the house will be yours, 50% if bought with communal funds, 100% if you can prove you bought/built it with moneys earned before your marriage.

I personally know people who got assigned 50% of the value of the complete property.

The judges ruled a bit of a trade off, the land should always entirely go to the wife, but the foreigner could prove that he funded the house (and the ex-wife could not prove she had funds herself to pay for the house), so legally it would have been 100% of the land to the ex-wife and 100% of the house to the foreign husband.

The judge offered a trade of as in 50% of the whole lot to each partner, which the divorcees agreed to. Probably to avoid the possibly protracted fighting over the value of the separate parts when the property got sold.

[meom]

From the Letter of Confirmation: "We [foreign husband and Thai wife] together confirm that the money which [Thai wife] shall expend on the purchase of land...is wholly Sin Tua or the personal property of [Thai wife] alone, not Sin Som Ros or the matrimonial property between husband and wife."

This leads to the question: how does money, or property in general, become Sin Tuan, ie the personal property of one of the spouses?

1. Property owned before marriage.

2. Property received as inheritance.

3. Property received as a gift???

Does money that a Thai wife receives as a gift, regardless from whom, become Sin Tuan?

http://www.thailawonline.com/images/thaici...l%20code%20.pdf

According to Book V of the Commercial and Civil Code Chapter IV section 1471:

Sin Suan Tua consists of:

(1) Property belonging to either spouse before marriage.

(2) Property for personal use, dress or ornament suitable for station in life, or tools necessary for carrying the

profession of either spouse.

(3) Property acquired by either spouse during marriage through a will or gift.

(4) Khongman.

I assume the word Property here includes money.

[manjara]

Just thinking out loud...If a foreigner owns a company and wanted to build/buy in his parnters name, couldn't he simply employ him/her, paying a large salery and use those funds to buy the land/house.

My impression is that her salary would be considered communal property so not eligible for use to purchase land.

Not that I am saying Thai law is not ludicrous, but it would be nonsense to say that the WIFE's salary was not eligible to be used to buy property in Thailand. That would effectively sentence anyone with a farang husband to being unable to buy property at all, unless they had all the money before they were married.

Personally I think that signing the piece of paper renoucing all rights to the property and making sure that the money came from her account is sufficient, even if the law is somewhat vague/open to interpretation.

[katabeachbum]

Monty, thanks for incorporating it to this post.

I think Khun Anuwat made the first statement because he was pissed off.

Farang/thai legally married in Europe bought property in thai wifes name, without farang signing anything in land office. Farang has never transfered funds to LOS, and never had a workpermit in LOS. They split up, and Phuket Provincal Court ordered all properties sold within 200 days, and funds split 50/50.

I think all they want now is to ensure the letter of Confirmation to be signed by farang for any spouse, married or not. At least I had to prove my girlfriend is not my spouse, to avoid signing it.

Another strange misconception as well.

ONLY the land cannot be owned by a foreigner.

Foreigners can own as many houses as they like, only not the land it sits on.

There is not a single law which says a foreigner cannot own the structure on the land.

As such according to civil law, the house will be automatically Sin Som Ros or communal property, regardless of whose name it is in.

The only problem, is that when you buy a second hand house, the house will be registered on the land title deed, and as such both house and land will be transferred to the wife in one deal and both will fall under the declaration you signed.

In the case you are building yourself, it is easy to purchase the land in your wife's name, get a lease on it in your own name, then get the building permit in your name and the house will be yours, 50% if bought with communal funds, 100% if you can prove you bought/built it with moneys earned before your marriage.

I personally know people who got assigned 50% of the value of the complete property.

The judges ruled a bit of a trade off, the land should always entirely go to the wife, but the foreigner could prove that he funded the house (and the ex-wife could not prove she had funds herself to pay for the house), so legally it would have been 100% of the land to the ex-wife and 100% of the house to the foreign husband.

The judge offered a trade of as in 50% of the whole lot to each partner, which the divorcees agreed to. Probably to avoid the possibly protracted fighting over the value of the separate parts when the property got sold.

No strange misconception Monty.

These guys bought land (I called it property, maybe lousy english, but propety not build on), and the court ordered a 50/50 split of sale because land office could not provide a signed letter of Confirmation.

Of course farang can own house, just get the buildingpermit in your own name. Easy.

[nikster]

We bought our land a long time ago, so I guess worst case is, I'd have to sign that paper? Or am I missing something here?

I mean the story where the land office checks the source of the funds sounds scary, except that all you need to do is sign away your rights to the money (never knew I had any, to be honest) and it's all good.

[Orac]

We bought our land a long time ago, so I guess worst case is, I'd have to sign that paper? Or am I missing something here?

I mean the story where the land office checks the source of the funds sounds scary, except that all you need to do is sign away your rights to the money (never knew I had any, to be honest) and it's all good.

I didn't sign anything when my wife bought some land (I was out of the country at the time). When I checked with her why she said it was not a problem as she had been able to sign it for me!

[slipperx]

So what is to stop you agreeing to take a 30 year lease on the proposed bit of land and registering the lease at the same time you buy the land. The poroceeds from the lease providing the funds for the purchase of the land to which you as a foreigner have no right thereafter but you can still sell the remaining term on the lease or rent the property out should you fall out with your wifey or girlfriend.

[loong]

Just thinking out loud...If a foreigner owns a company and wanted to build/buy in his parnters name, couldn't he simply employ him/her, paying a large salery and use those funds to buy the land/house.

My impression is that her salary would be considered communal property so not eligible for use to purchase land.

Not that I am saying Thai law is not ludicrous, but it would be nonsense to say that the WIFE's salary was not eligible to be used to buy property in Thailand. That would effectively sentence anyone with a farang husband to being unable to buy property at all, unless they had all the money before they were married.

Personally I think that signing the piece of paper renoucing all rights to the property and making sure that the money came from her account is sufficient, even if the law is somewhat vague/open to interpretation.

I agree that it would be nonsense, but so is people getting thrown in jail for picking up a glass or being spokesman for condo owners. Foreigners have been jailed and/or fined because of the vague definition of work in Thai law.

If a case is ever tried in court, a judge does not have to consider whether something is nonsense or not, the judge only has to interpret the law and make a decision accordingly.

From the information that I have I would expect a judge to rule that any Thai married to a foreigner can only buy land with money they had before marriage. Ludicrous yes, nonsense yes. I just hope that this law never gets tested in court.

[loong]

So what is to stop you agreeing to take a 30 year lease on the proposed bit of land and registering the lease at the same time you buy the land. The poroceeds from the lease providing the funds for the purchase of the land to which you as a foreigner have no right thereafter but you can still sell the remaining term on the lease or rent the property out should you fall out with your wifey or girlfriend.

If a Thai has bought land with money that did not come from a foreigner, no problem.

But if the money is supplied by a foreigner and then the land is leased to the foreigner there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that this was an attempt to circumvent the law and definitely a case of using a nominee.

That is only my opinion of course.

A lawyer may well tell you something different, but then that would still only be a lawyer's opinion until tested in a court of law.

Lawyers are not infallible. 2 lawyers representing opposing sides in a court action may well be advising their clients that they are in the right, but they can't both be right.

[scotsman]

There is a lot of speculation surrounding this article on here, and so I contacted a lawyer for there input. The response was:

Yes we have been receiving a number of these enquiries lately. There was a recent article which may have understandably incited this concern with many. As far as we can tell, the rules have always been the same. There hasn’t been any new legislation or ministerial regulation tightening such restrictions. Nevertheless, it has always been difficult already in any case. Foreign nationals buying land under their Thai spouse’s name always had little or no right as they are required to waive any of their interest in the property on the day the property is purchased.

A pre-nuptial agreement is normally the security measure we use in order to safeguard such rights in any matrimonial property. Certainly, such an agreement may be viewed as circumventing the spirit of the law (the law waiving the foreign national’s rights) but there are no real restrictions in matrimonial laws as to what can be included in a pre-nuptial agreement in regards to foreign nationals. So it is common to, for example, have a pre-nup which states that the property must be sold and proceeds shared in equal halves etc. which means the foreign national is safeguarded in the sense that they are not taking ownership but proceeds etc. There are other ways to secure their rights too by way of registering a lease or superficies from their Thai spouse to them.

This has always been the case and we have not seen any new laws restricting any of these processes.

To which I replied that the money had come from me but I do not own the land or even attempt to, as far as I am concerned it is hers not her holding as a nominee, and how could anyone prove otherwise, the response was:

Yes there was also mention of that in the article. It said that the Thai spouse needs to have a bank account to buy the property and needs to have the necessary funds in the account to buy it or else they would be deemed as a nominee. It doesn’t seem to make much sense to us as you or anyone for that matter could have transferred that money into her account to buy the property. This requirement seems impractical and we have no idea how this can be enforced. We have asked the land office the same question and they could not give us a satisfactory reply. So perhaps, it is another of our regulations which needs to be taken with a pinch of salt and I don’t think there will be any issue with your wife being a nominee.

Based on this I am going to put this to bed. Personally I think that the Phuket Gazette has got something wrong in the article and it has got blown out of the water a little. If there was any substance to it I think one of (or all) the larger national papers would be running the story, but apart from the one article no one has said anything.

This is another good post from the other Thread about this subject so another Lawyer has asked this question about how the land department can prove that the wife's money was her's or not it looks like they don't know so its a gray area in the wording of this Regulation and would be very difficult to in force as some wife's bought there land years ago so money trail gone cold.

Regards

Scotsman

[Artisi]

There is a lot of speculation surrounding this article on here, and so I contacted a lawyer for there input. The response was:

Yes we have been receiving a number of these enquiries lately. There was a recent article which may have understandably incited this concern with many. As far as we can tell, the rules have always been the same. There hasn't been any new legislation or ministerial regulation tightening such restrictions. Nevertheless, it has always been difficult already in any case. Foreign nationals buying land under their Thai spouse's name always had little or no right as they are required to waive any of their interest in the property on the day the property is purchased.

A pre-nuptial agreement is normally the security measure we use in order to safeguard such rights in any matrimonial property. Certainly, such an agreement may be viewed as circumventing the spirit of the law (the law waiving the foreign national's rights) but there are no real restrictions in matrimonial laws as to what can be included in a pre-nuptial agreement in regards to foreign nationals. So it is common to, for example, have a pre-nup which states that the property must be sold and proceeds shared in equal halves etc. which means the foreign national is safeguarded in the sense that they are not taking ownership but proceeds etc. There are other ways to secure their rights too by way of registering a lease or superficies from their Thai spouse to them.

This has always been the case and we have not seen any new laws restricting any of these processes.

To which I replied that the money had come from me but I do not own the land or even attempt to, as far as I am concerned it is hers not her holding as a nominee, and how could anyone prove otherwise, the response was:

Yes there was also mention of that in the article. It said that the Thai spouse needs to have a bank account to buy the property and needs to have the necessary funds in the account to buy it or else they would be deemed as a nominee. It doesn't seem to make much sense to us as you or anyone for that matter could have transferred that money into her account to buy the property. This requirement seems impractical and we have no idea how this can be enforced. We have asked the land office the same question and they could not give us a satisfactory reply. So perhaps, it is another of our regulations which needs to be taken with a pinch of salt and I don't think there will be any issue with your wife being a nominee.

Based on this I am going to put this to bed. Personally I think that the Phuket Gazette has got something wrong in the article and it has got blown out of the water a little. If there was any substance to it I think one of (or all) the larger national papers would be running the story, but apart from the one article no one has said anything.

This is another good post from the other Thread about this subject so another Lawyer has asked this question about how the land department can prove that the wife's money was her's or not it looks like they don't know so its a gray area in the wording of this Regulation and would be very difficult to in force as some wife's bought there land years ago so money trail gone cold.

Regards

Scotsman

It is irrelevant where the money comes from, if the land office is going their job correctly when your wife registers the land it has to be in her name and you as a foreigner have to sign a document which clearly says that you don't have any claim to the land. Full-stop no argument no claim.

[loong]

It is irrelevant where the money comes from, if the land office is going their job correctly when your wife registers the land it has to be in her name and you as a foreigner have to sign a document which clearly says that you don't have any claim to the land. Full-stop no argument no claim.

I suggest that you read the declaration/confirmation again

http://www.isaanlawyers.com/images/letter%...onfirmation.jpg

It is NOT irrelevant where the money comes from, that is what this document is all about. Nowhere in this declaration does the foreigner state that he has no claim on the land. The declaration simply states that the money did not come from the foreign spouse or from joint matrimonial property.

There is absolutely no doubt that the spouse of a foreigner cannot legally buy land if the money came from the Foreign spouse. Full stop.

It seems that the Land office has a duty of care to check that any funds to buy a property in this situation did not come from the foreigner and are not joint matrimonial property. If the Thai national and foreign spouse sign a declaration that the money used did not come from the foreigner and is not joint matrimonial property the law states that that is enough to satisfy the duty of care and the land official can go ahead with the transfer.

If at a later date it transpires that the funds DID come from the foreigner, the land official is in the clear. Both parties have signed a false declaration to satisfy his duty of care. They have left themselves open to criminal prosecution.

[Mosha]

Can we claim it was Sinsot/bride price money?

[Skidley]

Borrowed from another forum.

Why Thais insist on owning their own land

Why do we treat foreigners living in Thailand the way we do?

By: Voranai Vanijaka

Land Department Director-General Anuwat Meteewiboonwat has angered a lot, if not all, foreign residents in Thailand. The issue is land, or more pointedly the ownership of land - which, according to Thai law, cannot be owned by foreigners. However, it has been a normal practice for foreign residents - many of whom have lived in Thailand for decades - to buy land through their Thai spouses, with the title deeds in their wives' names. Though that too is illegal, as the wife is considered a nominee.

However, the foreign husband (providing the money to buy the land) and Thai wife may sign an official document stating that the acquired property will remain the sole personal property (Sin Suan Tua) of the Thai partner, as opposed to common matrimonial property (Sin Som Ros), as would be the case in a marriage between two Thais and is the normal case in Thai civil law.

So what's the problem?

The problem is with this quote by Mr Anuwat: "If the Thai spouse has enough money to buy the house, that is fine, but if the Thai has no money and uses money given to him or her by a foreigner to acquire property, that is against the law. If we check and find out later that a Thai person has been using money from a foreigner to buy land anywhere in Thailand, we will revoke the title deeds."

What he said is legal and correct. If the wife earns 20,000 baht per month, she could not buy a 10 million baht piece of land. If it is proven that the money comes from her husband then it's an illegal purchase, and the title deeds will be revoked. In such case, the wife is deemed a nominee.

The problem however seems to be that the director-general did not finish saying what needed to be said - which is as stated earlier, if the husband and wife sign an official document saying the land will remain Sin Suan Tua, the purchase would then be legally correct.

The issue could very well be as simple as that. Because Mr Anuwat's speech did not cover the legality in its entirety, he ignited confusion and scorn among Thailand's foreign residents.

Does this mean we can all go back to business and forget the misunderstanding? Not quite, since the can of worms has been opened.

The question is then, why can't the foreign husband have an interest in or claim on the land? If his wife dies, should it not be legal for the husband to inherit the land? The answer is, not if he's foreigner. The land will pass on to the nearest next of kin, who's a Thai citizen.

The stance is clear: Thai land must be owned by Thais and only Thais, not foreigners. That explains why said official document needs to be signed and any interest or claim on the land by the foreign husband relinquished. However, this brings us to another issue.

Why can't foreigners own a piece of the Land of Smiles? This is a contention that no doubt preys on the minds of many of the country's foreign residents.

The argument for foreign residents being able to own land is sound enough. They live here, work here, pay tax here, marry here and aim to spend the rest of their lives as a part of Thai society. So why can't they own land of their own, the fruit of their labours? Is Thai law regarding land ownership xenophobic, even racist? Perhaps so, perhaps not - no conflict is ever so simple.

From listening to radio talk shows and reading Thai web boards, it is clear that the Thai sentiment is against foreign ownerships. Why is that? We are such nice and friendly people. Call it fear and suspicion, which has been fostered and shaped through over a century of history.

All Thais are proud that their country has never been colonised. (Yes, I know Thailand was occupied by Japan during World War Two.) At the same time, most Thais resent how Western powers systematically shifted away the land we considered ours (namely the British and the French - the Malaya states and Indochina) and held legal, trade and tax privileges over Siamese people living in Siam. To understand why Thais think and act as we do today is to understand Thai history and the Thai consciousness.

As a result of gunboat diplomacy, Thailand - then known as Siam - was forced to sign the Bowring Treaty (on April 18, 1855) with the United Kingdom. The many privileges granted to the UK included extraterritorial rights, in which British subjects residing in Thailand were placed under consular jurisdiction, not Thai law. There were also privileges in trading, tax and land rights. Thirteen other western powers, plus Japan, were also able to force similar treaties.

These were unequal bilateral contracts, as Siam was not in a position to negotiate. However, the treaties also secured Thailand's independence and arguably, contributed to the economic development of Bangkok.

In 1932, when Thailand shifted from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy - a primary aim was to regain our "independence", to do away with extraterritorial and other "unfair" treaties forced on the Kingdom by the West.

Fast forward to today. Those historical lessons invoke in Thais a feeling of patriotism, and with it, fear and suspicion of the West. We grew up reading books and hearing stories of how Thailand, or Siam, suffered under the bullying of Western powers. It has become part of the collective consciousness of the nation to protect and preserve what is ours.

Depending on whom you ask, this may make sense to some, while others may think it purely reactionary. Or it could just be a natural consequence of history - unavoidable. Thailand is not unlike many countries in the world today that view the West and Westerners with fear and suspicion. It's a matter of historical consequence.

So where do we go from here?

It is interesting to note that our neighbour to the south, Malaysia, which was a British colony, encourages foreign ownership of land and sees it as economically beneficial to Malaysia and its people. Why is a country that was once colonised so welcoming, while a country that has staved off colonisation is so resistant? Perhaps the question is the answer. When you have a long history of resisting with a measure of success, you can't help but continue to resist.

Be that as it may, it could be easily argued that the Toms, Dicks and Harrys living in Thailand today are not the same people as those abusing and exploiting Siam over a century ago. This seems obvious and reasonable to those who are well acquainted and have friendships with Tom, Dick and Harry.

But then again, it could be as easily argued that over 100 years of fear and suspicion are not easy to shake. The collective consciousness to protect and to preserve what is ours from those we considered to already have so much and have taken so much. Especially for those of us who don't know any Tom, Dick or Harry in our personal lives - and that's the majority of Thailand.

Are we to "get over it" and open our arms, or are we to "stick with it" and keep what is ours? That is the question needing an answer somewhere in the future.

And another question remains: Did Mr Anuwat just not finish his speech, or does he have something else in mind?

[katabeachbum]

So what is to stop you agreeing to take a 30 year lease on the proposed bit of land and registering the lease at the same time you buy the land. The poroceeds from the lease providing the funds for the purchase of the land to which you as a foreigner have no right thereafter but you can still sell the remaining term on the lease or rent the property out should you fall out with your wifey or girlfriend.

If a Thai has bought land with money that did not come from a foreigner, no problem.

But if the money is supplied by a foreigner and then the land is leased to the foreigner there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that this was an attempt to circumvent the law and definitely a case of using a nominee.

That is only my opinion of course.

A lawyer may well tell you something different, but then that would still only be a lawyer's opinion until tested in a court of law.

Lawyers are not infallible. 2 lawyers representing opposing sides in a court action may well be advising their clients that they are in the right, but they can't both be right.

I do not agree

If a thai national recieves gift or Sinsot and purchase land. I see no reason why a lease should not be valid. After all the thai national will have the land back when lease expires, which is the intention of the laws.

[bkkjames]

wondering, if i give the money to my son (thai national) and he gives it to his mom to buy the land, would this be ok?

[loong]

If a thai national recieves gift or Sinsot and purchase land. I see no reason why a lease should not be valid. After all the thai national will have the land back when lease expires, which is the intention of the laws.

Hey, I'm just trying to be the voice of pessimism here, so that people make think more before jumping into something and I hope that you are right.

It is apparently not against the law for a Thai landowner to lease land to a foreigner. So that part of an arrangement is immaterial.

The part that the law will focus on is where the money came from to buy the land in the first place. If the funds have come from a foreigner, it is against the law. From what I have read, there is no disputing this.

Now, be honest, If a foreigner supplies the cash for a Thai to buy a property and then that Thai leases the land back to the foreigner, would you interpret it as the foreigner using a Thai nominee to enable the foreigner to control the land? I honestly cannot see anybody interpreting it in any other way, because that is exactly what the foreigner is doing.

A judge will not concern himself with the intention of the lawmakers when the law was written, he will only concern himself with the interpretation of the law as it is written.

As for what was the intention of the lawmakers when they passed this law?

Prior to this law, spouses of foreigners could not purchase land at all. This meant that even rich and influential Thais with foreign spouses could not buy land. Members of the elite group married to a foreigner were in the same boat as poor people.

Anyone with a suspicious mind would maybe think that the law was carefully worded so that only the elite Thais with foreign spouses could lawfully buy land. Is it a coincidence that this law was brought in at about the same time as falling property prices?

As for a Thai accepting a gift of land from a foreign spouse or even from another Thai. This is a different process at the land office and I think that if it was considered that the gift originated in any way or form from a foreigner permission would be refused.

I truly hope that this is all just a storm in a teacup and that nothing bad ever comes out of it, but people should be aware that the possibility exists, not only to lose the land, but as laws have been broken, a prison sentence and/or fine.

I'm sorry to say that, in Thailand it is not difficult to believe that the police could use this law to really bump up the tea money fund.

Scenario,

Police identify large house on large land Farang lives there with Thai wife. The police will know who all the influential people are, so will avoid them. Excuse me madam, how did you happen to manage to pay for this land? From your bank account? Do you have your tax records to hand? You didn't pay tax! why not? Oh your husband gave you the money, I see and did you both sign the declaration? So you have both broken the law and made false declarations. Please, both of you accompany us to the station where we will sort this thing out.

[samran]

As for what was the intention of the lawmakers when they passed this law?

Prior to this law, spouses of foreigners could not purchase land at all. This meant that even rich and influential Thais with foreign spouses could not buy land. Members of the elite group married to a foreigner were in the same boat as poor people.

Anyone with a suspicious mind would maybe think that the law was carefully worded so that only the elite Thais with foreign spouses could lawfully buy land. Is it a coincidence that this law was brought in at about the same time as falling property prices?

I have a nagging suspicion it had the be changed as there was a raft of supreme court decisions around that time which said you weren't allowed to disciminate against Thai nationals, on any basis.

[TG911]

Maybe I missed that reading the posts, but what if the Foreigner and his Thai spouse live for many years in the West.

She's joint holder of multiple assets and (saving) accounts (outside of Thailand), but does not have a work contract or

monthly salary.

Now with the interest received from assets & savings, she purchases land in Thailand ... surely we do it together, surely

it's her money as much as mine, but I'm not sure from what I read how far does this count as "her money" and how to

proof or fulfill this vaguely described requirement?

[hhgz]

"If I was to marry and wish to t/f the property into her name..."

"t/f" - I think that might be one of the legal problems you are facing. You are using abbreviations and colloquialisms that have no legal standing. You want to transfer (I assume that's what you meant by "t/f") the property you don't own, to another gf (a non-legal abbreviation indicating "girlfriend"). Haven't you spent sufficient time, money, and emotional trauma on Thai women?