Illegal For Thai Wives Of Foreigners To Own Land

[Lazy Sod]

I wonder how many people this potentially affects. Perhaps 5,000 to 10,000+ if you include "company owned" propoerty as well. In addition to westerners don't forget all the Japanese, Taiwanese, Indians, etc. who are married to Thai's who will have probably paid for the house (rather than the Thai spouse). Seems Mr. Anuwat had better ask the Interior Ministry to start building a lot of jails if they are gonna enforce the "criminal" aspect of this. You can imagine the uproar in the USA/UK/Japan if one of their citizens got jailed for GIVING money to their Thai spouse to buy a house in the Thai's name. It's truly mind boggling how anyone could have a problem with this.

Anything is possible here, but I think and hope that this will blow over soon because it's just plain silly.

What's starting to bother me is that PM Abhisit has not yet intervened, even quietly. I may get flak for saying this but Thaksin would probably have not tolerated this nonsense. He at least understood the value of foreign investment and was not averse to using nominees himself.......allegedly .

[Mobi]

I wonder how many people this potentially affects. Perhaps 5,000 to 10,000+ if you include "company owned" propoerty as well. In addition to westerners don't forget all the Japanese, Taiwanese, Indians, etc. who are married to Thai's who will have probably paid for the house (rather than the Thai spouse). Seems Mr. Anuwat had better ask the Interior Ministry to start building a lot of jails if they are gonna enforce the "criminal" aspect of this. You can imagine the uproar in the USA/UK/Japan if one of their citizens got jailed for GIVING money to their Thai spouse to buy a house in the Thai's name. It's truly mind boggling how anyone could have a problem with this.

Anything is possible here, but I think and hope that this will blow over soon because it's just plain silly.

What's starting to bother me is that PM Abhisit has not yet intervened, even quietly. I may get flak for saying this but Thaksin would probably have not tolerated this nonsense. He at least understood the value of foreign investment and was not averse to using nominees himself.......allegedly .

I beg to disagree with you. Thaksin was rabidly anti farang, and it was during his tenure that he really stirred up the anti farang sentiments (the UN is not my mother etc. etc.) He had a deliberate policy of blaming all the ills of Thailand on foreigners to deflect blame from himself and his administration. Of course that didn't stop him using (and I mean using) farangs whenever he needed them, along with farang lawyers and using nominees to try and circumvent Thai laws.

Changing the land laws to make them more equitable to farangs is a "political hot potato" due to the anti farang sentiment drummed up during the Thaksin era, and Abhisit knows it only too well.

Even my own Thai wife (and she hates Thaksin) doesn't believe that farangs should own one meter of land in Thailand. It would be political suicide to get involved in the land law now. God knows he has enough on his plate without worrying about a few upset farangs.

Sorry but it will be at least a generation before any serious change is made to the land laws. In the mean time, things will carry on as before - the law will say one thing, and the farangs, together with their legal advisers and corrupt land officials, will find ways round the law. And every so often, someone will pipe up that it is all illegal, and all the farangs will panic again, until the dust settles, and they realise that no one had their houses repossessed.

[Mobi]

A good , trustworthy lawyer is hard to come by in the country. The international firms with farang lawyers, are not only extremely expensive, but they also have little experience in these areas, as most of their fees are generated through corporate clients. I can tell you this is so through personal experience over a number of years. They are simply not geared up to handle these kind of matters.

So that leaves local lawyers, and I have to say that almost all of them are not to be trusted and they often end up playing both parties.

Isaan lawyers are excellent, but they do not get involved with companies owning land, but you could try them, just to see if they may be able to help, or maybe even to recommend a good firm to you.

Please proceed with extreme caution, and I am sorry I can't give you any more specific advice.

Edited June 11, 2009 by sbk

[Lazy Sod]

I wonder how many people this potentially affects. Perhaps 5,000 to 10,000+ if you include "company owned" propoerty as well. In addition to westerners don't forget all the Japanese, Taiwanese, Indians, etc. who are married to Thai's who will have probably paid for the house (rather than the Thai spouse). Seems Mr. Anuwat had better ask the Interior Ministry to start building a lot of jails if they are gonna enforce the "criminal" aspect of this. You can imagine the uproar in the USA/UK/Japan if one of their citizens got jailed for GIVING money to their Thai spouse to buy a house in the Thai's name. It's truly mind boggling how anyone could have a problem with this.

Anything is possible here, but I think and hope that this will blow over soon because it's just plain silly.

What's starting to bother me is that PM Abhisit has not yet intervened, even quietly. I may get flak for saying this but Thaksin would probably have not tolerated this nonsense. He at least understood the value of foreign investment and was not averse to using nominees himself.......allegedly .

I beg to disagree with you. Thaksin was rabidly anti farang, and it was during his tenure that he really stirred up the anti farang sentiments (the UN is not my mother etc. etc.) He had a deliberate policy of blaming all the ills of Thailand on foreigners to deflect blame from himself and his administration. Of course that didn't stop him using (and I mean using) farangs whenever he needed them, along with farang lawyers and using nominees to try and circumvent Thai laws.

Changing the land laws to make them more equitable to farangs is a "political hot potato" due to the anti farang sentiment drummed up during the Thaksin era, and Abhisit knows it only too well.

mmm.... don't get me wrong Mobi, I'm no Thaksin lover myself, but there were a few things which indicated that he actually didn't have a problem with foreigners gaining more access to property here, especially if it was Thaksin's property company doing the selling. For example, he proposed that special economic zones be set-up with special laws, one was around suvarnabumi, I can't remember the others (perhaps around Pattaya and/or Phuket). In these zones he proposed that foreigners could hold residential land on very long leases. There was uproar and the plan was dropped. It was also during the Thaksin era that there was a boom in properties being purchased thru' nominee companies, at the time the land offices simply didn't care, which indicates that the Thaksin government didn't either. Remember when he took some Arabs to Esarn with the idea of leasing some rice farming land to them on a commercial basis, again it was knocked down by opponents.

We know that Thaksin has difficulty separating his business from his political life, but after selling Shin he was moving into property development in a big way......

If my memory serves me right it was immediately after Thaksin was ousted that the first of our recent problems started (company nominee route blocked).

[Mobi]

If my memory serves me right it was immediately after Thaksin was ousted that the first of our recent problems started (company nominee route blocked).

Well it's academic, so let's not get into an interminable debate about it.

But whatever Thaksin might have been planning for land ownership in Thailand, it was his very act of selling Shin Corp using nominees that stirred up the whole problems of the FBA, the use of nominees and in particular the use of nominees through Thai companies to own land. Prior to this everything had remained quiet for years.

Anyway - as they say - we are where we are - the law is the law - and I seriously doubt it will be changed anytime soon.

[Arkady]

If my memory serves me right it was immediately after Thaksin was ousted that the first of our recent problems started (company nominee route blocked).

Well it's academic, so let's not get into an interminable debate about it.

But whatever Thaksin might have been planning for land ownership in Thailand, it was his very act of selling Shin Corp using nominees that stirred up the whole problems of the FBA, the use of nominees and in particular the use of nominees through Thai companies to own land. Prior to this everything had remained quiet for years.

Anyway - as they say - we are where we are - the law is the law - and I seriously doubt it will be changed anytime soon.

Just for the record the Interior Ministry letter to provincial governors that mentioned that foreigners were using Thai companies to buy land and develop it without applying for development licences came out in May 2006, whereas Thaksin got the boot in November 2006. It was this letter that effectively rescinded the previous directive that was simply to forward any applications to buy land by companies owned 40% or more by foreigners to the director-general of the Land Dept for investigation. It is also true to say that Thaksin further muddied the waters by selling Shin Corp to companies owned through foreigners' nominees which sent the lame duck Sarayudh government on a xenophobia spree to try to score points domestically as they were unable to achieve anything else. (In fact they failed to amend the FBA too in the end because they couldn't organize the voting system in the National Assembly.) However, it was the Thaksin government that started the ball rolling specifically on land ownership and it has gathered momentum under the next four governments.

The latest ministry directive of January this year orders investigation of companies applying to buy land, if there is even the faintest whiff of any type of foreign involvement in the company. It remains to be seen whether the recent spat presages investigations of sources of funds of Thai males and females with foreign spouses or whether the director-general was just shooting off his mouth to score xenophobia brownie points. If the former, it will only be legal for Thai men and women to obtain financing to acquire land from foreigners with whom they have no lasting relationship. Therefore villagers will still be able to coo with admiration at the loal girls and boys who buy land and build large tasteless houses in the village from funds acquired their multiple foreign pen friends but there will be no more decent foreign-Thai couples with families setting up home in a house with land. In this case, a further irony will be that couples who have signed the declaration according to the law will be more vulnerable than those who didn't and are either unmarried or married but the Thai spouse retained a Thai surname.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Arkady

[Arkady]

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.

From a legal point of view I don’t see a problem with the Thai spouse using Sinsot to purchase land. The Civil and Commercial Code clearly defines Sinsot as the property of the wife and/or her family which is not conjugal property to be divided in the event of a divorce. The Revenue Code clearly defines it as non-taxable. Adding a lease or usufruct in favour of the foreign spouse might be erring a little more on the side of the Thai spouse being a nominee, since the foreigner has control over the land long term, but there again it is legal under the Land Code for foreigners have long term control over land through leases and usufructs. At any rate we have to wait to find out, if there has actually been or there is soon going to be a real change in the current regulations that sensibly attempt through minimum effort to control the situation and keep it in view via the signed declaration, rather than push it further underground.

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?

This is not quite correct. Prior to the new ministerial regulations issued in 1999 only Thai women married to foreigners were prohibited from buying land. Thai men married to foreigners were able to buy land without restriction and there was no mechanism to check their source of funds. Most rich and influential Thais married to foreigners happen to be male. Therefore they were not affected by the pre-1999 regulations.

In talking about the intentions of lawmakers you have to be clear that the Land Act itself only provides that foreigners and their nominees cannot own land. All the regulations about what Thais married to foreigners can and cannot do come out of the Land Department and the Interior Ministry, including the former regulation discriminating against Thai women and the 1999 one putting Thai men and women married to foreigners on an equal footing and requiring the signed form. The only piece of legislation to do with foreign ownership of land to come from parliament in recent years was the 1999 Land Act passed under Chuan’s Democrat led government that allowed foreigners to buy up to a rai of land for residential purposes, on condition that they invest 40 million baht in approved investments, not including the purchase of the land or construction of the house. The original bill would have given foreigners married to Thais the right to buy one rai of residential land with no investment requirement but the Democrats got so much flak for this bill from coalition partners that Abhisit will surely not try to reform foreign land ownership laws. He also has no intention to reform the FBA either. although the Commerce Ministry has been told to lighten up on the list of restricted businesses in Annex 3 which can be done without amending the law (that ministry is not under the Democrats and has gone very quiet on that front).

Edited June 11, 2009 by Arkady

[Mobi]

Thank you Arkady for elaborating and stating the chronology of this matter with such clarity in your 2 posts

Your are of course, correct in every respect

[thaihome]

What bothers me so much is there are many posts in this thread where it seems to be taken as fact that the Thai wife of a farang can no longer purchase land in her name unless she can prove the funds are her own, even if the husband signs the declaration. I don't believe this to be a fact at all, but only an extrapolation of an English translation of a news conference the Land Dept director had addressing the issue of land purchases in Phuket by companies that appear to have nominee setups.

TH

[loong]

What bothers me so much is there are many posts in this thread where it seems to be taken as fact that the Thai wife of a farang can no longer purchase land in her name unless she can prove the funds are her own, even if the husband signs the declaration. I don't believe this to be a fact at all, but only an extrapolation of an English translation of a news conference the Land Dept director had addressing the issue of land purchases in Phuket by companies that appear to have nominee setups.

TH

Not quite true. The English translation of a news conference the Land Dept director had addressing the issue of land purchases has resulted in some members looking more closely at the requirements necessary for the Thai spouse of a foreigner to buy land.

We will never know the actual facts until there is a test case in a court of law, and things may well continue as they are. There may never be a test case.

Meanwhile, it's not a bad thing that people reading this thread may have more questions for their lawyer before committing themselves with the assumption that they are not breaking any laws.

[Arkady]

What bothers me so much is there are many posts in this thread where it seems to be taken as fact that the Thai wife of a farang can no longer purchase land in her name unless she can prove the funds are her own, even if the husband signs the declaration. I don't believe this to be a fact at all, but only an extrapolation of an English translation of a news conference the Land Dept director had addressing the issue of land purchases in Phuket by companies that appear to have nominee setups.

TH

Not quite true. The English translation of a news conference the Land Dept director had addressing the issue of land purchases has resulted in some members looking more closely at the requirements necessary for the Thai spouse of a foreigner to buy land.

We will never know the actual facts until there is a test case in a court of law, and things may well continue as they are. There may never be a test case.

Meanwhile, it's not a bad thing that people reading this thread may have more questions for their lawyer before committing themselves with the assumption that they are not breaking any laws.

Correct Loong. The director-general of the Land Dept may have been quoted out of context and it is very possible that there is no change to the policy of allowing transfers with the signed Letter of Confirmation without checking the Thai spouse's source of funds. But members are right to be alarmed since the regulations are not only implemented by the Land Dept but are regularly modified by the Interior Ministry under advice from the Land Dept (see all the numerous directives relating to alien involvement in land purchase on the Land Dept's website). Unless a clarfication is forthcoming from the Land Dept or Interior Ministry, we will have to rely on reports from members whose Thai spouses apply for land transfers using the Letter of Confirmation. There must be a lot that were planning to buy land when this cannon (loose or well aimed?) went off who will now try to procede.

[ThaiLawOnline]

Somebody wrote that (I can't find it) and asked me to answer:

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

Two years ago I bought/paid for the land in GF's name and subsequently paid for the house to be built.

I knew of the edict regarding shell companies and chose the 30 Year Lease route vs a Usufruct.

I thought all was well regarding the Lease, but as the relationship broke down, I also discovered that the lawyer (hers) had fooled me and that I had a land only lease. All the clever clauses in the Lease Agreement drawn up by him had been in vain.

I was advised that I should issue a law suit to claim everything back and that I had about an 80% chance of success. It would take about a year and in the meantime I should move out to a secret address.

There had been about 8 months of chaos, harassment and even death threats. I had, after all, committed that sin of being worth considerably more dead than alive.

Rightly or wrongly, I decided to pay her off - quite a lot. The only vehicle available (apart from another Thai) to enact this was the (dreaded) company route I had previously decided against and this has all been done.

So now I can sleep soundly? No, of course not.

BTW, I am not married but there is an imminent possibilty.

Any comments welcome (I think) but my Questions today are:-

1. Should I and more importantly could I, as controlling director of the company, grant a Usufruct to myself and daughter (farang) and would this be likely to survive an investigation/revocation.

2. If I was lucky enough to find a buyer, how would the proceeds be distributed?

3. If I was to marry and wish to t/f the property into her name, would she have to apply for permission to accept the gift or how could that best be done. Presumably a Usufruct could be granted to me at that stage also?

Any advice appreciated which doesn't include the words "should or shouldn't have" - I know.

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

1. A company can grant a usufruct to a person. But it can NOT normally be done for free as companies exist for profits. Taxes are 1.5% on the value of the usufruct (not the land...the contract). Example, the contract is a usufruct for lifetime for an amount of 1,000,000 baht. Money will not be checked if really paid or not. So,for 1m, taxes are 15,000 baht in that case. Now, I can't recall exactly if the "director" or the company can grants a usufruct to himself. There are some rules to avoid conflict of interests. If you can not, law firms normally switch the director for few weeks...in order to reach their target. Welcome to Thailand.

2. The house is under a company. Right? Normally, the company decides how the profits are distributed. I imagine you are using nominees... Think about it.... And if you are not sure, I will find people that will take shares in the profits... Now, if you wife is a shareholder, I do think she will ask her parts of that sale.

3. If a usufruct is already on your name through a company, it will follow if the house is transferred to your girlfriend/spouse. This is what we call a REAL RIGHT. It's attached to a THING. It doesn't matter who is the owner, the usufruct follow. But you will have to transfer from the company to your wife, you will have transfer fees and taxes to pay, and if you want to make things right, you will have to close you company.

Thanks for the comments Moby. We do setup companies and transfer houses on companies. We DO NOT find nominees are use people we know to setup companies in order to "own property". There are plenty of people setting up companies in BKK or Pattaya with nominees. Check the newspapers...

[Mobi]

Somebody wrote that (I can't find it) and asked me to answer:

.

Thanks for the comments Moby. We do setup companies and transfer houses on companies. We DO NOT find nominees are use people we know to setup companies in order to "own property". There are plenty of people setting up companies in BKK or Pattaya with nominees. Check the newspapers...

Thanks for the useful information, and apologies for my own mis-information on what work you are prepared to take on.

[LennyW]

No witch-hunt, says Lands Department

Foreign ownership debate intensifies

By: KANANA KATHARANGSIPORN

The Lands Department does not have a policy to scrutinise acquisitions in which illegal use of Thai nominees on behalf of foreigners is suspected, says director-general Anuwat Maytheewibulwut.We have some regulations and processes to investigate illegality, but not that many. We must respect individual rights and assume individuals will not give fake statements to officials - Anuwat Maytheewibulwut Director-general, lands department

Land ownership revocation cases mostly occur when a complaint or conflict is brought to the department's attention, he said.

"Each year there are 5.5 million land-related transactions handled by the department and we receive around 1,000 complaints," he said. "We have no time to check every transaction, but we will investigate when there's a complaint."

Mr Anuwat was responding after several sharp letters in the Bangkok Post over the past two weeks from readers who questioned the department's policy on land acquisition by foreigners. Some alleged it was xenophobic.

He said it was likely a misunderstanding that the department would scrutinise every transaction suspected to have a Thai nominee owning land for foreigners. In fact, an investigation will be initiated only if there is a complaint.

"There is nothing new in the Land Code for land acquisition by foreigners," he added.

"For purchases or transfers, we have some regulations and processes to investigate illegality, but not that many. We must respect individual rights and assume individuals will not give fake statements to officials."

According to the Land Code, a foreigner can legally acquire land by inheritance as a legal heir, and his or her land ownership must be approved by the Interior Ministry.

Alternatively, a foreigner must invest at least 40 million baht and maintain it for five years through investment in Thai government bonds, property mutual funds, or in share capital of a Board of Investment-promoted company.

Under these two criteria, a foreigner can purchase up to one rai of land for residential use. The department also allows foreign ownership up to 49% of saleable space in a condominium, said Mr Anuwat.

If a foreigner has a Thai spouse, either legitimate or common-law, and wants to buy land, the Thai spouse must give officials of the Lands Department a joint written confirmation that the money for the purchase is wholly separate property or the personal property of the Thai spouse, not jointly acquired property.

"If a foreigner has a conflict with his or her Thai spouse and makes a complaint on land ownership to the department, we will investigate," said Mr Anuwat. "If we find the ownership is illegal, we will ask them to transfer or sell that piece of land within 180 to 365 days."

If the transfer or sale cannot be made within a year, the department will use its authority to do it. Any legal dispute between the couple not involving land ownership must be resolved under civil law.

"Changing foreign land acquisition regulations such as an extension of the leasehold period to longer than 30 years or increasing foreigners' quotas to buy condominiums is a government matter. The department is always ready to carry out the government's policy," Mr Anuwat said.

He added that all foreigners who comply with the law will get full protection under the law.

"For anyone involved in land ownership on behalf of foreigners, what they should be sure of is concern for the nation, ethics and morality in applying the law to make sure they are good Thai citizens," he said.

From the Bangkok Post

[Arkady]

No witch-hunt, says Lands Department

Foreign ownership debate intensifies

By: KANANA KATHARANGSIPORN

If a foreigner has a Thai spouse, either legitimate or common-law, and wants to buy land, the Thai spouse must give officials of the Lands Department a joint written confirmation that the money for the purchase is wholly separate property or the personal property of the Thai spouse, not jointly acquired property.

"If a foreigner has a conflict with his or her Thai spouse and makes a complaint on land ownership to the department, we will investigate," said Mr Anuwat. "If we find the ownership is illegal, we will ask them to transfer or sell that piece of land within 180 to 365 days."

From the Bangkok Post

At last this guy has come out with some kind of clarification which refers to the Letter of Confirmation required for Thai-foreign couples when the Thai partners buys land. My interpretation is that there is actually no change i.e. signing the declaration confirms the funds are now the property of the Thai spouse, whatever the source and the threat was aimed at those who don't sign the declaration. He implies that the Land Dept has to deal with cases where foreigners try to claim a share of the land bought by their Thai spouses with their money when getting divorced and these are presumably cases where the couple didn't sign the declaration. The foreigner may get something back through the court in these cases but theoretically risks criminal prosecution. Interestingly, however, the Land Dept website refers to cases where the department has forced sales of land acquired by Thai women with foreign husbands who didn't declare their marital (or cohabitation) status but it doesn't mention that it pursued criminal charges against the miscreants. This cases may well have arisen as a result marital disputes.

"There is nothing new in the Land Code for land acquisition by foreigners," he added.

This is certainly true but it is important to note that, while the Land Code is rarely amended, there is a plethora of regulations issued and amended on a very regular by the Interior Ministry that affect how the law is implemented.

For example an important one involving criteria for investigation of suspicious land purchases by companies issued on 22 January 2009 and is also referred to in today's Bangkok Post. See thread about it here http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Government-D...La-t250462.html . This regulation appears to have been the finishing touches to the government's drive to prevent land being acquired by foreigners using the company route.

The Thai spouse with Letter of Declaration route seems for now the only remaining legal loophole and it is hard to see how that can be closed without an outcry from Thai women that their human rights are being infringed but....this is Thailand.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Arkady

[losworld]

This indicates one would have to be nuts to purchase property in Thailand. Are these guys buying land to simply appease their wives? It's like winning the lottery if it's in her name. A guaranteed pot of gold she can collect by punting her husband and selling the property. Where in the world would anyone in their right mind do something like this? God there must be a lot of insecure guys out there being hoodwinked into buying property by their Thai wives or girlfriends. The most ironic thing of all is the purchase could easily give someone added incentive to end the relationship rather than cement it together.

I understand the desire for property ownership but given the current economic downturn, the unpredictable actions of the government and the possible breakup of any relationship - why in the world does anyone want to buy property now?

Maybe it is time to simply say no to the Thai wife or girlfriend and if she doesn't like it find another mate.

A had a conversation with a previous Thai girlfriend of mine and she was in heaven as she'd found a foreigner in a wheelchair who was going to buy a house under the company but put it in her name due to her insistence that the relationship would end if he didn't! Now they are out shopping for a car! The guy is obviously insecure and Thai property laws are taking full advantage of suckers.

The only thing that possibly may make sense is a condo purchase once the bottom is in on the market but given the unpredictability of Thai government policy even this is questionable.

I'd say invest the money in property or stock elsewhere and rent.

If anyone has any counter arguments I'd like to hear them.

It appears the Thai government is prepared to use Thai nationalism and xenophobia to distract attention from the real crux of the problem once again. I've always said "blame it on the foreigner" is the easiest strategy. I hope this latest bit is nothing more than bad politics and not a trend.

Sorry if I sound a bit jaded but talk about rose colored glasses.

[Crossy]

This indicates one would have to be nuts to purchase property in Thailand. Are these guys buying land to simply appease their wives? It's like winning the lottery if it's in her name................

<snip>

....... nationalism and xenophobia to distract attention from the real crux of the problem once again. I've always said "blame it on the foreigner" is the easiest strategy. I hope this latest bit is nothing more than bad politics and not a trend.

Whilst what you say is most certainly true in many instances let's keep this thread on-topic, which is the legality of a Thai wife buying property not the sensibility of the farang husband financing it

[Naam]

For example an important one involving criteria for investigation of suspicious land purchases by companies issued on 22 January 2009 and is also referred to in today's Bangkok Post. See thread about it here http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Government-D...La-t250462.html .

This regulation appears to have been the finishing touches to the government's drive to prevent land being acquired by foreigners using the company route.

before jumping to conclusions and "finishing touches":

"In the case that a limited company, limited partnership or unlimited registered partnership requests permission to register land with the intention of carrying on a property business, such as trading in real property, renting out property, operating hotel businesses, or building resort homes..."

[waza]

Hmmm I wonder if this is related to the farrangs who bulldoze their houses when their relationships go sour. It will put a stop to a farang claiming half, or any percentage Of the value of the property during settlement.

[CHINWA]

Indeed a very good initiative from the OP to keep this thread open to help each other out .

I just posted in another thread that my wife bought her ground before we got married ,

we did marry 2 years after and she changed the name on the landpaper as she has changed her backname accordingly .

Now I don't know if we should have signed something because of her marital status now ,

in this case do she/we have to sign anything or not ?

Got a bit confused on this one , thanks .

Easy and only way. You and your wife have to go to the land department where they will give you a form to sign saying that you have no rights on the land. All the problems and doubts of those who posted here will be solved in a few minutes.

Edited June 16, 2009 by CHINWA

[Burgernev]

Hmmm I wonder if this is related to the farrangs who bulldoze their houses when their relationships go sour. It will put a stop to a farang claiming half, or any percentage Of the value of the property during settlement.

Although I think all this 'bulldozing' lark is a bit of a farang urban myth, guess there's been the odd exception, isn't this breaking the law and allowing your landowner to sue you for a hefty sum ?

Civil and Commercial Codes:

Section 1310: If a person has, in good faith, constructed a building upon another person's land, the owner of the land becomes the owner of the building, but he must pay the constructor for any increase of value accruing to the land by reason of the building. However, if the owner of the land can show that there was negligence on his part, he may refuse to take the building and require that it be removed by the constructor and the land put in its former condition, unless this cannot be done at reasonable costs, in which case he may require the constructor to buy the whole or part of the land at the market price.

Burgernev

Edited June 17, 2009 by Burgernev

[thaiwanderer]

i would imagine most bulldozing farangs are not necessarily asserting a legal right

[Swelters]

Regarding your current company set up...Even with you having a share(49%) I assume your wife is the director and signatory, she's at the helm and has total control over everything.

You could consider 'usufruct' which will give you rights over the premises.

Seek good legal advice, is the best next step.

Regards Bojo

The legal advice I received a few years ago was that a company with majority share ownership by the Thai may have in its charter that the foreigner has majority operational management control or that the Thai and foreigner have equal say in management. This was said to give the foreigner a means of maintaining their rights as shareholder. Don't know if this advice still holds or not.

One thing to keep in mind is that the biggest hazard may be impulsive or even secret borrowing by the Thai partner using the title deed as security. I think this is regretably common, family pressures and all, and a real relationship buster. The company structure helps here, but I think a usufruct may block this as well since it is recorded on the title deed and a bank would not loan on a deed thus encumbered. The usufruct is so simple that you can almost do it yourself, though it may be a good idea to get legal advice so the whole thing can be clearly explained to the both partners and the Thai partner is not later made to feel that she or he has been "cheated" out of her "ownership" rights.

Another idea if the deed is granted over to the Thai wife is to agree to borrow on the property and then use that money for other useful purposes, maybe build a house or buy a condo in the foreigners name.

Swelters

Edited June 18, 2009 by Swelters

[samuisoul]

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.

Monty, re your comment that ' Foreigners can own as many houses as they like, only not the land it sits on'.

We are a British couple about to purchase a newly built house in Samui. We had been advised by our Thai lawyer to do this via a Thai company with Thai nominees but, having read the various comments on this thread, I am now very nervous about proceeding down this route.

Is there a safe and legal means for us to buy our retirement home in Samui and be able to sleep at night?

[Marksamui]

samuisole - if you go the company route a lot of people have and had no problems. however there are pitfals. You need to file accounts, hold meetings, etc. etc. you need to have an accountant who you can rely on to run this company. Also a company needs 7 directors and 51% ownership is Thai. it is not a perfect solution, although plently of people have done it and not suffered a problem.

If you want to be safe, buy a Condo, You can own the freehold as long as no more the 49% of the entire Condo block is foreign owned.

If you want a house on land you can buy a lease for 30 years. Anymore than that is nonsense. the 30+30+30 is not legal in thailand

If you are not happy with 30 years then just rent. Your advantage is you can walk away!!!!!

[LennyW]

samuisole - if you go the company route a lot of people have and had no problems. however there are pitfals. You need to file accounts, hold meetings, etc. etc. you need to have an accountant who you can rely on to run this company. Also a company needs 7 directors and 51% ownership is Thai. it is not a perfect solution, although plently of people have done it and not suffered a problem.

If you want to be safe, buy a Condo, You can own the freehold as long as no more the 49% of the entire Condo block is foreign owned.

If you want a house on land you can buy a lease for 30 years. Anymore than that is nonsense. the 30+30+30 is not legal in thailand

If you are not happy with 30 years then just rent. Your advantage is you can walk away!!!!!

Its 3 directors these days.

Read here re possible 60 year leasing - it has been done.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/60-Years-Leasing-t267983.html

[Mobi]

Its 3 directors these days.

Read here re possible 60 year leasing - it has been done.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/60-Years-Leasing-t267983.html

I had not seen that thread before.

I just read it in full and I am extremely dubious that what has been happening is 100% kosher.

Just because the land officer accepts the second lease it doesn't make it legal, in a similar way that accepting companies with nominees is not legal.

Quite frankly I'd rather take a chance on my wife throwing me out than some unknown land owner/lessor who may come after you in 30 years time when you are old, impoverished and frail and get the court to revoke the second thirty year lease and throw you out.

[IMA_FARANG]

I may be wrong,,,but I thought the issue was settled.

A Thai woman may own land even if she is married to a foriegner. Prior to 1990 (or so) the law did not allow the wife of a foriegner to own or buy land. But that law was changed, and now a Thai wife of a foriegner can own land.

Now the issue was that certain foriegners were using their wife as a nominee to buy land in their place. The wife was using the foriegners money, and buying land with it. The decision was that the practice was illegal. That doesn't mean that the Thai wife of a foriegner couldn't buy land using her own money. Nor does it mean she can't own land. It just means that she can't act as a surrogate for her foriegn husband for buying land or owning land.

Or did I get that wrong?

[Swelters]

samuisole - if you go the company route a lot of people have and had no problems. however there are pitfals. You need to file accounts, hold meetings, etc. etc. you need to have an accountant who you can rely on to run this company. Also a company needs 7 directors and 51% ownership is Thai. it is not a perfect solution, although plently of people have done it and not suffered a problem.

If you want to be safe, buy a Condo, You can own the freehold as long as no more the 49% of the entire Condo block is foreign owned.

If you want a house on land you can buy a lease for 30 years. Anymore than that is nonsense. the 30+30+30 is not legal in thailand

If you are not happy with 30 years then just rent. Your advantage is you can walk away!!!!!

Good advice. The setup is tiresome and fees for a company are increasing, I pay 3000 baht a month and now it's another 40,000 every year not to speak of the constant suspicion by auditors about a company that doesn't really do any business or pay taxes on profits. I have my own reasons but for most there is no nirvana in being a Thai property holder, buy a REIT if you love real estate.

Swelters

[neverdie]

Good topic, has anyone by chance got a link to the previous topic that was started on this same issue. I couldnt find it, but then again I going a bit googleyed.