Illegal For Thai Wives Of Foreigners To Own Land

[thaihome]

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?

Yes, you got it completly wrong.

The Thai wife can buy land using money her husband gave her as long as he signs the letter of confirmation, the same process that has been going for a long time. Nothing has changed for that.

What I foriengner cannot do is setup a company with his wife holding the majority shares and give her the money to buy the land. That is using your wife as a nominee. Giving her money and saying the property she bought is not common property is not using her as a nominee. By signing the confirmation you are in fact saying she is not a nominee.

TH

[Swelters]

Yes, you got it completly wrong.

The Thai wife can buy land using money her husband gave her as long as he signs the letter of confirmation, the same process that has been going for a long time. Nothing has changed for that.

What I foriengner cannot do is setup a company with his wife holding the majority shares and give her the money to buy the land. That is using your wife as a nominee. Giving her money and saying the property she bought is not common property is not using her as a nominee. By signing the confirmation you are in fact saying she is not a nominee.

TH

I dpn't mean to be rude or combative, but this kind of post is to me has a vague validity but is to me unintelligible from the standpoint of Thai or any other kind of law.

Swelters

[Crossy]

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.

Here you go ND http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Illegal-Thai...La-t268608.html

[gk10002000]

I found myself in an unlikely situation this morning that gave me first-hand information that I will share.

Last night my g/f asked me if I would accompany her in the morning to the Chiang Mai Land Office because she had some family business to transact. I said sure. When we arrived, she introduced me to a woman that she has known for many years who was there waiting for her, documents in hand. She explained to me that she was purchasing some land from this woman on behalf of her uncle who lives in Hat Yai. He had sent her the money and that when he came to visit the family in Chiang Mai next time, that she would transfer the title to him. Apparently, in order to purchase land in Thailand, a party must personally show up at the Land Office in that Amphur; unlike in the USA for example where title documents are executed and notarized and then forwarded to the county by a title company.

After about 60 minutes of waiting, their number was called and they went to see the clerk. I sat on the bench waiting. After some discussion I happened to look up and noticed the clerk pointing his finger at me and the two ladies looking over at me and apparently having a minor argument with the clerk. At this time, my g/f came over to me and said that the clerk would not transfer the title to her because he thought that I had given her the money and that he wanted a photo-copy of my passport! I refused and said that I would have no part of this and for her to get all the information that she could.

After much discussion, my g/f came back again and told me that the clerk had told her that the law had recently changed, and in no uncertain terms, that a Thai woman can no longer purchase property with money that she received from a farang husband, boyfriend or business partner. It must be her own money and she must prove it is her own money. He said that she could lose her land if the government found out she purchased the property with money she got from a farang.

She told me that the clerk had noticed that she was pregnant and asked her if I was the father. She said yes but that I had just come along with her and that I had nothing to do with the purchase. He then asked her where she got the money from! and when she told him that it really was none of his business that he became uncooperative. The seller was becoming anxious and so my g/f caved in and told the clerk that her uncle had sent her the money for the purchase. I then saw the two women disappear into another office to speak with a superior. My g/f later told me that she had to get her uncle on the telephone to verify the story and that he had to fax a letter and copy of the bank transaction to Chiang Mai Land Office before the transaction could be completed. After about 2 1/2 hours of waiting around, she emerged with the Chanote.

So apparently it is true what has been reported. The situation I witnessed today seemed a bit like communism I would say. I personally have never considered handing over my hard-earned money to a Thai woman to purchase property in her name. I think the men that have been doing this for years to circumvent the law are foolish and could lose everything. (Many already have!) Perhaps its time for them to sell while they can and recover what they can. Renting it seems, is the only safe way here.

Yes, yes and double yes on your last sentence. After my first trip to Thailand in 2004, I was ready to buy and spend a lot of time there. Then I started talking to people, and reading the fine print. Everything is loaded against the foreigner. Yes, some things may work out, and have for many people for a long time. But if push comes to shove, property and assets can get taken over very quickly. I guess what I am missing here, is, if you are married and happy and things are going long term, does this law really prevent you from giving your wife money to buy land for you two and your family to live on? Yes, you sign over all the deeds and land rights to her, but can she still buy the land with your money, regardless of whether you are upfront and openly disclose the situation or not? Not trying to hide anything, just simply want to buy the land and am willing to take the risk of it running away with the Thai wife or goernment for that matter.

[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.

Here you go ND http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Illegal-Thai...La-t268608.html

Thanks Crossy.

[Arkady]

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..."

OK perhaps the finishing touches are still to come but the definition of grounds for suspecting alien involvement in a company in the January 2009 decree is pretty all encompassing. Even prior to that decree applications to buy land by 100% Thai owned companies with no apparent foreign involvement had already been rejected by the Land Dept on the grounds that the Thai shareholders, Thai directors and business reasons for wanting to buy a residential house were not convincing and it was therefore assumed that the company was a front for a foreign purchaser. Once they have been given the definition of grounds for suspicion of foreign involvement in a company, do you expect land department officials to only apply this to foreigners trying to break the law by acting as property developers but not to foreigners trying to break it just by buying just one plot of land? How are the Land Dept officials expected to know that the foreigners will only break the law once and not go on to do it multiple times and be classed as developers? It is like trying to make the distinction between drug dealers and users that the Thai police seem unable to do.

[thaiwanderer]

Once they have been given the definition of grounds for suspicion of foreign involvement in a company, How are the Land Dept officials expected to know that the foreigners will only break the law once and not go on to do it multiple times and be classed as developers? It is like trying to make the distinction betwdo you expect land department officials to only apply this to foreigners trying to break the law by acting as property developers but not to foreigners trying to break it just by buying just one plot of land?een drug dealers and users that the Thai police seem unable to do.

hints at a VERY good analogy from which i draw an entirely different conclusion!

[thaihome]

Yes, you got it completly wrong.

The Thai wife can buy land using money her husband gave her as long as he signs the letter of confirmation, the same process that has been going for a long time. Nothing has changed for that.

What I foriengner cannot do is setup a company with his wife holding the majority shares and give her the money to buy the land. That is using your wife as a nominee. Giving her money and saying the property she bought is not common property is not using her as a nominee. By signing the confirmation you are in fact saying she is not a nominee.

TH

I dpn't mean to be rude or combative, but this kind of post is to me has a vague validity but is to me unintelligible from the standpoint of Thai or any other kind of law.

Swelters

Other then using an "I" instead of an "a" in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which part do you find "unintelligible from the standpoint of Thai or any other kind of law" ?

TH

[samILO]

Thai woman can own land, this is the law, notwithstanding they have a foreign husband/partner in live or not. There is no question about it. ONLY if a Thai woman then can lease the land to the foreign husband is the big question. The Land Regulation itself say that in case the officer suspects that the lease or document applied to register with the land officer is subject to a hidden purchase of a foreigner the officer has the right to refuse such request. BUT in such case one can appeal the decision of his as the Regulations of the land officer say that in such case he shall ask the Land Department in BGKK to decide on this matter and they would have to start investing the wife of where funds are from etc. IN order to get clarity about the CURRENT interpretation of the Land Department rules we will send a letter to the Head Office in BGKK, the legal department asking for written decision on such matter. Will advertise the answer in here once we got it with engl translation.

[thaiwanderer]

Am aware of refusals to register lease for farang husband where thai wife is the landowner.

Where such a refusal occurs and appeal it would be interested as to what need to show.

If the farang has signed the declaration for the purchase of the freehold that has no claim is that not weakened by a lease then being attempted?

If not so weakened or if the Thai wife can show evidence that actually bought with her own separate money anyway is there not then the additional problem of evidencing actual payment from farang husband to the wife for the lease (not merely declaring an amount and paying the tax? and from abroad?)?

(Obviously all depends on refusal to register lease in first place which i understand is not widespread (?) in such circumstaces - but can raise the heart rate a bit for the farang when monies transferred aready for the purchase of the freehold which is registered then find out not getting a lease).

Edited June 24, 2009 by thaiwanderer

[samILO]

Am aware of refusals to register lease for farang husband where thai wife is the landowner.

Where such a refusal occurs and appeal it would be interested as to what need to show.

If the farang has signed the declaration for the purchase of the freehold that has no claim is that not weakened by a lease then being attempted?

If not so weakened or if the Thai wife can show evidence that actually bought with her own separate money anyway is there not then the additional problem of evidencing actual payment from farang husband to the wife for the lease (not merely declaring an amount and paying the tax? and from abroad?)?

(Obviously all depends on refusal to register lease in first place which i understand is not widespread (?) in such circumstaces - but can raise the heart rate a bit for the farang when monies transferred aready for the purchase of the freehold which is registered then find out not getting a lease).

If the money was already transfered and husband finds out he can not get a lease other options are open for the husband as to register a land usage right, superficies or usufruct and/or other option, best to consult a lawyer or law firm.

[Swelters]

Yes, you got it completly wrong.

The Thai wife can buy land using money her husband gave her as long as he signs the letter of confirmation, the same process that has been going for a long time. Nothing has changed for that.

What I foriengner cannot do is setup a company with his wife holding the majority shares and give her the money to buy the land. That is using your wife as a nominee. Giving her money and saying the property she bought is not common property is not using her as a nominee. By signing the confirmation you are in fact saying she is not a nominee.

TH

I dpn't mean to be rude or combative, but this kind of post is to me has a vague validity but is to me unintelligible from the standpoint of Thai or any other kind of law.

Swelters

Other then using an "I" instead of an "a" in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which part do you find "unintelligible from the standpoint of Thai or any other kind of law" ?

TH

Well the first thing is that under the scenario set forth the wife does not buy the land. A company of which she is the majority owner buys the land. So one issue would be whether the establishment and operation of the company was legal. This may be a good question if paper nominees set up the company. Is this an issue for the land department? I don't know. Presumably there is nothing illegal about foreign ownership of minority shares in a company that owns Thai land among other activities. Could it be that the perennial confusion on this topic arises from the fact that there are two Thai administrative agencies involved? This is not an unusual source of confusion in Thailand.

Swelters

[dsfbrit]

Saw this short and rather disturbing blurb in the Chiangmai Mail:

Using Thai wife as land purchase nominee is illegal, states Minister

The fact that this comment has generated 2 threads of discsussion and over 130 posts here is very sad. It means that the reason for people not buying land via the 'company route' has all but evaporated. Before you think I am flaming - I assure you I am not - I feel your pain believe me. I made the mistake of 'owning' land through the company route. Over the last 3 years, since another minister made a comment similar to the one above, stating the Thai government would enforce the company nominee rules, I have been considering the other options.

They include selling (fat chance), 30 year lease with my Thai wife (forget 30 + years its fantasy) and a Usufruct.

I agonised over this for some time and I decided in the end, after much thought I can assure you, that the major thing I would be gaining if I shut down the company - would be peace of mind . I would lose the advantage of the company route, which even if 'illegal' at least allows me to decide if/when I want to sell it etc...

However, peace of mind means a lot to me. The thought I could sit in the garden without that nagging doubt in my head that some mindless government department in the future could come and take it away from me.

I knew if I did the '30 year lease thing' or Usufruct I could rest assured that I was 'safe'.

This is no longer the case - I am glad I kept the company as I could have gone to a lot of expense and given up control of my major Thailand asset - to have the advantage of 'peace of mind' taken away from me again.

There is a guy who posts here a lot - GARYA - who says any of us that try to 'own' land in Thailand are - how can I put it politely - not that sensible - he is right.

Farangs cannot own land here - if we want peace of mind - rent or buy a condo in your own name.

These comments by this minister will have destroyed peace of mind for many who read it.

Sadly like trust, peace of mind takes a long time to achieve, can be destroyed very quickly, perhaps never to return

Edited June 26, 2009 by dsfbrit

[thaiwanderer]

Am aware of refusals to register lease for farang husband where thai wife is the landowner.

Where such a refusal occurs and appeal it would be interested as to what need to show.

If the farang has signed the declaration for the purchase of the freehold that has no claim is that not weakened by a lease then being attempted?

If not so weakened or if the Thai wife can show evidence that actually bought with her own separate money anyway is there not then the additional problem of evidencing actual payment from farang husband to the wife for the lease (not merely declaring an amount and paying the tax? and from abroad?)?

(Obviously all depends on refusal to register lease in first place which i understand is not widespread (?) in such circumstaces - but can raise the heart rate a bit for the farang when monies transferred aready for the purchase of the freehold which is registered then find out not getting a lease).

If the money was already transfered and husband finds out he can not get a lease other options are open for the husband as to register a land usage right, superficies or usufruct and/or other option, best to consult a lawyer or law firm.

Unfortunately that relies on the co-operation of the wife who is now the owner of unencumbered land and more importantly the co-operation of the land office that has already refused to register the lease.

At the very least, some grease for the wheels would be needed.

[Gary A]

I really think some guys lose the plot. They pay crooked lawyers a lot of baht to protect them and to guard their investment. This reply applies mostly to guys who build expensive homes up country. They fail to think it through. The question they never asked themselves is whether they would actually want or could live in that expensive home if their marriage failed. I'm quite happy with my wife but good relationships still fail. The things and land I have bought my wife are in her name and if things were to go bad, I'd walk away. There is also the crowd that thinks they will get their half in the event of a divorce. I have seen guys awarded half but none of them actually got anything.

[thaihome]

Well the first thing is that under the scenario set forth the wife does not buy the land. A company of which she is the majority owner buys the land. So one issue would be whether the establishment and operation of the company was legal. This may be a good question if paper nominees set up the company. Is this an issue for the land department? I don't know. Presumably there is nothing illegal about foreign ownership of minority shares in a company that owns Thai land among other activities. Could it be that the perennial confusion on this topic arises from the fact that there are two Thai administrative agencies involved? This is not an unusual source of confusion in Thailand.

Swelters

My understanding is the issue would be when she goes to register the company (not the land) as majority stockholder she would be required to show proof the money is hers and not the husband's that has been given to her. If she cannot prove the funds are her's the commerce dept may refuse the registration.

I believe what the land dept director was trying to say when he started all this, was the land dept was going to start looking at the companies that have already been registered when they buy land to see if the setup was done legally.

Your point on two different agencies is well taken.

TH

[thaihome]

I really think some guys lose the plot. They pay crooked lawyers a lot of baht to protect them and to guard their investment. This reply applies mostly to guys who build expensive homes up country. They fail to think it through. The question they never asked themselves is whether they would actually want or could live in that expensive home if their marriage failed. I'm quite happy with my wife but good relationships still fail. The things and land I have bought my wife are in her name and if things were to go bad, I'd walk away. There is also the crowd that thinks they will get their half in the event of a divorce. I have seen guys awarded half but none of them actually got anything.

Couldn't agree more.

TH

[loong]

I really think some guys lose the plot. They pay crooked lawyers a lot of baht to protect them and to guard their investment. This reply applies mostly to guys who build expensive homes up country. They fail to think it through. The question they never asked themselves is whether they would actually want or could live in that expensive home if their marriage failed. I'm quite happy with my wife but good relationships still fail. The things and land I have bought my wife are in her name and if things were to go bad, I'd walk away. There is also the crowd that thinks they will get their half in the event of a divorce. I have seen guys awarded half but none of them actually got anything.

Couldn't agree more.

TH

I'm with you there.

If the laws ever change and I can buy land, I will reconsider my position. At the moment I cannot and so I will not. I'm not married to my girlfriend and if and when I want to buy more land, I will go to the land office and tell them that i have given the money but I have no interest in pursuing any rights. If they allow the deal, fine. If not, I will then look at other possibilities. Most of the land here is held by not much more than squatters' rights, so is just a signature from Poo Yai Bahn anyway. So a potential minefield, but that's the way they do things around here.

But if I were to buy land with Chanote, I will do it right, with the full knowledge that it is a gift to my girlfriend and the family and that I will have no rights.

[Maestro]

Two troll posts have been deleted.

--

Maestro

[Swelters]

Well the first thing is that under the scenario set forth the wife does not buy the land. A company of which she is the majority owner buys the land. So one issue would be whether the establishment and operation of the company was legal. This may be a good question if paper nominees set up the company. Is this an issue for the land department? I don't know. Presumably there is nothing illegal about foreign ownership of minority shares in a company that owns Thai land among other activities. Could it be that the perennial confusion on this topic arises from the fact that there are two Thai administrative agencies involved? This is not an unusual source of confusion in Thailand.

Swelters

My understanding is the issue would be when she goes to register the company (not the land) as majority stockholder she would be required to show proof the money is hers and not the husband's that has been given to her. If she cannot prove the funds are her's the commerce dept may refuse the registration.

I believe what the land dept director was trying to say when he started all this, was the land dept was going to start looking at the companies that have already been registered when they buy land to see if the setup was done legally.

Your point on two different agencies is well taken.

TH

I think we may be getting close to the heart of the confusion--the land department doesn't regulate companies. And I don't know how they can conveniently determine the source of investment funds, given that the company is set up by nominal Thai sponsors through a different agency . I question whether the corporation registrars dig into this at the time of company registration when there is no focus on land purchase.

Swelters

But I don't know the answers here, and I'm not trying to suggest that all this workaround is a good idea for anyone.

[Lazy Sod]

The fact that this comment has generated 2 threads of discsussion and over 130 posts here is very sad. It means that the reason for people not buying land via the 'company route' has all but evaporated. Before you think I am flaming - I assure you I am not - I feel your pain believe me. I made the mistake of 'owning' land through the company route. Over the last 3 years, since another minister made a comment similar to the one above, stating the Thai government would enforce the company nominee rules, I have been considering the other options.

They include selling (fat chance), 30 year lease with my Thai wife (forget 30 + years its fantasy) and a Usufruct.

I agonised over this for some time and I decided in the end, after much thought I can assure you, that the major thing I would be gaining if I shut down the company - would be peace of mind . I would lose the advantage of the company route, which even if 'illegal' at least allows me to decide if/when I want to sell it etc...

However, peace of mind means a lot to me. The thought I could sit in the garden without that nagging doubt in my head that some mindless government department in the future could come and take it away from me.

I knew if I did the '30 year lease thing' or Usufruct I could rest assured that I was 'safe'.

This is no longer the case - I am glad I kept the company as I could have gone to a lot of expense and given up control of my major Thailand asset - to have the advantage of 'peace of mind' taken away from me again.

There is a guy who posts here a lot - GARYA - who says any of us that try to 'own' land in Thailand are - how can I put it politely - not that sensible - he is right.

Farangs cannot own land here - if we want peace of mind - rent or buy a condo in your own name.

These comments by this minister will have destroyed peace of mind for many who read it.

Sadly like trust, peace of mind takes a long time to achieve, can be destroyed very quickly, perhaps never to return

dsfbrit, I'm in the same boat, I'd actually decided to sell from the Company to the wife with usufruct during this year believing it was totally legal, but now that all this has happened I'm thinking what's the point. I may as well stick with the Company and if they force a sale then so be it. Back to wait and see mode it seems.

[SpaceKadet]

Could somebody please post the link to the Thai document that we are discussing here, and point out the relevant sections? I have been trying to find it on the Department of Land website, but my Thai is not that good, and wife is totally computer illiterate.

Our situation is similar to one of the earlier posters. My wife kept her Thai family name. We bought a property couple of years ago. The property is in her name, I have a 30 year lease. She was never asked to sign the paper at the Land Office. The suggestion so far have been:

1. Don't do anything, it will blow over.

2. Go to the Land Office and sign the paper.

Any more concrete suggestions how to handle this?

A.

Edited July 1, 2009 by SpaceKadet

[Crossy]

Could somebody please post the link to the Thai document that we are discussing here, and point out the relevant sections? I have been trying to find it on the Department of Land website, but my Thai is not that good, and wife is totally computer illiterate.

Our situation is similar to one of the earlier posters. My wife kept her Thai family name. We bought a property couple of years ago. The property is in her name, I have a 30 year lease. She was never asked to sign the paper at the Land Office. The suggestion so far have been:

1. Don't do anything, it will blow over.

2. Go to the Land Office and sign the paper.

Any more concrete suggestions how to handle this?

A.

Start here.

Department of Land website link: http://www.dol.go.th/

Go to 'English Language Information' about half-way down on left hand side, then open item no. 1 which is in English.

[SpaceKadet]

Could somebody please post the link to the Thai document that we are discussing here, and point out the relevant sections? I have been trying to find it on the Department of Land website, but my Thai is not that good, and wife is totally computer illiterate.

Our situation is similar to one of the earlier posters. My wife kept her Thai family name. We bought a property couple of years ago. The property is in her name, I have a 30 year lease. She was never asked to sign the paper at the Land Office. The suggestion so far have been:

1. Don't do anything, it will blow over.

2. Go to the Land Office and sign the paper.

Any more concrete suggestions how to handle this?

A.

Start here.

Department of Land website link: http://www.dol.go.th/

Go to 'English Language Information' about half-way down on left hand side, then open item no. 1 which is in English.

Thanks Crossy, this one I could find. I'm asking for the link to the original Thai language document to show to my wife. Her English Legalese is even worst than mine

[newtronbom]

A tempest in a tea pot. NOTHING has changed. It only restates that nominees are illegal. Nominees have always been illegal whether the nominee is your wife or not. This only highlights that bogus companies will eventually be prosecuted. My wife has a number of properties that are in her name and I have no claim to them. I signed the document that I have no financial in HER properties. Why this must be rehashed time and time again is beyond me. The bottom line is that you CANNOT own land in Thailand unless you trust your Thai wife.

If you are quite happy with your situation and you understand the law as it applies to you then fine.

However there are some that are not in the clear - like those whose wives didn't report that they were married. What about them? what should they do to correct the situation?

And what about this director of the land department who is travelling the country spreading fear in farangs' hearts wherever he goes? You know as well as I do that local land officers have a penchant for interpreting the law how they see fit, and once a decision is made, rightly or wrongly, they are rarely gainsaid. I know this from personal experience.

I think this is still an important subject, and there are many people who are still confused, or do not know what to do.

You don't have to read this thread or contribute to it.

Why don't you complain about all the other more trivial subjects that have been done to death over and over again through the years? Like all those about Thai women and Thai wives,Thai girl friends and Lady boys for starters.

I agree with Mobi. There are many out here who are concerned about this and it needs to be looked at very carefully, as it affects many of us here. I think anything that affects our security in LOS should be taken seriously. We need to be prepared in case this comes to any of us, so that we know what to say - or not say. Possibly many of us here should be taking steps to avoid any possible trouble.

[dsfbrit]

dsfbrit, I'm in the same boat, I'd actually decided to sell from the Company to the wife with usufruct during this year believing it was totally legal, but now that all this has happened I'm thinking what's the point. I may as well stick with the Company and if they force a sale then so be it. Back to wait and see mode it seems.

Wait and see - and dont worry too much. I just reduced the shareholders to 2 Thais, my wife and another Thai we know - so at least it has got rid of all those nominees at the Lawyers office!!! Still illegal, but 'less illegal' than before maybe

A total mess all around to be honest - still the news on this thread has at least made it easy to explain to my wife why I cannot put the land in her name and lease it off her - Its illegal - so at least I wont have to discuss that with her again!!!

In fact as soon as she saw this Thai officials comments, she just took it at face value and that was that. I guess its we farang that look at every angle and want to discuss it to see what it really 'means'. Maybe the Thai way is better - its certainly less complicated.

Newtrobom, you say 'Possibly many of us here should be taking steps to avoid any possible trouble'. Like I say I have every sympathy with your desire, but what can you do??? Okay you can discuss 20 possible contracts you can set up with lots of clauses and there is always a clever lawyer out there somewhere to set it all up for you. They will also guarantee there will be no problems in the future. Yeah right - and I am Father Christmas!

We can discuss this until we are blue in the face - but Gary A is right - those of us daft enough to have bought land out here should accept that in the unlikely event there is a 'crackdown' then we are stuffed.

Edited July 2, 2009 by dsfbrit

[MJP]

A tempest in a tea pot. NOTHING has changed. It only restates that nominees are illegal. Nominees have always been illegal whether the nominee is your wife or not. This only highlights that bogus companies will eventually be prosecuted. My wife has a number of properties that are in her name and I have no claim to them. I signed the document that I have no financial in HER properties. Why this must be rehashed time and time again is beyond me. The bottom line is that you CANNOT own land in Thailand unless you trust your Thai wife.

If you are quite happy with your situation and you understand the law as it applies to you then fine.

However there are some that are not in the clear - like those whose wives didn't report that they were married. What about them? what should they do to correct the situation?

Going by Monty's explanation wives that didn't report that they were married will not have a problem as long as the marriage lasts.

Not sure what happens in case of divorce. In theory the husband could tell the court that he paid for the land and the wife acted as nominee in which case the wife would lose the land which would be sweet revenge for the husband who would end up without the land anyway.

Bit far fledged I know and I don't see any court case like this happening soon.

Not far fetched at all. I just used exactly this as a bl00dy big stick to focus some pretty dull minds. Stated that this would be the case, I would declare I own the land through the nominee illegally and the wife cannot prove where she got the money from . . . thus it would go back to the crown, the title deed revoked.

I offered TOTAL DESTRUCTION.

That or the title goes in daughters name and I get usufruct. I continue supporting things here, kid goes to good school, gets a good education, the best start in life and daughter ends up with everything. Doors still open to the wife should she wish to return and live as friends.

Big carrot, even bigger stick.

[thaiwanderer]

Not far fetched at all. I just used exactly this as a bl00dy big stick to focus some pretty dull minds. Stated that this would be the case, I would declare I own the land through the nominee illegally and the wife cannot prove where she got the money from . . . thus it would go back to the crown, the title deed revoked.

I offered TOTAL DESTRUCTION.

That or the title goes in daughters name and I get usufruct. I continue supporting things here, kid goes to good school, gets a good education, the best start in life and daughter ends up with everything. Doors still open to the wife should she wish to return and live as friends.

Big carrot, even bigger stick.

Good negotiation. But if the dull minds had thought about it they would have seen big stick for you also if you had pushed the revenge angle - imprisonable criminal offence by you and wife, though perhaps into far fetched areas then.

Edited July 4, 2009 by thaiwanderer

[MJP]

Not far fetched at all. I just used exactly this as a bl00dy big stick to focus some pretty dull minds. Stated that this would be the case, I would declare I own the land through the nominee illegally and the wife cannot prove where she got the money from . . . thus it would go back to the crown, the title deed revoked.

I offered TOTAL DESTRUCTION.

That or the title goes in daughters name and I get usufruct. I continue supporting things here, kid goes to good school, gets a good education, the best start in life and daughter ends up with everything. Doors still open to the wife should she wish to return and live as friends.

Big carrot, even bigger stick.

Good negotiation. But if the dull minds had thought about it they would have seen big stick for you also if you had pushed the revenge angle - imprisonable criminal offence by you and wife, though perhaps into far fetched areas then.

Amazing Thailand.

I think this law is designed to keep the poor, poor. They know lots of westerners are marrying Issan women.

[Artisi]

MPJ

Amazing Thailand.

I think this law is designed to keep the poor, poor. They know lots of westerners are marrying Issan women.

Can you please explain this statement.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Artisi