Illegal For Thai Wives Of Foreigners To Own Land

[MJP]

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.

Well, having been here sometime it's pretty clear to me there is a distinct and orchestrated class structure of wealth and poverty and little in between.

I remember reading in the Bangkok Post a few years ago an article exclaiming great consternation about the drop in the birth rate in Issan. "Who will be the labourers, the taxi drivers and the prostitutes" was one of the lines.

By marrying Westerners, many of these people are very quickly lifted from poverty. Money and Land = Power. The wealthy, who also get to make the laws, don't like this. It's a threat to their position.

However, banning foreign ownership of freehold is in my opinion critical to the stability of Thailand, something I do agree with.

Don't want a row about this, feeling miserable enough right now, just my humble opinion.

[Datsun240Z]

They not gonna make it into democract with this attitude

[MJP]

They not gonna make it into democract with this attitude

Was there ever the intention?

[Datsun240Z]

They not gonna make it into democract with this attitude

Was there ever the intention?

Maybe not

[MJP]

They not gonna make it into democract with this attitude

Was there ever the intention?

Maybe not

No different in Europe I'm afraid, Bart. It's all, ALL, a corrupt mess.

[Datsun240Z]

They not gonna make it into democract with this attitude

Was there ever the intention?

Maybe not

No different in Europe I'm afraid, Bart. It's all, ALL, a corrupt mess.

That's true Mike, people are fooled by their own goverments. We know just a little of what's really going on behind closed doors.

[SpaceKadet]

It seems the government is taking this seriously. Wife was watching Thai news on satellite TGN channel yesterday, and said that they mentioned it there. They said that this is the Thai law and there would be dire consequences for those that didn't sign the Letter of Confirmation. Strange that suddenly all the official channels are so vocal about this law.

So I recon it will be a trip to the Land Office on my next visit to Thailand.

[thaihome]

It seems the government is taking this seriously. Wife was watching Thai news on satellite TGN channel yesterday, and said that they mentioned it there. They said that this is the Thai law and there would be dire consequences for those that didn't sign the Letter of Confirmation. Strange that suddenly all the official channels are so vocal about this law.

So I recon it will be a trip to the Land Office on my next visit to Thailand.

I think the reason Thai officials are mentioning this is they are trying to make it clear it is ok for a Thai wife to buy property in her name as long as the foreign husband signs the letter. There is a huge amount of misinformation going around (including this very thread) that anytime a Thai wife buys property she can be considered a nominee of her husband they are going to take the land away.

TH

[thaiwanderer]

It seems the government is taking this seriously. Wife was watching Thai news on satellite TGN channel yesterday, and said that they mentioned it there. They said that this is the Thai law and there would be dire consequences for those that didn't sign the Letter of Confirmation. Strange that suddenly all the official channels are so vocal about this law.

So I recon it will be a trip to the Land Office on my next visit to Thailand.

The authorities need not investigate or take action against anyone.

Those farangs not concerned enough to sign away their rights due to the previous false 'proclamations' in farang media are being taken care of by the Thai media.

Is it really the stick or the carrot that will motivate Thai wives to express their concern that their husbands sign away their rights?

Stick for the farang, carrot for the Thai - job done.

[Artisi]

It seems the government is taking this seriously. Wife was watching Thai news on satellite TGN channel yesterday, and said that they mentioned it there. They said that this is the Thai law and there would be dire consequences for those that didn't sign the Letter of Confirmation. Strange that suddenly all the official channels are so vocal about this law.

So I recon it will be a trip to the Land Office on my next visit to Thailand.

I think the reason Thai officials are mentioning this is they are trying to make it clear it is ok for a Thai wife to buy property in her name as long as the foreign husband signs the letter. There is a huge amount of misinformation going around (including this very thread) that anytime a Thai wife buys property she can be considered a nominee of her husband they are going to take the land away.

TH

Agreed, too much misinformation in this post - my experience, 4 seperate transactions of land transfer into my wifes name is,

Go to the land office, wife presents the documents, you - the foreign husband sign the document (which has been posted either here or the other thread which is/was running) which states and which you sign to say that you have no claim to the land. That's it, NO CLAIM, this means the land is solely your wife's and hers alone.

This is pretty simple and I can't see what part of this is so difficult to understand - just because you might not agree with the law doesn't change the facts.

If you are trying to circumvent the system by the use of your wife as a nominee via some type of company structure - watch out - as what ever you do is illegal, as a foreigner can not own land in Thailand.

[moo9]

It seems the government is taking this seriously. Wife was watching Thai news on satellite TGN channel yesterday, and said that they mentioned it there. They said that this is the Thai law and there would be dire consequences for those that didn't sign the Letter of Confirmation. Strange that suddenly all the official channels are so vocal about this law.

So I recon it will be a trip to the Land Office on my next visit to Thailand.

I think the reason Thai officials are mentioning this is they are trying to make it clear it is ok for a Thai wife to buy property in her name as long as the foreign husband signs the letter. There is a huge amount of misinformation going around (including this very thread) that anytime a Thai wife buys property she can be considered a nominee of her husband they are going to take the land away.

TH

Agreed, too much misinformation in this post - my experience, 4 seperate transactions of land transfer into my wifes name is,

Go to the land office, wife presents the documents, you - the foreign husband sign the document (which has been posted either here or the other thread which is/was running) which states and which you sign to say that you have no claim to the land. That's it, NO CLAIM, this means the land is solely your wife's and hers alone.

This is pretty simple and I can't see what part of this is so difficult to understand - just because you might not agree with the law doesn't change the facts.

If you are trying to circumvent the system by the use of your wife as a nominee via some type of company structure - watch out - as what ever you do is illegal, as a foreigner can not own land in Thailand.

Good post which reflects the current situation. There was / is too much confusion about this topic on the differents discussion boards.

Cheers

[loong]

Agreed, too much misinformation in this post - my experience, 4 seperate transactions of land transfer into my wifes name is,

Go to the land office, wife presents the documents, you - the foreign husband sign the document (which has been posted either here or the other thread which is/was running) which states and which you sign to say that you have no claim to the land. That's it, NO CLAIM, this means the land is solely your wife's and hers alone.

This is pretty simple and I can't see what part of this is so difficult to understand - just because you might not agree with the law doesn't change the facts.

If you are trying to circumvent the system by the use of your wife as a nominee via some type of company structure - watch out - as what ever you do is illegal, as a foreigner can not own land in Thailand.

And misinformation from you. Read the document. It is not a statement that you have no claim on the land. It is a statement that the money for the purchase did not come from the foreigner. A statement that the money for the purchase either belonged to the woman before they married or did not come from communal assets.

If it was simply a statement that you have no claim on the land, this thread wouldn't be running still.

[thaiwanderer]

And misinformation from you. Read the document. It is not a statement that you have no claim on the land. It is a statement that the money for the purchase did not come from the foreigner. A statement that the money for the purchase either belonged to the woman before they married or did not come from communal assets.

If it was simply a statement that you have no claim on the land, this thread wouldn't be running still.

Forgive my ignorance but if so how is it not then effectively the same as a bare statement saying farang has no claim?

[Artisi]

Agreed, too much misinformation in this post - my experience, 4 seperate transactions of land transfer into my wifes name is,

Go to the land office, wife presents the documents, you - the foreign husband sign the document (which has been posted either here or the other thread which is/was running) which states and which you sign to say that you have no claim to the land. That's it, NO CLAIM, this means the land is solely your wife's and hers alone.

This is pretty simple and I can't see what part of this is so difficult to understand - just because you might not agree with the law doesn't change the facts.

If you are trying to circumvent the system by the use of your wife as a nominee via some type of company structure - watch out - as what ever you do is illegal, as a foreigner can not own land in Thailand.

And misinformation from you. Read the document. It is not a statement that you have no claim on the land. It is a statement that the money for the purchase did not come from the foreigner. A statement that the money for the purchase either belonged to the woman before they married or did not come from communal assets.

If it was simply a statement that you have no claim on the land, this thread wouldn't be running still.

Well I have read the document (Letter of Confirmation) carefully, nowhere does it say that the money did or didn't come from a foreigner, what you are attesting is the money used to purchase the property is money of your wife and hers alone.

What is says in simple terms is;

....... shall expend on the purchase of land title ------ is wholly Sin San Tua (personal asset) or the personal property of ---------- and not Sin Som Ros (asset of a couple) or the matrimonial property between husband and wife .

Therefore if the money is "gifted" to your wife it is her's and her's alone and she is within the law to sign the document as you to which you are saying - it is HER money to which YOU have NO claim whatso ever.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Artisi

[loong]

And misinformation from you. Read the document. It is not a statement that you have no claim on the land. It is a statement that the money for the purchase did not come from the foreigner. A statement that the money for the purchase either belonged to the woman before they married or did not come from communal assets.

If it was simply a statement that you have no claim on the land, this thread wouldn't be running still.

Forgive my ignorance but if so how is it not then effectively the same as a bare statement saying farang has no claim?

This has already been covered earlier in this topic.

It is illegal for the wife of a foreigner to buy land using funds supplied by the foreigner.

This document allows the Land office to register the transfer without investigating where the funds originated. Without it, they have to be sure that the funds did not originate from the foreign spouse.

If the foreigner and the Thai wife sign this declaration and the funds DID come from the foreigner, then they have made a false statement.

If the foreign husband wishes to make a gift to the wife, then it is a different procedure. She should then apply to have the transfer allowed as a gift.

[loong]

Well I have read the document (Letter of Confirmation) carefully, nowhere does it say that the money did or didn't come from a foreigner, what you are attesting is the money used to purchase the property is money of your wife and hers alone.

What is says in simple terms is;

....... shall expend on the purchase of land title ------ is wholly Sin San Tua (personal asset) or the personal property of ---------- and not Sin Som Ros (asset of a couple) or the matrimonial property between husband and wife .

Therefore if the money is "gifted" to your wife it is her's and her's alone and she is within the law to sign the document as you to which you are saying - it is HER money to which YOU have NO claim whatso ever.

If making a gift, there is a separate procedure.

Already covered in this thread.

[Artisi]

Well I have read the document (Letter of Confirmation) carefully, nowhere does it say that the money did or didn't come from a foreigner, what you are attesting is the money used to purchase the property is money of your wife and hers alone.

What is says in simple terms is;

....... shall expend on the purchase of land title ------ is wholly Sin San Tua (personal asset) or the personal property of ---------- and not Sin Som Ros (asset of a couple) or the matrimonial property between husband and wife .

Therefore if the money is "gifted" to your wife it is her's and her's alone and she is within the law to sign the document as you to which you are saying - it is HER money to which YOU have NO claim whatso ever.

If making a gift, there is a separate procedure.

Already covered in this thread.

Could you please point me in the right direction re the separate procedure.

Thanks

[Crossy]

If making a gift, there is a separate procedure.

Already covered in this thread.

Could you please point me in the right direction re the separate procedure.

Thanks

Yeah me too please. I 'gifted' the cash for 'our' land some years back. I've already signed the 'no interest' thingy, just want to tie up any potential loose ends.

[Burgernev]

If the foreigner and the Thai wife sign this declaration and the funds DID come from the foreigner, then they have made a false statement.

I can't see how you are making a false statement as the declaration is only confirming the funds are spouse's own 'private property'. The declaration does not refer to the source of the funds and I've never heard of a procedure where you have to declare a gift from the foreigner!?

Re: 'Signing your rights away' to the land, you are, but only under certain circumstances. As 5 minutes later you and your spouse could sign your 'rights' back to the land in a will (leaving to one side the likelyhood of inheritance ownership actually being granted.)

Burgernev

Edited July 9, 2009 by Burgernev

[thaiwanderer]

And misinformation from you. Read the document. It is not a statement that you have no claim on the land. It is a statement that the money for the purchase did not come from the foreigner. A statement that the money for the purchase either belonged to the woman before they married or did not come from communal assets.

If it was simply a statement that you have no claim on the land, this thread wouldn't be running still.

Forgive my ignorance but if so how is it not then effectively the same as a bare statement saying farang has no claim?

This has already been covered earlier in this topic.

It is illegal for the wife of a foreigner to buy land using funds supplied by the foreigner.

This document allows the Land office to register the transfer without investigating where the funds originated. Without it, they have to be sure that the funds did not originate from the foreign spouse.

If the foreigner and the Thai wife sign this declaration and the funds DID come from the foreigner, then they have made a false statement.

If the foreign husband wishes to make a gift to the wife, then it is a different procedure. She should then apply to have the transfer allowed as a gift.

As its a declaration of sin san tua I still cannot see how it is NOT signing away any claim on the land (and the separate procedure for 'gifting' it will also make it sin san tua)?

[loong]

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.

Department of Land website link: is at post #48

Go to 'English Language Information' about half-way down on left hand side, then open item no. 3 which is in English.

Please read the thread from here...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Illegal-Thai....html&st=50

Edited July 9, 2009 by loong

[thaiwanderer]

Loong, you have lost me a bit to be honest.

I am aware of the previous posts in this thread (and others in this section) but re-read to be sure i am not missing anything.

You said the declaration is NOT a statement that you have no claim on the land (it was this I was confused about rather than the legality or otherwise of making the declaration itself). However as far as i can see it is effectively the same as it states the purchase is sin san tua of the wife and so is not part of the division of assets upon divorce (in the normal course of events). What then do you suggest is the surviving claim/s the husband may have on the land?

As regards the gift procedure, sure that may well be a way to ensure you are not making a false statement but that too results in the land being sin san tua.

I am not criticising I am just unsure of how you come by your conclusion.

[loong]

You said the declaration is NOT a statement that you have no claim on the land (it was this I was confused about rather than the legality or otherwise of making the declaration itself). However as far as i can see it is effectively the same....

If one of these cases ever came to court, the Judge will only be interested in how the law is written, not what people assume is effectively the same.

Note the wording in the following quotes...

.The money that........ shall expend on the purchase of land title ------ is wholly Sin San Tua (personal asset) or the personal property of ---------- and not Sin Som Ros (asset of a couple) or the matrimonial property between husband and wife .

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.

Why did they use this particular wording? Why do they focus on where the money originated from? Why is there no allowance for the foreigner to pay, but state that he will not retain any claim on the land? There is a similar allowance in the gift option.

Hopefully this wording will not cause any problems and never be tested in court or used as a stick by the friendly police.

Edited July 10, 2009 by loong

[Artisi]

You said the declaration is NOT a statement that you have no claim on the land (it was this I was confused about rather than the legality or otherwise of making the declaration itself). However as far as i can see it is effectively the same....

If one of these cases ever came to court, the Judge will only be interested in how the law is written, not what people assume is effectively the same.

Note the wording in the following quotes...

.The money that........ shall expend on the purchase of land title ------ is wholly Sin San Tua (personal asset) or the personal property of ---------- and not Sin Som Ros (asset of a couple) or the matrimonial property between husband and wife .

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.

Why did they use this particular wording? Why do they focus on where the money originated from? Why is there no allowance for the foreigner to pay, but state that he will not retain any claim on the land? There is a similar allowance in the gift option.

Hopefully this wording will not cause any problems and never be tested in court or used as a stick by the friendly police.

Nowhere do you mention where the money came from when land is purchased and they are discussing gifts of land NOT money.

Plus the item 3 that has been referenced seems clear to me as folows:

--- and the alien spouse have given a joint written confirmation that 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 competent official will proceed with the registration of rights and juristic act.

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.

Everyone seems to have their own views on this at the moment - right or wrong -- but luckily next month the Thai Australia Association will host a seminar which will be addressed by Thai Government legal representatives who are visiting Australia, they will be in Aust. to discuss the laws of Thailand and the rights of Thai women married to western husbands.

Guess what my first question will be which hopefully will settle the discussion once-and-for-all.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Artisi

[thaihome]

The only reason this discussion still continues is that some people want there to be a problem so they can continue to complain about how unfair Thailand is to them.

TH

[thaiwanderer]

You said the declaration is NOT a statement that you have no claim on the land (it was this I was confused about rather than the legality or otherwise of making the declaration itself). However as far as i can see it is effectively the same....

If one of these cases ever came to court, the Judge will only be interested in how the law is written, not what people assume is effectively the same.

Note the wording in the following quotes...

.The money that........ shall expend on the purchase of land title ------ is wholly Sin San Tua (personal asset) or the personal property of ---------- and not Sin Som Ros (asset of a couple) or the matrimonial property between husband and wife .

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.

Why did they use this particular wording? Why do they focus on where the money originated from? Why is there no allowance for the foreigner to pay, but state that he will not retain any claim on the land? There is a similar allowance in the gift option.

Hopefully this wording will not cause any problems and never be tested in court or used as a stick by the friendly police.

What then do you suggest is the surviving claim/s the husband may have on the land?

[loong]

The only reason this discussion still continues is that some people want there to be a problem so they can continue to complain about how unfair Thailand is to them.

TH

Actually, I don't remember anybody complaining in the way that you claim, but I'm not going to read the whole thread again to check.

I'm sure that everyone here would like to see an unambiguous answer to the questions raised. At the moment, we can only put our own interpretations on the law and this thread does show that different people will interpret it differently.

[loong]

What then do you suggest is the surviving claim/s the husband may have on the land?

Sorry Thaiwanderer, I have no suggestions. I seem to be the Devil's advocate here.

The law in any country is a very intricate thing. It is also very frustrating.

I had a problem a few years back in the Uk. A dispute over property that I owned. I know from experience that the law has nothing to do with what is right or fair. I won the case, but it very nearly wiped me out. All my savings went into the pockets of lawyers and barristers. I couldn't claim costs because the other party had no money to pay.

At that time I did a lot of research into the law and that is why I can see the possibilities of problems here. The law does not mean what you think that it should mean, it simply means what is written. Until a case is tested in court and a precedent set, nobody will know for sure the full implications of how the law is written. Until a case is tested in court we can only guess at any possible problems.

[Artisi]

I can only speak from my own experience from 4 visits to the land office where my wife has transfered land into her name - on each occasion I have been directed by the official to sign to say that as a foreign husband I have no claim to the land- at no time was there any hint of a question as to where the money or the land came from or was the money or the land gifted.

Also, I don't for one minute have a problem with my interpretation of what I was asked to sign and I am sure that we have both acted within the law and its intent. This is because I haven't tried to circumvent the law by using my wife as a nominee and knowing full well that I have no claim nor do I want a claim to the land that is in my wife's name.

[thaiwanderer]

What then do you suggest is the surviving claim/s the husband may have on the land?

Sorry Thaiwanderer, I have no suggestions. I seem to be the Devil's advocate here.

The law in any country is a very intricate thing. It is also very frustrating.

I had a problem a few years back in the Uk. A dispute over property that I owned. I know from experience that the law has nothing to do with what is right or fair. I won the case, but it very nearly wiped me out. All my savings went into the pockets of lawyers and barristers. I couldn't claim costs because the other party had no money to pay.

At that time I did a lot of research into the law and that is why I can see the possibilities of problems here. The law does not mean what you think that it should mean, it simply means what is written. Until a case is tested in court and a precedent set, nobody will know for sure the full implications of how the law is written. Until a case is tested in court we can only guess at any possible problems.

Understood and (partially) agreed - in Thailand there are no binding precedents iirc.

How such an operation of law in practice would benefit the farang husband so that despite the declaration or gift procedure he retained a claim I don't know.