Issues For Nominees Buying Land For Foreign Owners

[gregb]

You are indeed scaremongering. The poster in question stated he wanted to make some investments in land, he did not want to go the Thai company route and he fully trusted his wife but was worried about hearing stories of the government taking land away.

You responded saying that if the husband gave his wife the money and signs the affidavit he was committing fraud. That is just not true. Then go on and on about splitting assets during a divorce. This is a complete strawman and has nothing to do with the posters question.

I'm not sure exactly where your emotional analysis is coming from but I won't bother continuing this discussion.

What I will say to everyone is the following:

If you sign a piece of paper, be absolutely sure that what you are saying is 100% truthful. There is a legal definition of what constitutes personal assets and what constitutes communal assets in a Thai marriage. Learn what those are, and make sure you have documentation to prove that what you are stating on the paper you sign at the land office is in fact the truth.

As long as you are quite certain you can defend your position that property was purchased with assets that the Thai law would consider to be your wife's individual assets, (not your assets and not communal assets) you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

I would never advise someone to sign their name to any document where they are not being 100% truthful.

I learned alot about this when I tried to get a loan from the Government Housing Bank. Khan Prachuabmoh's (the bank Governor's) staff was extremely helpful, but there was nothing they could do. I had a personal relationship with his nephew, and if there was any way they could have assisted me, they would have. This is not scaremongering. I am telling you how a very well intentioned government institution, who would in fact benefit by taking the opposing position, views the law. You would be wise to at least pay attention to it, even if it doesn't match up with your personal desires.

[thaihome]

...If you sign a piece of paper, be absolutely sure that what you are saying is 100% truthful. There is a legal definition of what constitutes personal assets and what constitutes communal assets in a Thai marriage. Learn what those are, and make sure you have documentation to prove that what you are stating on the paper you sign at the land office is in fact the truth.

.... You would be wise to at least pay attention to it, even if it doesn't match up with your personal desires.

I am just not sure what you are trying to say. It just has the appearance (with no apparent substance) of some sort of ominous thing you know about and nobody else does.

How about you answer a simple question.

I make an overseas transfer into a Thai bank account in my wifes name and with the proceeds from that my wife buys a condo (or house and land), registering it in her name. During that transaction, the Land Dept has me sign an affidavit stating the money is hers, I have no claim on it, and the property is not matrimonial property.

Have I done anything that is illegal (fraud, I believe you called it) as you seem to be claiming?

Simple question, requiring only a yes or no.

TH

[quiksilva]

I think he will say yes.

I say that because in his interpretation strictly speaking the money that you transferred to your wife's account would, once transferred, be defined as communal money by the law, and as such signing the affidavit stating that the money is hers would be incorrect, and in his view fraudulent, which implies that somehow you intended to deceive.

If at the time you were unaware of the legal definition of communal income, how can you knowingly be intent on making this deception? Perhaps ignorance of the law here is no defence but still...

Also if I have understood him fully, he thinks that a wife who has the capability to get a mortgage on a house in her name, based on her salary alone, is also in danger of being viewed as a nominee, because the money used to repay said loan could be defined as communal income in the eyes of the law.

Now this should worry me as this is the position that my wife and I are in. But it doesn't, much...

I personally stand by my previous interpretation, I have waived my right to claim the property as communal property, its her mortgage and her money paying the loan, so fail to see how she can be acting as my nominee. I am not making a claim to the property in the divorce courts so her ownership is uncontested.

If I extrapolate Gregb's view further, he could even say that once married the Thai spouse can not use any income that they generate themselves after marriage, to purchase land whilst married, as this would be communal income and by extension they could, in his view, be acting as nominees for their foreign husband.

That's quite a statement to make...i.e. they can own land, but once married they can only acquire more by using money that the wife had already made before.

Now I personally believe that this goes against the spirit of the 1999 constitutional ruling that allows Thai wives to own land, which I accept that they are still technically allowed to do, even under this interpretation, however I can not accept that the law would handicap them to this extent.

Thankfully commercial banks don't see it that way either, not in their interest to perhaps, but they have access to pretty good legal teams, who no doubt have a far deeper appreciation of the matter than any of us.

Edited November 5, 2009 by quiksilva

[donx]

If I extrapolate Gregb's view further, he could even say that once married the Thai spouse can not use any income that they generate themselves after marriage, to purchase land whilst married, as this would be communal income and by extension they could, in his view, be acting as nominees for their foreign husband.

That's quite a statement to make...i.e. they can own land, but once married they can only acquire more by using money that the wife had already made before.

I agree with you. Given gregb's view regarding what he considers communal income, the only way a Thai spouse (male or female) married to a farang could legally own land would be in the case where they used funds that they accumulated prior to being married.

Although the meaning of the signing of that document by farangs at the land office has been debated here before, I can't help agreeing with the view that thaihome and you hold. The signing of that paper to me implies that, as of that moment, the money is not communal money and is the Thai spouse's money alone. Thus the property is now no longer considered a communal assest.

Now my situation is much more problematic. My wife and I never registered our marriage in Thailand. We live in the US. My wife still has herself listed as single on her Thai ID. When she went to purchase land a few years ago, I was ready and willing to sign away my rights. But because of her ID card, I was told that there was no need for me to sign anything. I didn't like it, but I didn't know what to do.

[thaihome]

Here is a legal brief prepared by Tilke and Gibbons that addresses the issue (amoung others):

 2008-2009 Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. August 2009

Thailand Legal Basics

....

Can a Thai with an Alien Spouse Own a Piece of Land?

Previously, a Thai with a lawful alien spouse was not allowed to own a piece of land in Thailand, because under the Land Act, aliens are prohibited from owning land in Thailand. If the Thai spouse were allowed to own land, the land would be sin somros (community property), and the foreign spouse would have the right to own half of that land.

According to Article 30 of the Constitution of Thailand B.E. 2550 (A.D. 2007), all persons are equal before the law and shall enjoy equal protection under the law. Men and women shall enjoy equal rights. Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of origin, race, language, sex, age, disability, physical or health condition, personal status, economic or social standing, religious belief, education, or constitutionally political view shall not be permitted. Also, according to Article 41 paragraph 1, the property right of a person is protected. The extent and the restriction of such right shall be in accordance with the provisions of the law.

To abide by the provisions of the current Thai Constitution, the Interior Ministry has set up the following guidelines to be followed by the competent land authorities:

• If a Thai with a lawful alien spouse wishes to make land purchases or accept land transfers in a like manner during marriage, and if the official inquiry reveals that the applicant, along with the alien spouse, have jointly affirmed in writing that the money used to buy the land is derived wholly from separate property owned by the applicant and not from community property, the competent authorities shall proceed with the registration of legal rights in land for the applicant. However, if the alien spouse fails to make such affirmation or affirms in writing that all or part of the money so used is out of the community property, after the inquiry has been made the matter shall be submitted for decision to the Minister in charge through the Royal Land Department. This is in accordance with Section 74, paragraph 2 of the Land Act.

• If a Thai with an unlawful alien spouse wishes to make land purchases or accept land transfers in a like manner while living with the spouse as husband and wife, and if the official inquiry reveals that the applicant, along with the alien spouse, have jointly affirmed in writing that the money used to buy the land is derived wholly from personal property owned by the applicant and not from property jointly owned by the parties, the competent authorities shall proceed with the registration of legal rights in land for the applicant. However, if the alien spouse fails to make such affirmation or affirms in writing that all or part of the money so used is out of the money jointly earned by the parties, after the inquiry has been made the matter shall be submitted for decision to the Minister in charge through the Royal Land Department. This is in accordance with Section 74 paragraph 2 of the Land Act.

41

• If a Thai with an alien spouse, whether unlawful or not, wishes to accept land as a gift during marriage while living with the spouse as husband and wife, and if the official inquiry reveals that the gift has been accepted as separate property or as personal property only and that the alien spouse has no ownership interests in land, the competent authorities shall proceed with the registration of legal rights in land for the applicant. However, if the gift has been accepted as community property, and if the alien spouse has ownership interests in land, after the inquiry has been made the matter shall be submitted for decision to the Minister in charge through the Royal Land Department. This is in accordance with Section 74 paragraph 2 of the Land Act.

• If a Thai who once had an alien spouse but has now divorced or deserted said spouse wishes to make registrations of land acquisitions, and if the official inquiry reveals that there are no circumstances where evasion of the law has been committed, the competent authorities shall proceed with the registration of legal rights in land for the applicant.

• If a Thai minor who is born of an alien wishes to make registration of land acquisitions, and if the official inquiry reveals that there are no circumstances where evasion of the law has been committed, the competent authorities shall proceed with the registration of legal rights in land for the applicant.

The Royal Land Department also requires that the alien spouse give spousal consent in the matter, not only in writing but also in person. If the alien spouse is unable to make a trip to Thailand for any reason to give the required consent, such alien may make an affidavit before a notary public which is later suitably attested by a Thai Consulate located in the country concerned, and then submit the affidavit to the Royal Land Department.

Edited November 6, 2009 by thaihome

[thaiwanderer]

The government does not take away land.

The law clearly states that if a judge finds the title deed not to be in order (i.e. in a company where the Thai shareholders are unable to prove that they actually invested funds in it), then the judge will order the land to be disposed of, and he will state a time frame in which this has to happen.

This time frame will be set between 180 days and 1 year.

Only after this period, the government can proceed with a forced auction, of which the proceeds (minus costs of course) will still go to the entity owning the land.

I seriously doubt they will vote in a law allowing a judge to order the government to buy the land at 33% of listed value!

Not agreeing with land grab post necessarily but slightly OT 100% of declared value would be deemed maximum compensation required - can't then argue not real value as under-declared it for tax purposes.

[tutsiwarrior]

Now my situation is much more problematic. My wife and I never registered our marriage in Thailand. We live in the US. My wife still has herself listed as single on her Thai ID. When she went to purchase land a few years ago, I was ready and willing to sign away my rights. But because of her ID card, I was told that there was no need for me to sign anything. I didn't like it, but I didn't know what to do.

yeah...I'm in a similar position; we were married at the Thai Embassy in Abu Dhabi and never registered our marriage in Thailand (our marriage cert. is a legal Thai document) and the wife kept her maiden name on the ID card. I was away working when she purchased our house and registered it at the land office and there was no declaration to sign as no one asked if she was married to a falang...and we were unaware that there was any such requirement...

[thefalang]

had a 'head's up' from long term friend and orbortor official saying there're widespread plans afoot to seek out all foreigners' investment property here and 'remedy' anything looking slightly dodgy. between the lines from aforesaid, they want all foreign investment to cease immediately (in light of no outside investment here, they seem to think that foreigners have grabbed the lion's share of land - notwithstanding the fact the locals themselves have profited from the many sales in the past), quickly followed by an 'ousting' of any foreigners 'deemed' to have been in breach of any and all thai based property laws.

Living in Thailand since 5 years, working leagally, married, owning land and house (wife of course), i am trying again and again to find someone who reallly knows the facts on this matter. again in this posts, there are so many different explantations, disagreeing with each other... why is it so hard???? i have some good investment options on hand (land and development) and i certaintly trust my wife (as someone called it a "Genuine marriage") that i wouldn't want to get into any company ltd, but i still hesitate because of all these posts about land being taked away, etc... Is there a any "official" government department who can give proper advice on this matter?

"Living & working legally".... As well-intentioned and/or well-informed as you may be, you'll never be 100% legal in thailand and free from potential legal and/or financial issues.

It was reported this year in the news that Thai wives of foreign men who owned property could be challenged as to the source of funds that were used to purchase property. In the event that the funds came from the husband, the wife could be considered as a nominee buyer and the property could be subject to confiscation. It's not enough now that a foreigner purchases property in the name of his Thai wife & waives all rights to ownership, the Thai gov't now reserves the right to confiscate such property. We've already been put "on notice".

I might mention that Thai law (of the interpretation thereof) treats Thai men married to foreign women completely differently than Thai woman married to a foreigner.

Forget getting a concise answer because it's a "moving target" and the rules change frequently.

Bottom line, don't invest any money in Thailand that you can't afford to lose!!!

[thefalang]

Scaremongering

Not scaremongering at all.

Just being honest about the rules, and the way people conveniently misinterpret them for their own interests.

Talk to a Thai divorce lawyer if you doubt the very legal definition of what is considered communal assets and what assets are considered individual. It is a simple question. You will find that nearly all income generated while the couple is married is considered communal. If you subsequently state on the form at the land office that communal money was solely hers, then you have not told the truth.

Only those assets that would be ruled 100% hers in a divorce should be used to purchase the property. And it is simple to understand why. In the event of a divorce, it must be legally 100% true that you have no claim to the land. If you were to use communal assets, then this claim could not be made. And if you can't honestly make that claim, then your wife is in fact acting as a nominee for your interests while you are married.

There are many rules that aren't enforced until it becomes politically expedient to. Again, that paper you sign at the land office is for their benefit, not yours. It does not have a clear legal standing in a divorce. A foreigner can successfully argue the case that part of the house is his during a divorce settlement even if that paper was signed by him. He just needs to prove the assets used to purchase it were truly communal or were in fact his.

Whether anyone can truly win in a Thai court with this strategy I don't know. I do however know 2 foreigners who have successfully settled out of court using this premise with full backing from their divorce attorneys as to the legality of the argument.

BTW, you most definitely have broken the law if you do not sign that paper. The land office is required to verify that communal assets were not used to purchase that land in the event that a foreigner is involved, and you are legally required to cooperate with them to this extent. This is paper is the way they verify that. If you misrepresent your marriage to the land officer, that is clearly fraud.

You are indeed scaremongering. The poster in question stated he wanted to make some investments in land, he did not want to go the Thai company route and he fully trusted his wife but was worried about hearing stories of the government taking land away.

You responded saying that if the husband gave his wife the money and signs the affidavit he was committing fraud. That is just not true. Then go on and on about splitting assets during a divorce. This is a complete strawman and has nothing to do with the posters question.

The facts remain, you can give your wife the money, sign the affidavit saying you have no interest in the property and it is not matrimonial property and that is all perfectly legal within the law.

In no case as the government ever taken land away from a Thai women married to foreigner. Both of your posts on this subject are attempts to scare people into believing their wives cannot buy property. The can and people do it everyday. Just go to any land office in an urban area and you will see it for yourself.

TH

"scaremongering"...

I've heard that before. Sure, Thai wives can "currently" buy property but who knows what the gov't policy is tomorrow or next year. Over the past 20 years, I have seen many things change in Thailand, and in particular, how laws are enforced. The thai gov't can be very opportunistic relating to law enforcement. "Looking the other way" or allowing certain practices which may not be in accordance in certain laws does certainly not indicate the Thai gov't sanctions such practices. The legal doctrine of "latches" does not apply here!

As an example, look at the 6-month customs law regarding foreign yachts in Thailand. Years ago, it was never an issue and then suddenly thai customs began assessing horrific customs duties on foreign yachts that had overstayed the 6-month legal limit. Perhaps someday in the near future, the thai gov't will begin to audit all land ownership and confiscate those properties whereas the Thai owner cannot "prove" that he was the source of all the purchase funds. It's completely possible and this scenario was even posed by a senior land department official. What more notice do you need, a certified letter?

Forget the law on the books, it's all about how the laws are interpeted and/or enforced in thailand. Some laws are completely ignored while other laws can be arbitrarily enforced to the nth degree.

[stgrhe]

Sure, Thai wives can "currently" buy property but who knows what the gov't policy is tomorrow or next year.

That may be so, but do not forget that the very reason for why Thai women, married to foreigner, were allowed to buy land back in 1999 was a ruling by the supreme court that it was unconstitutional to disallow them that right.

[monty]

Still, scaremongering!

Yes, they might crack down, and yes, they might force people to sell up or get legal.

They can confiscate, but only ordered by a judge, and he will only do that in the case where the property has been bought with for example drugs money etc. Unrelated to the current ownership set-ups.

If proven to be a nominee set up you will be given between 180 days and 1 year to dispose of the property. They will not confiscate!

Admittedly, if this happens on a larger scale, it would have rather disastrous effects on prices of all tha property suddenly hitting the market!

The other scenario where outright confiscation will and can happen is where the paperwork is dodgy, i.e. illegally issued land title deeds by corrupt officials in national parks etc... Happened before!

[thefalang]

Still, scaremongering!

Yes, they might crack down, and yes, they might force people to sell up or get legal.

They can confiscate, but only ordered by a judge, and he will only do that in the case where the property has been bought with for example drugs money etc. Unrelated to the current ownership set-ups.

If proven to be a nominee set up you will be given between 180 days and 1 year to dispose of the property. They will not confiscate!

Admittedly, if this happens on a larger scale, it would have rather disastrous effects on prices of all tha property suddenly hitting the market!

The other scenario where outright confiscation will and can happen is where the paperwork is dodgy, i.e. illegally issued land title deeds by corrupt officials in national parks etc... Happened before!

"sacremongering" ...

You have much more trust in the "equity" of the Thai legal system than I do. Don't believe for one minute that the Thai gov't would not behave irrationally and "shoot itself in the foot", something that it does on a daily basis. Laws are implemented and decisions made (seemingly) without any thought of the consequences. "Forward thinking"... What's that?

"They will not confiscate your property." I don't beleive that. If you, a foreinger, have been proven to have circumvented thai law and used a nominee buyer, that's most probably a criminal offence. You're likely to be stripped of your assets, deported and blacklisted!

I'm aware of numerous cases whereas a Thai official was conducting official business within seemingly "legal" boundaries & within the scope of his authority. The gov't stated that the official was not personally authorized for that particular act (or some other excuse) and voided the whole affair, at great financial loss to the foreigner(s) involved. I've seen this type of treatment with regards to the registration of yachts, visa renewals, etc. It's very convenient (and scary) when any gov't can deny liabilty for acts of a bona fide gov't official.

Edited November 7, 2009 by thefalang

[thefalang]

Sure, Thai wives can "currently" buy property but who knows what the gov't policy is tomorrow or next year.

That may be so, but do not forget that the very reason for why Thai women, married to foreigner, were allowed to buy land back in 1999 was a ruling by the supreme court that it was unconstitutional to disallow them that right.

I believe you're missing the point.

Thai women, married to a foreigner, can purchase property. It is presumed that the foreigner has waived any rights to the property and that the foreigner is not the source of funds. If the forienger has provided the purchase funds, it could be intrepreted as a nominee purchase and therefore illegal.

[thaihome]

This has as usual become a pointless discussion as some people just can’t get past their farang paranoia and choose to ignore the actual facts. It is unfortunate that they continue to infect other people with their half truths, illogical conjecture, and the anticipation that if they have not been victimized yet, they certainly will be some time in the future.

TH

[thefalang]

This has as usual become a pointless discussion as some people just can’t get past their farang paranoia and choose to ignore the actual facts. It is unfortunate that they continue to infect other people with their half truths, illogical conjecture, and the anticipation that if they have not been victimized yet, they certainly will be some time in the future.

TH

Yes, you're correct, this a pointless discussion if readers (such as yourself) cannot assimilate data from a number of sources and compile the information as a basis for an intelligent opinion. Instead, you prefer to "flame" and discredit postings that do not agree with your own unsubstantiated opinions.

Don't be so naive to believe that the "letter of the law" in Thailand is followed to the degree that you've so implied. Who's operating on "half-truths"? You're quoting the "law" and seemingly do not possess the ability (or the intelligence) to consider, in actuality, how the laws are administered and the final outcome.

[donx]

This has as usual become a pointless discussion as some people just can’t get past their farang paranoia and choose to ignore the actual facts. It is unfortunate that they continue to infect other people with their half truths, illogical conjecture, and the anticipation that if they have not been victimized yet, they certainly will be some time in the future.

TH

Yes, you're correct, this a pointless discussion if readers (such as yourself) cannot assimilate data from a number of sources and compile the information as a basis for an intelligent opinion. Instead, you prefer to "flame" and discredit postings that do not agree with your own unsubstantiated opinions.

Don't be so naive to believe that the "letter of the law" in Thailand is followed to the degree that you've so implied. Who's operating on "half-truths"? You're quoting the "law" and seemingly do not possess the ability (or the intelligence) to consider, in actuality, how the laws are administered and the final outcome.

To be honest, the wording or the translation of that document that the farang spouse is supposed to sign is very vague. IMHO either interpretation - that the spouse is absolving themselves from any claim to the money used to purchase the land or that the spouse is claiming that the money used has never ever been part of the communal assets - is a reasonable interpretation of that document. I wish there was a clarification and without it there will always be those on both sides of this debate. I bet that even today, a Thai male will never be told that his farang wife must sign this document. Any farang wives out there that have signed this document? If so, please speak up.

[thaihome]

This has as usual become a pointless discussion as some people just can’t get past their farang paranoia and choose to ignore the actual facts. It is unfortunate that they continue to infect other people with their half truths, illogical conjecture, and the anticipation that if they have not been victimized yet, they certainly will be some time in the future.

TH

Yes, you're correct, this a pointless discussion if readers (such as yourself) cannot assimilate data from a number of sources and compile the information as a basis for an intelligent opinion. Instead, you prefer to "flame" and discredit postings that do not agree with your own unsubstantiated opinions.

Don't be so naive to believe that the "letter of the law" in Thailand is followed to the degree that you've so implied. Who's operating on "half-truths"? You're quoting the "law" and seemingly do not possess the ability (or the intelligence) to consider, in actuality, how the laws are administered and the final outcome.

Who is flaming who? I have indeed accused people of suffering from farang paranoia, but I have not questioned their intelligence such as you did mine in your post.

I think for you to call my opinions “unsubstantiated” in ludicrous. My opinions are well substantiated, both by an interpretation of the law by one of the most respected western laws firms in Thailand and in the actual practices of the Land Dept.

I have assimilated data from a number of sources and compiled the information as a basis for an intelligent opinion”. I think the difference is my sources are based on fact and not the whining, baseless, waiting to be persecuted complex, that is so common here.

TH

[thefalang]

This has as usual become a pointless discussion as some people just can’t get past their farang paranoia and choose to ignore the actual facts. It is unfortunate that they continue to infect other people with their half truths, illogical conjecture, and the anticipation that if they have not been victimized yet, they certainly will be some time in the future.

TH

Yes, you're correct, this a pointless discussion if readers (such as yourself) cannot assimilate data from a number of sources and compile the information as a basis for an intelligent opinion. Instead, you prefer to "flame" and discredit postings that do not agree with your own unsubstantiated opinions.

Don't be so naive to believe that the "letter of the law" in Thailand is followed to the degree that you've so implied. Who's operating on "half-truths"? You're quoting the "law" and seemingly do not possess the ability (or the intelligence) to consider, in actuality, how the laws are administered and the final outcome.

Who is flaming who? I have indeed accused people of suffering from farang paranoia, but I have not questioned their intelligence such as you did mine in your post.

I think for you to call my opinions “unsubstantiated” in ludicrous. My opinions are well substantiated, both by an interpretation of the law by one of the most respected western laws firms in Thailand and in the actual practices of the Land Dept.

I have assimilated data from a number of sources and compiled the information as a basis for an intelligent opinion”. I think the difference is my sources are based on fact and not the whining, baseless, waiting to be persecuted complex, that is so common here.

TH

You cut & pasted some information from the law firm "Tilke and Gibbons" that you found, presumably, on the internet.

Why don't you apply yourself somewhat and correlate information from unrelated sources (including your own, if you actually have any personal experiences on this subject) and make an half-intelligent deduction from the foregoing?

You obviously cannot differentiate between a legal opinion, an account of "actual" practices of the Land Dept and the mere second-hand regurgitation of Thai Law which is what you have proferred to this forum.

If you are advocating that Thai law is administered in a thorough, rational and equitable manner, then your credibility is already suspect.

[monty]

Yes, you're correct, this a pointless discussion if readers (such as yourself) cannot assimilate data from a number of sources and compile the information as a basis for an intelligent opinion. Instead, you prefer to "flame" and discredit postings that do not agree with your own unsubstantiated opinions.

One such source of data to support your stance on the issue would be a legal precedent.

I cannot remember in recent times (that means the last 17 years I've been living here) where any land has been outright confiscated, or even ordered disposed of, from a foreigner, based on the accusation of using a nominee to hold his land.

On the other hand, there are legal precedents where foreigners, married to a Thai national, have been awarded 50% of the communal property during divorce procedures.

This would make this statement you made:

Don't be so naive to believe that the "letter of the law" in Thailand is followed to the degree that you've so implied

rather strange, as it would be correct, but actually favoring the foreigner instead of the Thai national or the government as you insinuate.

[thaihome]

blah, blah, blah...

My "opinion" is based on reading the several legal opinions of leading law firms in Thailand. The one I posted was just one. If you took the time, you find many others that same the same thing. Here is one that comes right out and says the declaration made by the director-general of the Thai Land Dept that the titled deed of Thais spouses that are purchasing land on behalf of their foreign spouses could be revoked if the land department was to find out she used money from her spouse was misinterpreted in a certain forum.

My “opinion” is based on first hand experience with several Land Dept offices in and around Bangkok as my wife registers property she has bought with money we both have affirmed is her Sin Suan Tua and not Sin Som Ros. I am confident that I have not lied on the forms as one form of Sin Suan Tua is property acquired by either spouse during the marriage by means of a will or gift. The money my wife used in at least one purchase was gifted to her by me and is therefore considered Sin Suan Tua.

Your constant bringing up how Thai law is administered is nothing but a strawman. But, just to answer this, I actually have some experience with Thai law and its administration, both on a personal and professional level. Though certainly not to a level one coming from a western country would wish for, nevertheless, for a developing country is not as bad as some.

Anyway, as I said, this has become a pointless discussion, as you seem to refuse to acknowledge the facts of the matter and only wish to discuss your obviously biased perception of Thai wives with foreign spouses owning property in Thailand.

TH

[acht72]

Agree with Chiangmaibruce. If you are hoping for any postitive change in the foreseeable future - forget it! Sure something could be done - but there is no political will to change the status-quo in favour of Farangs. The day I see just one headline such as 'Thai Government Urges Changes To Help Foreigners Live Trouble Free In Thailand' - I will be buy a hat - just so I can eat it!

I am just in the process of renewing my annual extension based on Marriage. I (like you I guess) have to do this every year. If next year, I dont have the minimum balance of 400,000 Baht in the bank for 3 months - then I will be kicked out of the country.

Sadly Thailandlover, if there are any changes to the land laws, I do not think they will favour us foreigners married to Thais at all.

I don't think you have to have 400,000 baht in the Bank for three months. If you can prove a certain level of monthly income, which I believe is 40,000 that meets the requirement instead of depositing 400,000 baht on which you receive no interest by the way.

[acht72]

SCB bank have a fund account where you leave your money for a year. The interest rate recently was 2.4% tax paid which is about as good as you will get in the UK and you can use your fund book at the immigration office.

[thefalang]

rather strange, as it would be correct, but actually favoring the foreigner instead of the Thai national or the government as you insinuate.

If you actually feel that Thai law (or the administration thereof) will favor you as a foreigner as I can say is "good luck"!

If you're seriously contesting my statement that you have quoted & have lived in Thailand for years, I can only believe that you're taking a contrary stance for the sake of a debate.

[Fontane]

* previous discussions in thaivisa and elsewhere that concluded (in my mind at least) that purely by a very strict 'letter of the law' interpretation of current laws, property purchases by the wives of foreigners could be further discouraged or even prevented

Thai wives can not be prevented from owning land due to the fact that the previous law which prevented Thai wives (with foreign husbands) from owning land was repealed because it was proven to be unconstitutional. This was not an interpretation, it is law, and can not be rescinded.

However, most land departments will still ask the foreign husband to waive all future claim on the property by signing a affidavit at the land department office upon transfer stating that all money used to buy the property is hers. That might discourage those who do not have much faith in their wives perhaps, but a marriage without trust is hardly a marriage at all.

The Land Code makes no mention of the rights of Thais married to foreigners and technically the pre-1999 and current regulations relating to purchase of land by Thais married to foreigners are neither statutory law nor interpretations. They are ministerial regulations pursuant to the Land Code. These have the force of law but can be amended by the Interior Ministry without the need for parliamentary approval. The current regulation can therefore be amended at the discretion of the Minister in the same way as the pre-1999 regulation was amended. I think it is unlikely to be changed, despite all the current houhaa because the constitutional issue remains and it is viewed as impractical to check the funding of Thai spouses, as specifically mentioned in the ministerial regulation. The very worst case possible would probably be that Thai spouses would in fact have to produce evidence of funding from their own resources for future purchases, while past purchases with signed affidavits would remain legal. Even if they tried this, there would probably be a legal challenge that a gift from a foreign spouse with the affidavit does in fact represent funding from the resources of the Thai spouse.

There are cases where Land Offices don't bother to ask for the affidavit when they know the buyer is married to a foreigner or even refuse to provide it. However, it is a legal requirement according to the ministerial regulation that it should be signed by both spouses "whether they are married in accordance with the law or married not in accordance with the law" to give a direct translation of the wording. This torturous wording effectively extends to cover the cases of unmarried couples cohabiting, couples married under local custom but not registered and couples married overseas who have not registered their marriages Thailand and have not provided evidence of their marriage to the Thai authorities (i.e. the wife has retained her Thai surname). The Interior Ministry gives examples of title deeds it claims to have cancelled because they were issued to Thai women who had Thai "husbands" to whom they were "married but not legally married". Interestingly there is no concept of common law marriage in the Civil Commercial Code but it is clearly defined in the Land Code.

I also tend to agree with you that things will not get any easier for foreigners wanting to own land. In 1999 The Democrat Party tried to introduce an amendment to the Land Code to permit foreigners married to Thais to purchase a rai of land for residential purposes. This was virtually booed out of the house and created an uproar in the media. Virtually all that was left of the 1999 Land Code amendments in the end was the provision that allows foreigners to buy a rai of residential land, if they invest 40 million baht in approved investments, not including the investment in the property or construction. It was even a struggle to get this through parliament as many opposed it and some suggested the investment should be 400 million baht not 40, giving the usual moronic arguments about selling out Thailand to foreigners and Thais beooming beggars in their own country. The Interior Ministry made a point of dragging its heals in issuing the necessary ministerial regulations for several years and I imagine it still remains extremely difficult or even impossible for a foreigner to buy land this way, even though the right is enshrined in statutory law. I have never heard of anyone who did it. The explanatory notes to the law which explain superfluously that the new law was expected to increase foreign investment in Thailand to help get it out of the late 90s recession provide a good excuse for civil servants who are reluctant to enforce the law, as they can argue that Thailand is already out of that recession (and into another one).

Longer than 30 year leases may be more of a possibility in future. 50 year leases have been permitted for commercial property since 1999. Since there is already a precedent, perhaps 50 year residential land leases will eventually be mooted, probably with a raft of unattractive restrictions. Unfortunately there is not much of a lobby for longer leases. Most Thai property developers sell to Thais and companies like Jones Laing and Richard Ellis that are vocal on this are viewed as foreign mouth pieces.

One thing I have always thought odd is that no land ownership rights have ever been suggested for permanent residents. They would seem a much better case than foreigners married to Thais as proposed by the Dems in 1999. The PR process now takes several years and requires a great deal of onerous vetting, which should help satisfy any national security concerns, whereas anyone, even a terrorist, can marry a Thai. The toughness of the process also means that there aren't that many PRs, apart from the large number of now elderly Chinese who got it when it was a formalilty but citizenship still required a large under the counter police contribution.

If there are ever any real witch hunts I would think that companies with nominee Thai shareholders would be the first targets. Many are very easy to detect (e.g. a company with no business that owns a villa with an infinity pool in Phuket and all the Thai shareholders are lawyers);they have been on notice to restructure since 2006; and they are in breach of both the Land Code and the Foreign Business Act. The auditors often also conveniently place a red flag in the auditor's statement to cover themselves in the form of a qualification saying that they could not verify any of the information in the accounts because management failed to provide requested documentation. The Thai accountants rarely provide their farang clients with a translation of this page which those without a financial background don't realise is important. Since Thai politics have now become so messy that tourism and foreign investment numbers are things that can be readily sacrificed for short term political gains, don't count out this possibility. It would provide a major chance for nationalistic grandstanding by underachieving politicians and create huge opportunities for Thais to benefit from picking up cheap property, plus restructuring fees for lawyers and accountants, fees for the Land Dept, not to mention the opportunities for extortion and blackmail by police and other civil servants. In somewhat different circumstances Spain had no qualms in bulldozing foreigners' villas that were built without planning permission and Mexico has happily reclaimed land in coastal areas where foreigners are not allowed to buy, even though the developers and lawyers assured them the structures were completely legal. Spain and Mexico still get foreign tourists and investment, even though short term damage must have been done. If they are smart enough to find them, these precedents might provide encouragement to Thai politicians looking for glory and a quick buck.

[ThaiSunshine]

Over the past 3 years I've sold quite a few plots of land to Thai ladies with foreign husbands. Never had a problem at the land office when transferring the land titles!

And I don't believe we will ever get any problems in this connection in Thailand!

[Langsuan Man]

I have read all four pages of this thread and despite all the differing opinions and differing terms I am still confused as to exactly what constitutes a nominee for the purchase of property in Thailand

I am not married, am not about to get married (been there done that, have the scars to prove it) so my question is somewhat off topic but not wildly so

If I find a house on a small piece of residential property that I would like to buy why can I not

1. Give my girlfriend the amount for the purchase and she purchases it

2. At the Land Office we break down the property into two parts. The actual property (land) and the house

3. The land is in her name and she gives me a 30 year lease or usufruct

4. The house is in my name but there isn't much I can do with it since I don't own the land it sits on but does give me a residence in Thailand

I am 62, have no heirs, and really don't care what happens when I am 92 years old or when I die, which ever comes first

Maybe I am just not getting something here but the scenario that I describe above does not appear to be violation either the letter or the spirit of the law since I don't own the land, I would just own the house that sits on land that someone else owns.

The experts are hereby invited to poke holes in my argument

[trogers]

I have read all four pages of this thread and despite all the differing opinions and differing terms I am still confused as to exactly what constitutes a nominee for the purchase of property in Thailand

I am not married, am not about to get married (been there done that, have the scars to prove it) so my question is somewhat off topic but not wildly so

If I find a house on a small piece of residential property that I would like to buy why can I not

1. Give my girlfriend the amount for the purchase and she purchases it

2. At the Land Office we break down the property into two parts. The actual property (land) and the house

3. The land is in her name and she gives me a 30 year lease or usufruct

4. The house is in my name but there isn't much I can do with it since I don't own the land it sits on but does give me a residence in Thailand

I am 62, have no heirs, and really don't care what happens when I am 92 years old or when I die, which ever comes first

Maybe I am just not getting something here but the scenario that I describe above does not appear to be violation either the letter or the spirit of the law since I don't own the land, I would just own the house that sits on land that someone else owns.

The experts are hereby invited to poke holes in my argument

No arguments. Your gf has to answer one simple question with a satisfactory answer to the Land officer during registering the 30 years lease, especially if the time between buying the land and making out the lease is only months apart. Where did she get the money to buy the land, and show prove it is her money.

If you wait long enough, say over a year, before registering the lease, this question may not be asked.

But during this waiting period, how confident are you she will not sell the land and make off with the money, or if she dies, her heirs sell the land?

[Langsuan Man]

Thank you for your reply, but as you outline how to do it, seems to me to once again to be illegal. Why is she considered a nominee if she owns the property ? Regardless of how she got the money to purchase it ? She owns it and I don't. The law says I cannot own property, I don't, she does and since we are not married the question of "community property" doesn't enter into the equation

Does the Land Office question every Thai that registers property how that got the money to purchase it ?

[trogers]

Thank you for your reply, but as you outline how to do it, seems to me to once again to be illegal. Why is she considered a nominee if she owns the property ? Regardless of how she got the money to purchase it ? She owns it and I don't. The law says I cannot own property, I don't, she does and since we are not married the question of "community property" doesn't enter into the equation

Does the Land Office question every Thai that registers property how that got the money to purchase it ?

See meaning of nominee:

http://www.anz.com/edna/dictionary.asp?act...content=nominee

If she acquires the land with her money, she is the owner. If someone else who is not a relation pays for the acquistion, she is a nominee.

But you can build up proof that the money is hers when she acquires the land. Fly her to your home country, open a bank account there in her name, and do regular transfers of foreign funds into her account over a period of say a year. Not a problem if you can trust her not to make off with the money...

[trogers]

Does the Land Office question every Thai that registers property how that got the money to purchase it ?

No. They only ask if they suspect there is nomination at play.

Put it this way. During the time of transfer of land title to your gf's name. Do you believe she is the land owner?

And immediately after the title transfer, does she have the right to turn to you and say, "If you want to lease my land for 30 years, pay me the land rent equal to the price I have just paid for the land make as a banker's cheque to my mother's name". And you so believe in this demand, you make the payment to register the 30-years lease...