Attempted Fraud

[Abrak]

OK may be I am a bit careless with my words. First of all half the posts have been about my reluctance to guarantee that +30 +30 options will be honored. Anyone who makes that guarantee is dishonest. Still I would also agree that anyone who offers 30 +30 +30 leases when he has a reason to doubt they will be honored in general good faith is equally dishonest

The company is now the freeholder and the previous freeholder owns the company. This under the law (although exceptionally vague as usual) offers significantly better protection for owners especially in the case of bankruptcy or death. There are a lot of risks associated with an individual being a freeholder especially in terms of passing on future options in the case of death and rights under bankruptcy. It is always sensible to ring fence your responsibilties to clients from the misfortunes of others. So your assumption is correct although what you implied I said is rather weird. Anyway you will be pleased to know that I get professionals to write my leases - why you would possibly think I write my own is beyond me (I certainly wouldnt rely on a lease written by me.)

Subject to slight amendments to fall in with the occasional change of wind direction at the land office the full english language lease (with a delightful array of clauses that aren't themselves registered) can be registered in Phuket.

Now I could probably make up some sentence along those lines guaranteeing that +30 +30 options will be honored - that is 'full english language lease can be registered' with 3 different ways of saying it wont be. Bet you are an accountant. A shorter sentence is that a 'full english language lease cannot be registered.'

I think you probably know that only Thai is acknowledged at the Land Office and any lease over 3 years must be registered in Thai at the Land Office to be valid under law.

[Abrak]

So he paid you a deposit, but your not the freeholder ??? And your not offering a freehold either.. But are offering a quasi 30+30+30 but thats is, or isnt on the lease ?!?!?

I would be after my deposit back too (well I wouldnt have paid one).. If you offered this land 'for sale' to a new arrival unfamiliar with Thai quirks, and this is the workaround with ring fenced companies etc etc.. Lots of room for confusion.

Yes he should have read and understood everything before paying the deposit, simply as its obvious how hard it is to now get it back.

Which company is it you represent again ??

LivingLos,

The freehold cannot be sold because it is essentially Crown Land (nothing to do with CPB). I work for myself. I explained that the freehold was owned by a company that granted a 30 year lease with fully paid up options for two additional +30 years. No structure is ideal - the point about the company owning the freehold is that if it doesnt honor the extension of the leases it can be sued and by not extending the leases it will own the land and houses so there is collateral.

LivinLos, I fully accept you might not like the structure and you wouldnt have paid a deposit. I hope you realize that if you did pay your deposit that coming 4 months later and complaining that you do not have the second +30 option on the Thai lease would not be a decent excuse to get it back (when the registration cant be done) and you should have read the lease before placing the deposit. And I hope you will respect subsidizing that individual out of clients who have done their work and due diligence would be totally wrong. He obviously had a totally incompetent lawyer.

[LivinLOS]

I think you probably know that only Thai is acknowledged at the Land Office and any lease over 3 years must be registered in Thai at the Land Office to be valid under law.

not correct..

A lease longer than 3 years can be written.. Its just still contract law and any lease not registered at the land office is then far weaker then one written onto the lease document which then comes under the 'actual rights' of leasehold law.

[LivinLOS]

LivingLos,

The freehold cannot be sold because it is essentially Crown Land (nothing to do with CPB). I work for myself. I explained that the freehold was owned by a company that granted a 30 year lease with fully paid up options for two additional +30 years. No structure is ideal - the point about the company owning the freehold is that if it doesnt honor the extension of the leases it can be sued and by not extending the leases it will own the land and houses so there is collateral.

LivinLos, I fully accept you might not like the structure and you wouldnt have paid a deposit. I hope you realize that if you did pay your deposit that coming 4 months later and complaining that you do not have the second +30 option on the Thai lease would not be a decent excuse to get it back (when the registration cant be done) and you should have read the lease before placing the deposit. And I hope you will respect subsidizing that individual out of clients who have done their work and due diligence would be totally wrong. He obviously had a totally incompetent lawyer.

I really dont know.. It would depend entirely on how it was represented to me..

We know the +30+30 wont be registered on the land title, but they often are registered in the lease document.

If you are to put these into the lease document, does that end his objections ?? If so warn him of the fact that its very hard to enforce and put it in, it wont be put onto the land doc, and net result is the same.

[katabeachbum]

LivingLos,

The freehold cannot be sold because it is essentially Crown Land (nothing to do with CPB). I work for myself. I explained that the freehold was owned by a company that granted a 30 year lease with fully paid up options for two additional +30 years. No structure is ideal - the point about the company owning the freehold is that if it doesnt honor the extension of the leases it can be sued and by not extending the leases it will own the land and houses so there is collateral.

LivinLos, I fully accept you might not like the structure and you wouldnt have paid a deposit. I hope you realize that if you did pay your deposit that coming 4 months later and complaining that you do not have the second +30 option on the Thai lease would not be a decent excuse to get it back (when the registration cant be done) and you should have read the lease before placing the deposit. And I hope you will respect subsidizing that individual out of clients who have done their work and due diligence would be totally wrong. He obviously had a totally incompetent lawyer.

If you have issued 2 leaseagreements, one in English stating 30+30 years and one in Thai stating 30 years only to be registered in Land office, it seems like your buyer has been very misguided by you, and he can cansell the lease and be refunded

[katabeachbum]

not correct..

A lease longer than 3 years can be written.. Its just still contract law and any lease not registered at the land office is then far weaker then one written onto the lease document which then comes under the 'actual rights' of leasehold law.

A lease longer than 3 years is not valid unless registered in land deed. Supreme court has cancelled some, supported by revenue department.

IOW a lease longer than 3 years not registered, is weaker than a 3 year lease which is legally binding without being registered

If 3+3 years is desired, 2 agreements is needed for 3 years each with 2 different "buyers". Legal and binding.

[Abrak]

not correct..

A lease longer than 3 years can be written.. Its just still contract law and any lease not registered at the land office is then far weaker then one written onto the lease document which then comes under the 'actual rights' of leasehold law.

I think statement is at the very best extremely misleading. A Land Lease not filed with the Land Department (and 1% fee paid) is only valid for 3 years regardless of the terms of the lease. Leases over 3 years must be registered at the Land Office in Thai and the fee fully paid. A lease longer than 3 years can be written obviously but it is not enforceable unless it is registered at the Land Office.

[LivinLOS]

I think statement is at the very best extremely misleading. A Land Lease not filed with the Land Department (and 1% fee paid) is only valid for 3 years regardless of the terms of the lease. Leases over 3 years must be registered at the Land Office in Thai and the fee fully paid. A lease longer than 3 years can be written obviously but it is not enforceable unless it is registered at the Land Office.

As stated.. its contract law.. You can still attempt to sue them for breach of contract but its not the same power as 'actual rights' lease hold laws..

I know many people with 5 year leases on stuff, bars and the like.. One with a 10 year lease on a place.. But they are not on the land paper.. Doesnt make the lease illegal just means its weak law, contract law in Thailand being pretty hard to enforce (showing material changes and the like can invalidate them).. So higher risk and greater difficulty in enforcement or restitution.

[Abrak]

If you have issued 2 leaseagreements, one in English stating 30+30 years and one in Thai stating 30 years only to be registered in Land office, it seems like your buyer has been very misguided by you, and he can cansell the lease and be refunded

Katabeachbum,

This is simply wrong. There has to be two leases because the only Thai Lease you can register at the Land Office is for a maximum of 30 years. You can also register one +30 option but this is not legally enforceable. The maximum enforceable lease that can be registered at the Land Office is 30 years. I register the +30 option at the Land Office for validation, it does not mean it I can guarantee it will be enforced or honored - I fully expect it to but guaranteeing it is misleading. The second +30 cannot be registered. The +30 +30 options are best protected by a structure and through a civil contract. But while I do my best to create a structure that will be honored again there are no guarantees and anyone implying otherwise should not be.

Please be clear on this. There are restrictions on foreign ownership here. There are drawbacks to every structure. It is only honest to explain these drawbacks. By explaining them it should not be implied that I have set up a structure that would abuse a client. Personally those people who would rather buy a property because the developer guarantees there +30 +30 option are being mislead.

Finally I would simply tell you that the developer has no obligation (and very often doesnt) register options to extend leases at the Land Office (this is simply a fact.) Bear this in mind because he would possibly change the lease for you but he cannot change it once it is registered. Secondly when you pay your deposit, you will sign a document stating that you accept the terms of the leases. To the extent you feel misled, it will be because you didnt read and understand them. Given that property contracts generally have to be complicated here, it really is important to understand them. Try to understand if a developer tells you, you have a 90 year lease, you are being misled. If you are given leases that clearly state the terms of say a 30 +30 +30 contract, you agree to them and pay a deposit, six months later go back and want a refund because it is not a freehold, the developer has been misled as to your intentions.

A house is a big investment, so it is worth reading the leases before you agree to them. If you were promised X and it isnt there, bin it

[LivinLOS]

Katabeachbum,

This is simply wrong. There has to be two leases because the only Thai Lease you can register at the Land Office is for a maximum of 30 years. You can also register one +30 option but this is not legally enforceable.

Its enforcable as a contract.. I would also say its not up to you to decide what is or is not enforceable, or what may be enforceable in 30 or 60 years time..

[Abrak]

As stated.. its contract law.. You can still attempt to sue them for breach of contract but its not the same power as 'actual rights' lease hold laws..

I know many people with 5 year leases on stuff, bars and the like.. One with a 10 year lease on a place.. But they are not on the land paper.. Doesnt make the lease illegal just means its weak law, contract law in Thailand being pretty hard to enforce (showing material changes and the like can invalidate them).. So higher risk and greater difficulty in enforcement or restitution.

Stating is possible is one thing but it really is unadvisable. Let me give you an example which will cheer you up.

I own a number of condos in a project and I am Chairman of the Management Committee. I refuse to allow the developer to adopt measures that are to the detriment of other owners (unless they agree). Actually I am legally liable if I did anything else.

(BTW I hope you can see that a Condominium Developer that wishes to take advantage of co-owners (doesnt know what a Condominium is and doesnt have a business model)

I bought a 30 year lease off someone signed all the papers have all the documents paid the developer to register the lease have possession, paid bills etc. Now they havent registered the lease even though I have a receipt for payment to them to register it. They have apparently lost all documents for the lease purchase - I have them all.

Now if I go to court you might think I would be in a good position - possession, proof of purchase, receipt for payment for them to make the registration at the Land Office, payment of all bills and utilities.

Now I might win but I doubt it for two reasons:

1) As the lease is not registered it will only be declared valid for 3 years despite what is a very clear 30 year lease purchase.

2) It is the duty of both parties to see that it is registered at the Land Department so the fact that I paid them and signed the documents for registration can not absolve me of that responsibility.

So your mate doesnt really have a 10 year lease, he can call it that if he wants, it is 3 years. One reason in particular he will get no sympathy from a court is that he wont have paid the tax.

[katabeachbum]

As stated.. its contract law.. You can still attempt to sue them for breach of contract but its not the same power as 'actual rights' lease hold laws..

I know many people with 5 year leases on stuff, bars and the like.. One with a 10 year lease on a place.. But they are not on the land paper.. Doesnt make the lease illegal just means its weak law, contract law in Thailand being pretty hard to enforce (showing material changes and the like can invalidate them).. So higher risk and greater difficulty in enforcement or restitution.

Stating is possible is one thing but it really is unadvisable. Let me give you an example which will cheer you up.

I own a number of condos in a project and I am Chairman of the Management Committee. I refuse to allow the developer to adopt measures that are to the detriment of other owners (unless they agree). Actually I am legally liable if I did anything else.

(BTW I hope you can see that a Condominium Developer that wishes to take advantage of co-owners (doesnt know what a Condominium is and doesnt have a business model)

I bought a 30 year lease off someone signed all the papers have all the documents paid the developer to register the lease have possession, paid bills etc. Now they havent registered the lease even though I have a receipt for payment to them to register it. They have apparently lost all documents for the lease purchase - I have them all.

Now if I go to court you might think I would be in a good position - possession, proof of purchase, receipt for payment for them to make the registration at the Land Office, payment of all bills and utilities.

Now I might win but I doubt it for two reasons:

1) As the lease is not registered it will only be declared valid for 3 years despite what is a very clear 30 year lease purchase.

2) It is the duty of both parties to see that it is registered at the Land Department so the fact that I paid them and signed the documents for registration can not absolve me of that responsibility.

So your mate doesnt really have a 10 year lease, he can call it that if he wants, it is 3 years. One reason in particular he will get no sympathy from a court is that he wont have paid the tax.

He doesnt even have a 3 year lease even if it states 10 years. Leases longer than 3 years not being registered in land deed and payed taxes for, have already been cancelled by the court before they have run 3 years. They are illegal, tax evading and court cansells them, worst case in 6 months after entering lease.

Edit an illegal lease more than 3 years, is not replaced by a legal 3 year lease if it comes to a court case. it simply cancelled nomatter when in the leaseterm its beeing disputed

Edited March 7, 2010 by katabeachbum

[katabeachbum]

Katabeachbum,

This is simply wrong. There has to be two leases because the only Thai Lease you can register at the Land Office is for a maximum of 30 years. You can also register one +30 option but this is not legally enforceable. The maximum enforceable lease that can be registered at the Land Office is 30 years. I register the +30 option at the Land Office for validation, it does not mean it I can guarantee it will be enforced or honored - I fully expect it to but guaranteeing it is misleading. The second +30 cannot be registered. The +30 +30 options are best protected by a structure and through a civil contract. But while I do my best to create a structure that will be honored again there are no guarantees and anyone implying otherwise should not be.

Please be clear on this. There are restrictions on foreign ownership here. There are drawbacks to every structure. It is only honest to explain these drawbacks. By explaining them it should not be implied that I have set up a structure that would abuse a client. Personally those people who would rather buy a property because the developer guarantees there +30 +30 option are being mislead.

Finally I would simply tell you that the developer has no obligation (and very often doesnt) register options to extend leases at the Land Office (this is simply a fact.) Bear this in mind because he would possibly change the lease for you but he cannot change it once it is registered. Secondly when you pay your deposit, you will sign a document stating that you accept the terms of the leases. To the extent you feel misled, it will be because you didnt read and understand them. Given that property contracts generally have to be complicated here, it really is important to understand them. Try to understand if a developer tells you, you have a 90 year lease, you are being misled. If you are given leases that clearly state the terms of say a 30 +30 +30 contract, you agree to them and pay a deposit, six months later go back and want a refund because it is not a freehold, the developer has been misled as to your intentions.

A house is a big investment, so it is worth reading the leases before you agree to them. If you were promised X and it isnt there, bin it

3rd attempt to reply, my line is unstable today so I keep it short

Leasegreemnts can be registerd in land office in thai and english language. english language can be 1st choise if the 2 agreements differ, but I believe this has not been proven in Supreme court yet.

I have registered 30+30 years in 3 different provinces, but since only the intitial 30 years is legal and regsitered in land deed, there is no point in doing so. I guess its just ignored by land office since its illegal anyway.

If you have entered an english language lease with your buyer stating 30+30 years, but registere a thai language lease with 30 years only, I believe your buyer could win in court to have agreements cancelled, unless the english language agreement states the thai registered agreement differs and states (preferably in same clause)with 30 years only

2 x 30 years leases can be registered. One intitial with one buyer, then another one starting when initial lease expires. 2nd lease should/must be with another buyer. Land office register fees x 2. 60 years of taxes implicated

7 years buying, selling, developing property in 3 provinces has learned me something, but not everything

[keestha]

Excellent thread. I am not into real estate business, but often people who intend to settle in the area where I live, ask me about leasing/buying property. I have always told them that as far as leasing is concerned, 30 years is the maximum they can really count on, providing things are done properly.

After having read the above, I won't change my line yet.

[Abrak]

Thai contract is 30+30. Lease agreement 30+30+30.

Leases must be registered in Thai and Thai Land Officies only accept the Thai Contract in a legal dispute. I might be wrong but I do not think there has been a single case of a registered english contract taking precedent over a registered Thai contract at a Land Office.

Again no legal precedent that I know of. There is no legal obligation to register +30 options. I dont see the Thai lease being cancelled. I would see lots of problems - you afterall signed both leases and submitted them to the Land Office for registration and they were registered. So are you arguing you shouldnt have signed them or the Land Office shouldnt have registered them. A possible result would be to remove the english language +30 option to realign the contract with the Thai one or even the cancellation of the english one. I would have thought that if the Thai and English contracts are exactly same you wouldnt have maximized your protection in the lease agreement.

I just think in a property dispute at a Thai Land Office, the concept of the English language lease taking precedent over a Thai language lease is massively optimistic and worst case you as the english speaker will be held responsible for the discrepancies.

[LivinginKata]

Let's be very clear ... only contract documents in Thai will be accepted as legal documents in a court of law in Thailand. Documents in any other language would need a certified translation to be accepted in a Thai court. I suspect (and correct me if I am wrong) that a Thai contract document will take precedent over a translated document.

[thaiwanderer]

Hence the reason why the English contract should match the Thai contract!

The reasons for not doing so may be laziness, lack of knoweledge or something more shady (though i would certainly not jump straight to the fraud allegation).

As I've said the renewals and all other delightful clauses can be included in the registered contracts (though don't make the registered lease any longer than 30 years).

The only reason they may need to be amended before registration is allowed is a lack of knowledge by whoever drafted it in the first place or a very sudden change of position by the land office.

Those amendments will not make the essence of the promises unrecognisable.

Ideally of course ('to best protect client's interests' ) touts should know all this going into it and amendments need only be rare.

I repeat 'land office no like' is a lazy shorthand.

The OP still hasn't confirmed how / why he's received any deposit?

Regardless sometimes a shortform Thai lease is often used to avoid any sniffing around over the company lessor.

Beyond that, genuine or sham, what's the registered capital of the company lessor? Assuming its still the freeholder after 30 years (the lease being absolutely no bar on sale and there being a large incentive to sell and defeat the renewal) the limit of the recoverability is how many million Baht? (i suspect rather less than the values at stake)

[Abrak]

Beyond that, genuine or sham, what's the registered capital of the company lessor? Assuming its still the freeholder after 30 years (the lease being absolutely no bar on sale and there being a large incentive to sell and defeat the renewal) the limit of the recoverability is how many million Baht? (i suspect rather less than the values at stake)

a) I dont understand why you think that I am a moron. Obviously the more clients interests are protected the higher the value of the houses/plots

Although there is no freehold because it is crown land, I think you should assume that the owner would not act in bad faith rather than the other way round

c) Essentially if leases are not renewed it will own the land and I guess the properties and little else. Damages are considerably higher but you obviously dont end up with more than the assets

d) Why assume I might act in bad faith in anyway. Even though developers have a bad reputation in Thailand it is generally because they incompetent rather than untrustworthy.

If you believe that taking the guys deposit when a) he had already broken the contract accused me of being a fraud with no justification c) clearly hadnt done the minimum due diligence d) clearly has a level of distrust that is not suitable for going forward was wrong I just think that any other decision would be to the detriment of the project and irresponsible.

Well I am a little confused why you would a) register the english lease agreement at the Land Office and it is in the best interests of everyone for it not to be. There are considerable tax savings to be had for instance (this I do not consider as fraud but as maximizing all peoples interests but I understand people view this differently.)

The two leases are designed for separate purposes. The English one is a private contract specifically designed to protect the +30 +30 leases which is a civil contract and reflect every detail of the contract, it really is none of anyone's business unless the renewals are not met and there is some ridiculous law suit for damages. The Thai lease is a public document. I find it very reasonable some details of the lease agreement do not have to be made public knowledge. In fact the private nature of the contract is obviously an incentive to follow it.

I actually cannot understand why you would wish to register a Thai and English Lease at the Land Office I think it reduces your ability to protect your clients and if it is different to your lease agreement could be taken advantage of. To register two exactly same contracts seems a waste of time. What purpose does a duplication of the Thai lease in English serve.

And I would also assume that if there wasnt a bar on sale of the land, I wouldnt wish anyone to even buy into the project (actually to rephrase that he can sell the land but it would trigger an automatic loss that would enrich all owners.)

[thaiwanderer]

While what's palatable to the land office doesn't always go only as far as the law I am sure you can understand more unscrupulous people might want a private agreement that makes all sorts of promises (that cannot let alone will not be kept) to be hidden from prying eyes?

Assuming the English contracts are all onshore and intended to be governed by Thai law in Thailand - wanting to keep prying eyes away has a whiff of unenforceability right from the start I'm afraid - rather than any issues of practical or commercial sensitivity.

The Crown land element is also highly interesting.

I'm not trying to paint anyone as a baddie whatsoever - though your apparent outrage at the slur appears a bit much on the information provided.

I can understand retaining some of the deposit for wasted time perhaps - although i'm still unsure what your role in the whole thing is and on what basis you would hold and receive the deposit anyway?

Your business of course but you were the one who started the thread.

[Abrak]

While what's palatable to the land office doesn't always go only as far as the law I am sure you can understand more unscrupulous people might want a private agreement that makes all sorts of promises (that cannot let alone will not be kept) to be hidden from prying eyes?

I hope you also realize that honest people who make serious gestures of goodwill that guarantee they will suffer substantially if they do not honor the contract do not wish it to be public knowledge. So once again you now assume all the buyers are stupid. If you think about it the english lease agreement is a civil contract to protect the +30 +30 and achieve other objectives. The Thai registered lease is what matters at the Land Office. An exact copy of the Thai Lease in English serves no purpose and I do not see how you can adequately protect your clients with a Land Office registered lease to honour +30 +30. Am I supposed to attach the guys will and testament to these documents as well as collateral details against default. YOU STILL HAVENT TOLD ME THE PURPOSE OD REGISTERING AN EXACT COPY OF THE THAI LEASE IN ENGLISH.

Assuming the English contracts are all onshore and intended to be governed by Thai law in Thailand - wanting to keep prying eyes away has a whiff of unenforceability right from the start I'm afraid - rather than any issues of practical or commercial sensitivity.

What absolute <deleted>. The english lease agreement is a civil contract. It has no place being in the Land Office and it is a private contract. As such things can be arranged that if the leases are not registered all the owners will immediately benefit without it even going to court. Obviously that shows a commitment to honor the contract by the freeholder. I do not believe that you can adequately protect clients unless you keep the two contracts seperate because they have two seperate objectives. If you think that every buyer will sign an english lease agreement that is unenforceable or you think you can protect +30 +30 options adequately by register english lease agreement identical to the Thai one at the Land Office, I dont believe you are dishonest but you are not working in your clients best interest.

I can understand retaining some of the deposit for wasted time perhaps - although i'm still unsure what your role in the whole thing is and on what basis you would hold and receive the deposit anyway?

1)Well he has broken his contract (which gave him full access to the leases and terms of which he agreed prior to signing and deposit). The contract break was not completing final payment.

2)His complaint was that there was only one +30 option registered in the Thai Lease when that is a) all I can register and he saw the lease 5 months before

3) He accused me of fraud when I had done nothing wrong

4) He clearly either hadnt read the contracts didnt understand them or didnt understand Thai Law

Now I have to make 2 business decisions here

1) This one very easy. If someone accuses you of fraud with no possible justification, doesnt read the leases comes to you 4 months after he signed and agreed to them it is clearly not in anyones best interests to start a building a villa with him.

2) The second one is who should pay. Well one thing for certain is that it cannot be the other clients that would be totally unacceptable. I guess it could be me but I have done nothing wrong. And once you start taking pity on people it is a slippery slope. Because then someone says the pool I want is green but the tiles I looked at were blue. I could take that loss too but eventually it cant just be a charity. I have to survive so if I take on losses for other peoples errors I will eventually end up charging people who are diligent honest and keep to their word in order to survive. Remember there are bound to be screw ups in good faith that I will have to pay for.

3) Any other decision to me is simply wrong. But it was my decision even though the deposit goes to the owners. I will reassure that if he takes any legal action I will bear all costs (but also take all damages).

So first you dont seem capable of providing leases to protect you r clients properly and feel the need to register a civil contract at the Land Office and then you wish to refund a deposit on a broken contract that was signed 4 months ago entirely due to negligence of the client which is damaging to the project.

Your business of course but you were the one who started the thread.

I agree. However I would still like to know why you register an english lease agreement at the Land Office which is identical to the Thai one and 2) why you create two identical contracts which have two separate purposes. What possible purpose does the english language lease copy serve and in what do you think you an 'adequately' protect +30 +30 options with a Land Office registered lease. Just give me an example.

Doesnt sound very responsible to me

[nonthaburial]

I am trying to fathom out the reason the OP bothered to start this thread in the first place as surely its a private business deal between two individual parties. Of course it may be an attempt to divert any incoming flak should his client become aware of this forum, which is possible.

as for calling a customer an idiot and a moron for having the audacity to question some of the sellers practices seems another approach to protecting ones back. For the record, I must also be an Idiot as I have no furking clue what the OP is on about

[stevenl]

I really think it is easy.

You promised him 30+30, but in the valid contract (that means the Thai, because in case of any dispute the Thai contract will have value, not the English) it says 30 years only.

However, in the English contract, that one without any value, you wrote 30+30.

So the buyer will think: he promised me 30+30, he wrote in the complete worthless contract 30+30, but in the only contract of any value he wrote 30. So he (being abrak) is screwing me.

[LivinginKata]

I am trying to fathom out the reason the OP bothered to start this thread in the first place as surely its a private business deal between two individual parties.

Me too ....

[Benjie]

How is the OP selling 60, 90 year leases (whatever) on Crown land that is somehow owned by a company which is owned by the old land owner.

Doesn't make any sense.

[thaiwanderer]

The OP fails to understand the prospective lessee's suspcion that the reason the private agreement is private is that it will not stand up.

On the basis of the OP's explanations thus far I can only imagine what explanations may have been given to the prospective lessee - and on the basis of that I think he/she would rightly be suspscious.

As regards the prospecitve lessee's conduct (as indicated by the aggrieved OP) it's by no means great BUT if the OP is wishing to maintain a long term business without being tarnished by the more dubious otehr characters that are certainly about or contributing to that impression of how things are done I see no valid reason just to keep the entire deposit.

Again I'm still at a loss to understand the role the OP plays in the transaction.

How is the deposit protected for the benefit of the contracting parties in any event?

[Abrak]

I really think it is easy.

You promised him 30+30, but in the valid contract (that means the Thai, because in case of any dispute the Thai contract will have value, not the English) it says 30 years only.

However, in the English contract, that one without any value, you wrote 30+30.

So the buyer will think: he promised me 30+30, he wrote in the complete worthless contract 30+30, but in the only contract of any value he wrote 30. So he (being abrak) is screwing me.

I think what I have stated at least six times totally contradicts what you have said.

[beginner]

note to self; continue NOT to do "property deals" in thailand

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I am astonished that anyone would make such a convoluted justification for their behaviour on a public forum.

An old political adage is that anything that can not be explained in one simple sentence can not be politically, a good idea.

[LivinginKata]

Abrak ... what did you hope for when you started this topic ? You tell us about a deal where your client accuses you of fraud. You seem to want TV members to agree with your idea of "I would have thought that accusing someone of fraud is criminal and I can simply tear the contract and keep the deposit."

Surely you should have sought some sort of guidance from a Thai lawyer rather than throw it out to the TV members for their collective view, which will have absolutely no legal standing.

I find your topic most puzzling .... oh, unless you are just trolling ...

[Abrak]

The OP fails to understand the prospective lessee's suspicion that the reason the private agreement is private is that it will not stand up.

If you read the private agreement you would realize that if the +30 +30 leases were not honored there would be an automatic benefit to all the owners. If as you seem to imply the contract cannot hold up in law then the owners would be able to accrue an automatic benefit whether the +30 +30 leases were honored or not - in fact immediately.

What I asked you was for what reason do you register a totally duplicate lease agreement in English at the Land Office - it serves no purpose as the Thai registration is identical and takes precedent. And how exactly can you protect the +30 +30 option rights of clients to their best interests. This was a simple couple of questions. I am genuinely interested. I have already sold all the properties and anyone who felt suspicious would not wish to sign the contract. All I simply want to know is a) how you adequately protect clients interests through with a +30 option at the land department and what is the point of registering two identical contracts of which the english version has no worth. To say the private english language contract is suspicious and unenforceable is fairly ridiculous when set against an english contract registered at the Land Office which is an exact copy of the Thai Lease that sets precedent. I cant see any value in that English contract at all - absolutely none. I really cant see how you can adequately protect +30 options unless there is a separate lease agreement that is not registered and personally anyone who buys +30 options solely on the basis of their registration at the Land Office is probably not being well protected.

And lets clear up some logic here. You have two contracts absolutely identical registered at the Land Office. The second one - the english version - which is identical is of absolutely no worth at all. Essentially there virtually no value to a +30 option registered at the land office apart from valedation which is in the Thai document already. You havent seen the private lease agreement in English so you can be suspicious if you like and argue it might be unenforceable. But your argument is that registering a totally meaningless exact english copy of the Thai Lease is a better option.

And genuinely if there is a satisfactory way of virtually guaranteeing option renewals through the land office, I would be interested to hear about it but when people mention an incentive not to renew the option things should not be set up that way. There clearly needs to be a disincentive to not renew the lease.

[Abrak]

Abrak ... what did you hope for when you started this topic ? You tell us about a deal where your client accuses you of fraud. You seem to want TV members to agree with your idea of "I would have thought that accusing someone of fraud is criminal and I can simply tear the contract and keep the deposit."

Surely you should have sought some sort of guidance from a Thai lawyer rather than throw it out to the TV members for their collective view, which will have absolutely no legal standing.

I find your topic most puzzling .... oh, unless you are just trolling ...

Actually I really wanted to know whether 'I believe' ahead of 'I am a victim of attempted fraud' constituted a statement of fraud on my behalf or whether the 'I believe' at the beginning rendered it not a factual statement. Still noone has answered that. I did find out that under Thai Law accusation of fraud are not an acceptable reason to cancel a contract which I find rather odd. Still he breached the contract 2 months ago so no problem. I am interested in the answer though.

It does irritate me a bit that people have suggested some incredibly bad advice and probably illegal.

Then I did get interested in this question of registering a duplicate english contract at the land office being of benefit to the client but that's another story.