Foreign-Owned Thailand

[Tatsujin]

Plenty of director/shareholders and directors in the world and here who do very little to scrutinise a company. Proving nominee status is virtually impossible.

It's Thailand . . . ever been to Thai Court? They don't have to 'prove' anything lol . . . if you go up against a Thai in court, you'll lose 99 times out of 100.

[Thai at Heart]

I must be in that 1 percent. As for the govt trying to legally prove nominees I look forward to thousands of cases paralysing the entire system for many many years.

Plenty of director/shareholders and directors in the world and here who do very little to scrutinise a company. Proving nominee status is virtually impossible.

It's Thailand . . . ever been to Thai Court? They don't have to 'prove' anything lol . . . if you go up against a Thai in court, you'll lose 99 times out of 100.

[Cantankerous]

Why all the fuss? Nothing really belongs to the foreigner over here, so you can't lose what you don't really own. When you wake up you'll find that it was all just a dream anyway...

[samsiam]

When we own all of Thailand...maybe we can do something about the tree and wildlife loss.

[PattayaPhom]

Wow, the conversation in the bars tonight will be red hot and the naysayers on this forum will be jumping with joy. Go on, take away all the Mattiotts, Amaris, Four Seasons etc.....wont be many people coming to stay in Somchais Hut. Absolute twaddle

[Nisa]

Do you really not understand the context the word "control" is being used as it pertains to this thread? I apologize if you aren't simply being argumentative and missed my meaning. And if that is the case, consider the word "own" instead of "control" but I used the word "control" because in these illegal cases they don't "own" the land because by definition they cannot "own" the land but instead they have tried to circumvent the law to "control" the land becoming the de facto " owner"

But to get back to my point -- it was simple that I believe it is appropriate to treat foreign law breakers the same way I would in my own country.

That is all fair enough. If people have gone down the company route to own the land within a company, the company has to be 51:49, so the ownership is already THAI, by definition, the foreigner doesn't OWN the land. In the case of wives, the documents have to be submitted rescinding any rights the foreigner has to the land.

I don't see how any of the accusations that are being thrown around here, prove that a foreigner owns the land. A foreign name isn't on the chanote, a company can't be more than 49% owned by a foreigner in this situation, so how does anyone PROVE that the land is OWNED by a foreigner? The company is majority Thai owned, so it is THAI.

Of course throw the book at anyone who has somehow managed to get their foreign name put on a chanote, but has anyone EVER heard of this being possible? And no in this context, I don't understand the context of the word "control" in this situation. There are company structures, votes that have to be tallied to decide what a company does with its assets. No one has been coerced against their will to do anything, so how does anyone conclude or prove that someone CONTROLS something beyond the will of someone else?

Nominees in these illegal cases have nothing to do with the business and in many (if not most cases) the foreigner doesn't even know who the nominee is except that their information appears on paper. Nominees in these cases are simply paid a small fee and usually have no idea what you are getting into. Would you really want the nominee to be able to come back and see what your business or property is worth and try to claim what the government already believes is theirs?

In the cases of "real" wives, it really doesn't matter because she can claim the ownership any time she wants despite any side contracts and if the marriage is real then asserts are usually shared anyway. Obviously a the wife of a foreigner buying up a lot of land is going to be looked at closer than Husband and Wife with kids with a single home.

But to answer your question, I have no idea how they investigate and have never been involved in one of these illegal deals and am just sharing what I know about others being involved.

Plenty of director/shareholders and directors in the world and here who do very little to scrutinise a company. Proving nominee status is virtually impossible.

You are being a bit naive. There are very few crimes you can apply this logic but people make mistakes and people talk and more importantly the vast majority of Thais who commit crimes ends up confessing to the crime.

[Nisa]

Confiscate the land and sell it at auction, have them spend 30-days in a Thai detention center before deciding to drop charges and then deport them. This is certainly what I would want done to foreigners who illegally obtain land or run illegals business in my country.

That might be quite sensible if you actually had any properly written understandable laws here. Since you don't it would be better to clarify exactly what a foreigner can and cannot do. If you are saying a Thai girl cannot own land if she is married to a foreigner you are truly a typical sexist Asian male

How in the world could you possibly think I even remotely implied a Thai cannot own land let alone a female Thai cannot own land? Instead of reading something and believing it might mean something completely different, try just taking the words at face value and then you won't have so much trouble such as laws related to foreigners owning land which are not that difficult to understand. The only thing confusing about foreigner's owning land in Thailand is that some folks (example: lawyers) try to make it confusing in order to try and get around the law. This is a practice in most countries and why people need lawyers when the go to court ... because folks are always trying to manipulate the spirit or wording of a law to their advantage.

[saroq]

I agree with the Thais to a certain extend. In my country (Brazil) foreigners could own unlimited amounts of land until a few years ago. You know what happened? The Chinese came in and bought vast amounts of agriculture land, I am talking about huge areas that equal the size of small countries in Europe. They come in <snip> up the soil with their polluting pesticides and herbicides all to produce food mostly for their cattle back in China. This is a real problem in Brazil nowadays and many other countries in South America. In Panama, central America they did the same thing, the tip of the country on the pacific side is almost entirely owned by Chinese companies, not even the Panamanians can get in there. I would not be surprised they are doing this in Thailand because of the Chinese.

I'm no fan of the way the Chinese conduct themselves or of the way they do business but the problem seems to be Brazil's lack of proper pesticide and herbicide usage laws. Prodived the foreigners must abide by the same laws as the locals then how can there be complaints? If there's a problem with how they're using the land then it's a failure of a slack government that to enact proper laws. However, seeing as China claims everything in the China sea up to the very coastlines of the countries in that region you may be right that this is a way of keepiing the Chinese out without offending them, blame the white man again.

[SouthernMan3]

Use of loopholes is not fraud, so stop tarnishing people with this rubbish.

Bang on !!!

[Unkomoncents]

Thais wouldn't need to worry about foreigners ever if they stood even a chance of victory in basic common sense evaluations. They are right to fear foreigners, as it's highly likely that those foreigners would be significantly more savvy than your average Thai. This is one country where I'm sure you could find an eager buyer for ocean floor properties or deeds and titles to land on the moon. Intellectually, this country is like a person in a coma.

[SouthernMan3]

Btw, I don't own shit.

I can't.

It's all in my wife's name (who IS Thai).

And it all goes to my THAI kids when I die.

So, what's the big deal ?

[slipperx]

Confiscate the land and sell it at auction, have them spend 30-days in a Thai detention center before deciding to drop charges and then deport them. This is certainly what I would want done to foreigners who illegally obtain land or run illegals business in my country.

That might be quite sensible if you actually had any properly written understandable laws here. Since you don't it would be better to clarify exactly what a foreigner can and cannot do. If you are saying a Thai girl cannot own land if she is married to a foreigner you are truly a typical sexist Asian male

How in the world could you possibly think I even remotely implied a Thai cannot own land let alone a female Thai cannot own land? Instead of reading something and believing it might mean something completely different, try just taking the words at face value and then you won't have so much trouble such as laws related to foreigners owning land which are not that difficult to understand. The only thing confusing about foreigner's owning land in Thailand is that some folks (example: lawyers) try to make it confusing in order to try and get around the law. This is a practice in most countries and why people need lawyers when the go to court ... because folks are always trying to manipulate the spirit or wording of a law to their advantage.

Well the answer to why I thought maybe you were referring to that is that many Thais refer to Thai wives of foreigners as somehow circumventing the law by owning land bought with the foreigners money. Likewise many Thais think owning land through a Thai company is somehow circumventing the law if there is a foreigner involved. Many people also say a foreigner owning a 30 year lease is circumventing the law. If your legislature cannot write an effective law that cannot be circumvented then the legislature is at fault not the people who read the law and invest here based on what it actually says. Your point is moot if you are not referring to any of these circumstances because foreigners cannot register land outside the law at h land office unless it was a very longtime ago, is within the exemptions or they have become citizens, itself almost impossible as your government is very reticent to process applications even after taking the substantial fee. So what circumstance are you actually referring to please.

[slipperx]

So let's ask some questions and I hope Nisa answers:

If a Thai wife of a foreigner owns land bought with his money is that within the law?

If it is a Thai husband buying land with a foreign wife's money is that within the law?

If the foreign spouse in the previous two cases takes a 30 year lease on the land is that within the law?

If a foreigner invests in a company here legally formed and it owns land with minority foreign ownership is that within the law?

If a Foreigner Loans money to a company or his wife/husband in order to buy land and registers the loan against the property then is that within the law?

If a foreigner takes a usufruct on land for his lifetime is that within the law?

If a foreigner has children can he use those children to own a share of the land whilst retaining control for the lifetime of the foreigner through a 30 year lease, registered loan or usufruct is that within the law?

I await your answer but suspect you have never really thought about it because these methods are all within the written law. If you begin to use the law to mean what you would like it to say (the spirit of the law meaning what YOU want it to say but it doesn't) then you might as well forget the rule of law because it becomes just what whoever is enforcing the aw wants it to be. In that case why bother going to the trouble of writing the law in the first place as it becomes all up to you.

Edited March 15, 2012 by slipperx

[gemini81]

There are no real loopholes. The actual laws are very clear. Foreigners cannot own land in Thailand. Most of the foreigners who are thinking that they are owning land are wrong. They don't own it. If the Thai goverment wants all these foreigners will loose "their" land very quick. Be warned! Farangs have no real rights here in Thailand.

maybe next life I'll come back chinese and be more successful at owning land.

[Nisa]

So let's ask some questions and I hope Nisa answers:

If a Thai wife of a foreigner owns land bought with his money is that within the law?

If it is a Thai husband buying land with a foreign wife's money is that within the law?

If the foreign spouse in the previous two cases takes a 30 year lease on the land is that within the law?

If a foreigner invests in a company here legally formed and it owns land with minority foreign ownership is that within the law?

If a Foreigner Loans money to a company or his wife/husband in order to buy land and registers the loan against the property then is that within the law?

If a foreigner takes a usufruct on land for his lifetime is that within the law?

If a foreigner has children can he use those children to own a share of the land whilst retaining control for the lifetime of the foreigner through a 30 year lease, registered loan or usufruct is that within the law?

I await your answer but suspect you have never really thought about it because these methods are all within the written law. If you begin to use the law to mean what you would like it to say (the spirit of the law meaning what YOU want it to say but it doesn't) then you might as well forget the rule of law because it becomes just what whoever is enforcing the aw wants it to be. In that case why bother going to the trouble of writing the law in the first place as it becomes all up to you.

What is so hard to grasp of a law that is very clear about foreign land ownership that restricts foreign individuals from owning land? What is so hard to understand that it is illegal to use Thai nominees as a way to get around the laws to control or be the de facto owner of this land? Not complicated. See Foreign Business Act (1999) if you want more info.

By the way, a lease in not a purchase and there are also clear laws here regarding types and duration of leases for foreigners. Not complicated or confusing.

There is also nothing illegal about a Thai buying their property with their own money ... if you want to give a Thai money, be it a male, female or 3rd gender, then it is there money to do with as they please. Not complicated or confusing.

People who cannot understand these laws are either confused people, people wishing to purposely try make confusion of the laws. people who don't want to know the law and/or people who search for legal answers on nonlegal based public forums such as this.

If you want to understand the laws, that obviously can sometimes be complicated everywhere, then don't ask Nisa or other posters here, check with a credible attorney.

But as it comes to owning land, if you try to circumvent the laws to own and/or control (buy & sell) land then chances are, you are breaking the law. And if you try to do this under the guise of a corporation then you are leaving yourself open to easily losing your land as the money trail is easy to follow (your personally putting the money into the corporation) as is the paper trail of nominees having no real interest in the company and assigning all their control of the company over to you.

[strollling]

I like the last line of the OP the best.

Translated and Rewritten by Kongkrai Maksrivorawan.

[Johpa]

Why all the fuss? Nothing really belongs to the foreigner over here, so you can't lose what you don't really own. When you wake up you'll find that it was all just a dream anyway...

Actually most everything really belongs to foreigners here. We could start with the inability of this Buddhist nation to invite the Dalai Lama to visit or we could start to talk about the over 60 tons of tax money recently sold off with the proceeds relocated "offshore". Oh, but I forgot that in the newly imagined (with apologies to Achaan Ben) post-modernist and apologist academic narrative that Thailand has always been a multi-cultural state, a narrative assisted by an earlier group of anthropologists from Cornell who got their assimilations arse-backwards.

[notime]

I've never heard that "foreigners with assets in Thailand worth over 1 mill US$ can own land" until now. Can anybody verify this? Can such foreigners own land in their own name? How the value of the assets is assessed? Who by? What kind of assets are taken into consideration?

By the way, the whole expression "Thai land" hurts my eyes. Thai people didn't make it so how is it Thai? This of course it also the case for any other nationalities calling the land theirs like "French land", "American land" and so on. But they not often call it that while in Thailand it is a given thing. The land belongs to the mother planet Earth. Full stop. It is almost eternal by human standards yet humans claim the ownership of it. Humans .. who last some 80 years if lucky. Nations, that last few hundred years, maybe thousands .. if lucky. What is that comparing with the land age of about 5,000,000,000 years? It's like if you heard the butterflies squabbling with each other over the ownership of the field they hover above. The butterflies live 1 day. The "land ownership" is just a game that we humans play with each other.

[Preman]

This subject always seems to get a huge amount of interest / hits. I sometimes wonder if these articles are purposefully laid out nets, - in order to see the 'farang' responses. Is this article really representative of the Thai Government?

Is this really a Thai Government representative who presumably made these statements - really speaking on behalf of the Thai Government - with full approval from the Thai Cabinet? Somehow, I doubt it.

If this was truly the case, - if this was in fact an official Thai Government declaration, - it would be an act of economic suicide, - with very swift responses from other Governments around the world.

In summary, - for all of you - who take such stupid outbursts by individuals (in their own right) seriously. Think again.

If Thailand were to ever instigate such ramblings into law, - the Thai companies and individuals who freely invest and own property overseas would be at huge risk.

Do some research everyone. Make a list of all the major Thai politicians and businessmen. Then do a search on their shareholding structures and then see how many are freely allowed to invest overseas. Then calculate the amount involved. Some of these people may be corrupt and even stupid. But stupid enough to cut their own throats.

My personal view. It simply will not happen. ....

And as for the goodie - goodie who seems to have bought all this Thai nationalism... and is defending all this hype, - I say - wake up - and go and educate yourself. Your heroes - have already stolen from your own people. It is not the Farangs who wrong Thais.

[jonclark]

Confiscate the land and sell it at auction, have them spend 30-days in a Thai detention center before deciding to drop charges and then deport them. This is certainly what I would want done to foreigners who illegally obtain land or run illegals business in my country.

Nisa your post epitosises the 18th century thinking and the scare mongering that holds this country back. Instead of supporting a law that creates criminals from people who seek to integrate and participate fully in society, you would be better off supporting amendments to laws that make Thailand a fairer and more equitable place to live.

Racism has no place in the 21st Century, and that's what these laws are. It has nothing to do with protecting the average Thai. These laws are designed to maintain the status quo of land ownership with the rich Thais controlling the majority of the land. The hundreds of thousands of landless farmers in Thailand at present is proof enough of this. The rich are scared because the foreigners have the wealth to prize their land (not the Thais land - their land) from their clutches. So they employ a racist law to protect their interests. Perhaps Nisa you are one of them?

On a more philosphopical note Nisa Just remember - The land owns the people, the people don't own the land. Only a fool would think otherwise.

[teatree]

It will only be a matter of time before Thailand has to fall in line and allow foreign ownership of land.

May take a decade or two but it will come.

[Reasonableman]

Indeed it will. Petty nationalism is on the way out. The world is going global. Even farang will one day be able to live side by side in harmony and equal rights with Thais. Oh, the horror!

It will only be a matter of time before Thailand has to fall in line and allow foreign ownership of land.

May take a decade or two but it will come.

[teatree]

Indeed it will. Petty nationalism is on the way out. The world is going global. Even farang will one day be able to live side by side in harmony and equal rights with Thais. Oh, the horror!

It will only be a matter of time before Thailand has to fall in line and allow foreign ownership of land.

May take a decade or two but it will come.

Like it or not (personally I detest it) 'global governance' is coming.

[mike123ca]

The problem is not about foreigners owning land. If you want some real land reform in this country, then make a limit as to how much land each Thai can own. If a limit of 50 rai maximum per Thai. If a Thai has more than 50 rai then he must sell it off within 1 year. Use the sames rules when A non-Thai inherits land from a Thai. All Thai owning land in foreign Countries should have their Names on a public notice. Trust me, the wealthy would never allow such a law to take place.

[Nisa]

Confiscate the land and sell it at auction, have them spend 30-days in a Thai detention center before deciding to drop charges and then deport them. This is certainly what I would want done to foreigners who illegally obtain land or run illegals business in my country.

Nisa your post epitosises the 18th century thinking and the scare mongering that holds this country back. Instead of supporting a law that creates criminals from people who seek to integrate and participate fully in society, you would be better off supporting amendments to laws that make Thailand a fairer and more equitable place to live.

Racism has no place in the 21st Century, and that's what these laws are. It has nothing to do with protecting the average Thai. These laws are designed to maintain the status quo of land ownership with the rich Thais controlling the majority of the land. The hundreds of thousands of landless farmers in Thailand at present is proof enough of this. The rich are scared because the foreigners have the wealth to prize their land (not the Thais land - their land) from their clutches. So they employ a racist law to protect their interests. Perhaps Nisa you are one of them?

On a more philosphopical note Nisa Just remember - The land owns the people, the people don't own the land. Only a fool would think otherwise.

My experiences and opinions differ greatly. Take a drive outside the city some time and look at all the housing tracts being built (yes by the wealthy) and those homes being purchased by non-rich Thais. All my wife's sisters and brothers own homes outside the city (Bangkok) and none of them would by any stretch of the imagination be considered rich.

[Preman]

Hey Mr, Teatree,

I think that everyone agrees - 'global governance', - is coming or - in fact is already here.

But, that is entirely different from a 'global citizen'. A person who can move freely and buy and sell.

Sounds simple? So does PEACE. Restrictions are boundaries to peace and freedom.

Yet the mightiest nation on earth says that their constitution is based on peace & freedom, whilst acting otherwise.

The point? What country / government acts with all the qualities we would wish for?

So, your point is well taken. Global Governance is a nightmare.

Personal liberation is what we should all be striving for.

[Nisa]

I like the last line of the OP the best.

Translated and Rewritten by Kongkrai Maksrivorawan.

Nice catch. I wonder if this is actually the same story from a day or so ago with better writing and translations.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Nisa

[Gweiloman]

The more I read the posts on this thread, the more incredulous I get. I'm pretty much fully with Nisa on his opinions, to me, it's a no brainer.

One poster suggested that the Govt officials issue such statements to gauge the responses of farangs on TV - don't kid yourself. The Thai Govt has zero interest in what TV members think.

Another poster suggested limiting the amount of land an individual can hold - not a closet communist by any chance?

I can't understand why so many of you can't grasp the simple concept that this and previous governments (and probably future ones too) have decided that land within the Thai borders can only be owned by Thais (and before any other poster says that all land belong to all mankind, please kindly note that the biggest land grabs in history were initiated by farangs). If I'm a Thai, any government proposing to open land ownership to foreign ownership will not get my vote. Irregardless of whether most of the land is owned by a few wealthy Thais or not, the simple fact is that the greater the demand for a finite and limited "product", the higher the price will go. Economics 101, as many are happy to quote.

All this talk about reciprocity, barring Thais from owning land in foreign countries etc, are just inane, childish comments. America has some of the most rigid protectionist policies in place. Should the rest of the world ban American products (admittedly, they make very few world quality products). I wish that many European countries would relax their entry requirements for Thais - Japanese, Singaporeans, Malaysians, Hong Kongers, Taiwanese can pretty much travel most of Europe visa free - so why are these countries discriminating against Thais? For this reason alone, I'm very glad that Thailand does not allow foreigners to own land here. What a lot of these European countries do not realise is that if they opened their borders a bit more, the amount of money that Asian tourists will spend in Europe significantly outweighs what European tourists spend here - and this can only be a good thing for all those bankrupt European countries.

Maybe when Europe takes a hard long look at where she's heading will things change.

[TAWP]

They want us out more and more every day. This is NOT the time that Thailand should be screwing with there biggest investors and I don't mean land wise. If we all left tomorrow what would happen to Thailand? The same thing that happened to the twin towers I think.

Non-pleasant visual comparison aside, our office brings in around 50 million baht per year from external sources. This will double over the next 3 years.

That is just one office's impact on the local economy if we were to pack up and leave.

[David48]

Nisa, I can understand the sentiment of what you are saying and assuming that you are Thai, the feeling that people who do not have residency of your country can buy/buy land, thus potentially depriving Thais of this privilege.

But, like most things in life, it is a balancing act.

Certainly I am against foreign entities, through whatever vehicle they use controlling large swathes of agricultural land as, in essence, this contravenes the spirit of the Kings' Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy

Prime tourist real estate does pose some issues assuming that there is limited capital available within Thailand to develop tourism infrastructure.

Assuming that the foreign controlled land is not allowed to be 'land banked' (held for an extended period of time while the surrounding land is developed) and, if purchased by a foreign entity must be developed to it's potential within an appropriate time frame.

With this tourism development, mostly the Thai are direct beneficiaries because not only are there employment opportunities created by the new tourism infrastructure and but also maybe a net increase in Tourism numbers.

Maybe what gets most angst here is the inability of a foreigner, like me, to simply own a home, a primary place of residence in his or her own name.

That home is maybe an apartment or a house or a small hobby farm.

Being a 'primary place of residence, you would not be allowed to own a second or subsequent property ... just a place to live and call home.

I could not find any reliable numbers on the actual numbers or percentage of 'foreigners' residing in a semi-permeant or permeant basis in Thailand, but relative to the Thai population I would suggest that it would very small indeed.

This ability to own a home would most likely not affect the trend of the Real Estate values in any particular area apart from an initial spike when there might be a rush to buy once the amended law was enacted.

Just a thought and I can sympathise with the sentiment of what you write about.

Give me land, lots of land with sunny skies above, don’t fence me in.

David48

.