New Draconian Property Law To Deport Foreigners Who "Owns" Land Illegally

[crazydrummerpauly]

As the beneficiary the deeds are transferred to you for 180 days which is the time limit to conduct it`s sale. You should have no problem in selling it in that time span depending on your location, just might not get what it`s worth, that`s all . Apart from your legal fees all proceeds will go to you. I`m fortunate that my missus bought the house with her own money so I`ve got none of my own tied up in it. Not that I want anything to happen to her you understand.

NONE of us bought house or land with his money...it belongs always to the missus...like u called her ...but anyway, that changes nothing - YOU dont own anything...you are in duty for selling it in the 180 days time...but you do not own it...

Means, when you buy a house...or SHE buy a house, you have to state that the money belongs to her ... or not`?

Yes you do and have the paper work to back it up.

The Thai authorities can insist on proof that a property or land is owned exclusively by a Thai spouse, meaning in name and purchase money.

For example, in many areas of the poor North East and in the north, it would be obvious that some farmer`s daughter or ex-bar girl living in an expensive or semi middle range property married to a farang, that the odds are the wife would not have had the financies to purchase it with her money.

My sources have informed me that a few farangs and their Thai wife`s have been questioned and investigated by the local police regarding land deals and ownership. It`s already begun, so have your paperwork prepared and explanations ready, I kid you, not.

I know many foreigners have been ripped off over the years by imagining all kinds of silly stuff about both what they 'own' in connection with a Thai lady, and about how trustworthy their local co-signatory to a land or property-deal is....but i feel a bit sad about how this new level of scrutiny could impact on those poor families main chance of moving a step or two up the economic scale. There are many shades of grey in this land of multi-cultural collisions, and sometimes considerable good comes out of that interaction, good which will be even less likely to happen if everyone has to look over their shoulder for government agencies ready to pounce.

Edited June 29, 2012 by crazydrummerpauly

[Arkady]

What about the law for those who bring in substantial funds?

I remember meeting an american who owned beach land that he could develop.

A 1999 amendment to the Land Code provided for foreigners to own one rai of land for residential purposes, if they bring in 40 million baht for approved investments in real estate funds or BOI promoted businesses. The qualifying real estate funds have all been wound up, so that only leaves BOI projects. I have never heard of anyone doing this successfully and I think the authorities have deliberately stalled and blocked the few people who attempted to do it. Apart from that the only way is with BOI privileges but permission to own land I think has only been granted by the BOI for land to build factories on and the land has to be sold to Thais when the BOI privileges expire. Those are the only two ways. So the American's story must be untrue.

[Arkady]

I have been looking at the website of the Office of the Ombudsmen http://www.ombudsman.../eng/index1.asp and I can't see anything that suggests their duties involve drafting legislation or submitting such bills before Parliament. They are not part of of the government or parliamentarians. They are appointed by the Senate and their role is investigate complaints about public officials and initiate prosecutions if necessary. So I don't know why this character is shooting off his mouth about drafting a bill that he is going to submit to Parliament. It seems to be none of his business and it is doubtful that the House Speaker or the ruling Pheua Thai Party would provide precious parliamentary time for or support any legislation that is not part of their own very tight agenda. I think the only way he can do this is to get a sponsor high up in PTP to propose the bill but it would seem inappropriate and strange for an Ombudsman to be seen to be interfering in the parliamentary process. Of course the reporters and their editors who put this story in the national press failed to comment on this critical aspect. As usual they just wrote down what the idiot said and printed it as gospel without a second thought.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Arkady

[SlyouThai]

hi guys , i just read the whole topic and its pretty scary. I would like to expose my situation and gets some advices.

2 years ago , i decided to buy a land , so i heard of basically the 2 possibles options ( company or leasing ) and after the thai girl from law office told me a company is 100 pcent safe and better for me than a leasing i went for this option. Now when i did that , i had a thai girlfriend since like 1 years and half. They told me that it would be safer to actually use a thai director for the transfer/signing of the land via the company. Basically i had to put a thai name first as director and will be able to change it later

So i did put my thai girlfriend as director and they make her sign " white share " , some undated papers giving their share to me at anytime i want in case like she decide to run away or something like that.

Recently i started to build a house on it , and i asked the building permit under company name. because many people told me it will be way more easy if i want to sell it , since both land and house was under company name , you could sell/change director of the company to the name of the buyer and it will be it.

So right now , my name is nowhere officialy in this company but its illegal anyway.( money comes from farang and nominee etc )The thing is i want to sell this house when its done , , so whats the best way ?

I dont change anything and i try to sell it like that ? land under company name , house building permit under company too.

Or can i " sell " the land owned by company to my fiancée's name ? and then she can make a lease out of it ? and in this option what about the house ? its will belongs directly to the "new " owner of the land ?

Thanks

Edited June 29, 2012 by SlyouThai

[RigPig]

What about the law for those who bring in substantial funds?

I remember meeting an american who owned beach land that he could develop.

A 1999 amendment to the Land Code provided for foreigners to own one rai of land for residential purposes, if they bring in 40 million baht for approved investments in real estate funds or BOI promoted businesses. The qualifying real estate funds have all been wound up, so that only leaves BOI projects. I have never heard of anyone doing this successfully and I think the authorities have deliberately stalled and blocked the few people who attempted to do it. Apart from that the only way is with BOI privileges but permission to own land I think has only been granted by the BOI for land to build factories on and the land has to be sold to Thais when the BOI privileges expire. Those are the only two ways. So the American's story must be untrue.

Didn't America and don't therefore Americans have some sort of "special" deal that was bought about after the Vietnam war. I seem to remember reading about it somewhere. It was not cart blanch to buy land but I think there was some sort of arrangement perhaps someone knows more?

[Pdaz]

Malaysia's "My Second Home" certainly contrasts with Thai policies. They actually welcome qualified foreigners, and no, they do not have a double price system for property transfer tax. They allow you to own a home on a plot of property together with a ten year renewable visa .........

Read the T&Cs http://www.mm2h.gov.my/conditions.php

This is a very expensive procedure to get a retirement visa compared to the Thai 800KB bank deposit.

That's the best part about it.. It keeps all the chav's away. Actually compared to buying an 8 million baht house that you can't actually own. The piffling 180,000USD you need to qualify for the Malaysian scheme is a bargain.. Unless of course you don't have 180K..

[astral]

What about the Thai children of the foreigners??????????????????

[David48]

Over the past decade...

Mobi ... nice to see you back and posting with vigour.

Here is the voice of a man whose seen much in his time in the Kingdom and view are certainly worth reading ... even if sometimes they are a novel ...

Seems like the operation went well.

Regards from all of us.

EDIT ... if you care to read the Mobi's originial post here.

Edited June 29, 2012 by David48

[Pdaz]

As the beneficiary the deeds are transferred to you for 180 days which is the time limit to conduct it`s sale. You should have no problem in selling it in that time span depending on your location, just might not get what it`s worth, that`s all . Apart from your legal fees all proceeds will go to you. I`m fortunate that my missus bought the house with her own money so I`ve got none of my own tied up in it. Not that I want anything to happen to her you understand.

NONE of us bought house or land with his money...it belongs always to the missus...like u called her ...but anyway, that changes nothing - YOU dont own anything...you are in duty for selling it in the 180 days time...but you do not own it...

Means, when you buy a house...or SHE buy a house, you have to state that the money belongs to her ... or not`?

Yes you do and have the paper work to back it up.

The Thai authorities can insist on proof that a property or land is owned exclusively by a Thai spouse, meaning in name and purchase money.

For example, in many areas of the poor North East and in the north, it would be obvious that some farmer`s daughter or ex-bar girl living in an expensive or semi middle range property married to a farang, that the odds are the wife would not have had the financies to purchase it with her money.

My sources have informed me that a few farangs and their Thai wife`s have been questioned and investigated by the local police regarding land deals and ownership. It`s already begun, so have your paperwork prepared and explanations ready, I kid you, not.

I know many foreigners have been ripped off over the years by imagining all kinds of silly stuff about both what they 'own' in connection with a Thai lady, and about how trustworthy their local co-signatory to a land or property-deal is....but i feel a bit sad about how this new level of scrutiny could impact on those poor families main chance of moving a step or two up the economic scale. There are many shades of grey in this land of multi-cultural collisions, and sometimes considerable good comes out of that interaction, good which will be even less likely to happen if everyone has to look over their shoulder for government agencies ready to pounce.

Trouble is that the wealthy Thai elite that own the majority of land and hold most of the wealth are happy with the status quo. They are the ruling class and everything is designed to keep it that way. Emacipating the poor just isn't on anyones agenda. (especially the Thaksins mob ) Having foreign money passing into poor rural families hands through marriage just isn't on. Well maybe okay if they spend it on whiskey and gambling but not if they use it to educate their children and start businesses.. The land owning/ruling classes ran Europe this way for hundreds of years.

[louse1953]

What about a similar law for Thai living abroad ,in the interest of FairPlay !

My thoughts exactly. Just to even things up they could ban Thai nationals from owning property abroad. But that's not very likely, is it?

Ok,while we're about it lets put the price of food and beer up 10 fold,how about speeding fines up to $200,etc,that would even things up.People breaking this law are scammers and should be locked up.

[louse1953]

When laws are clarified, she accepted Thailand may charge higher taxes on foreigner property transactions than on those of Thais.

It's time for many of us to move on. What would this country be without foreigners, better said their invested money?

Like Myanmar now.......................

You can see the always changing procedures when teaching in this country. Even after ten years you'll have to go through the same procedure every year..........

We do a Thai culture test, while Thais should make a "knowing other cultures test".

.Foreign women marry a superficial Thai man get their Thai passport immediately.

Why not foreign men, married to a Thai woman, supporting the whole clan?

Something smells VERY fishy here.....................

Foreigners are obviously not really welcome in the land of WHYS..........................

.Sent via Chin. Super tablet, bought by tax payers money.

Thailand would be a lot better off without whinging foreigners,if you think Burma,Cambodia etc would be better than Thailand,see you later.

[louse1953]

LOL LOL LOL how many times has this issue, been talked about, I have really got to laugh how Thailand is trying to screw themselves. With all the high rate of farang murders etc. going on here in Thailand, they'll find out soon enough, that people will not be coming here, they'll be going somewhere else to spend their vacation money, purchase long lease condos, , homes etc. Thailand is going to go down very, very soon, you watch, the baht is loosing ground ever so slowly, then they'll be crying their a_sses off for the farang to come back and spend money, it is only a matter of time. The line is being drawn in the sand now.

Thais can operate very well without farangs,anyway the Chinese are coming,get out of the way.The west has run it's race but doesn't realize it has lost yet.

[NanaFoods]

Imagine the chaos which will ensue with this quote if it ever becomes law ...

"The new law includes a reward to anyone providing information about foreigners owning land through nominees. They will get 20% of the market price of that piece of land as a reward after the plot is sold," he said at a seminar on foreign property ownership yesterday held by the Thai Appraisal Foundation.

Be careful the neighbour or relative!

= Stasi

[louse1953]

Aaaahhh, nice one! Let's hammer a few more nails into the coffin!!! I doubt that any other tourist destination in this world except Thailand is more agile, versatile, and determined in the area of shooting itself in the knee by coming up with frequent crackdowns and new laws to prevent foreign investment. As far as I can see, it is only Thailand that manages to be named "the Land of Smiles" while the majority of its people hold an aggressive anti-foreign / nationalistic sentiment.

Instead of granting foreigners the rights which Thai people are able to enjoy in most parts of the western world (such as being able to legally buy and own land, house and business there by a 100%), they reject and scare away not only potential foreign investors on a frequent basis but also the foreigners who love Thailand so much, that they would like to either live and work or retire here (and of course would spend most of their money here as well). Why - for Christ's sake - can you people not grant private foreigners their half or full Rai of land to live here legally and in peace? Why can't this nation come up with a proper legal basis for foreigners to invest without the need of 51% Thai co-ownership? Where is the problem? One can't physically take the land away from Thailand anyway, since it always was here and it always will remain here!

But no - especially in times where everything (including tourism in Thailand) already is on a drastic (or should I say "frightening") decline, officials here need to push it even farther. If anyone in Germany's parliament would come up in the open with such drastic measures against foreigners, he would be flamed and branded a "Nazi" by international media. A politician here in Thailand does it and is hailed a national hero... How weird is that?

I just hope that Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Burma (if the latter one ever rises up as a free country and free tourist destination, then behold Thailand!!!!) manage to get their act together and create on top of a functioning infra-structure a legal foreign-friendly "Welcome in our country" immigration policy like Malaysia. Perhaps then, when foreign visitor and investment numbers drop by over 50%, Thailand will finally wake up and implement more rights to foreigners when it already is too late. Until then, they just do with us what they want. Why? Because they can!

Become a thai citizen and you have all these rights.As far as tourist are concerned that couldn't give 2 hoots about land ownership,and i don't know if you noticed but they are opening up another airport to cope with the tourist hordes.I wouldn't be pinning my hopes on Burma in the near future,it took 60 years to get this far and forget about Cambodia if you want any type of living standard

[Keesters]

I admire your stance, but think about it. How can a Thai law have any effect abroad? It's up to the foreign governments to put that law in place.

What about a similar law for Thai living abroad ,in the interest of FairPlay !

Agree ... there should be a Thai law forbidding its people to own land overseas. Anything less is double standard and two-faced.

it doesn't have to envolve foreign governments. They wouldn't administer the law for to do so would make them as bad as Thailand (double standard, two-faced). Make the law and let us tip of the Thai government here of all the Thai people we know who own land in our countries. Penalty; how about 20% of the value of the overseas land taken from the owners Thai assests as well as making the Thai owners passport not valid in the country where the land is. Tit-for-tat. See how they like it then.

[Colabamumbai]

Me thinks they are reading to much "George Orwell" yes lets go back one hundred years why don't we.

[PattayaPhom]

They are not worried about Mr Average buying a 10 Mil villa in Pattaya etc, its the agricultural land that is the main concern, and mostly purchased by Chineese, still... gives the property ney sayers a bit of adrenalin though...go to sleep till its mentioned again next year..yawn, yawn, yawn.

[louse1953]

Best thing is for westerners to boycott investing in Thailand all together I think. Best thing I did was get out after 7 years of living there. I'd like to see how well the kingdom fares without considerable western money flowing in.

They seem to be coping since you left,i replaced you and have no complaints.The west has no money,except what they print,the rebinbi will replace all.

[mochafan]

No use trying to apply logic in anything that the Thai government does when it comes to foreigners, their xenophobic ways will never change.

And foreigners who does not know anything about anything, and who always just want to complain about thai culture and thai politics will never change either...

some foreigners just know more about Thais and Thai culture than Thais think....so it's complaining...but it's the truth and many Thais know it. Many Thai friends of mine admit that it's true. We talk about these things all the time. Some people just want to hide anything under the rug that looks bad or is bad about Thais or the culture.

[Unkomoncents]

I have been visiting my thai family here for 6-7 years and finaly settled down permanent(Jan 2, 2012) .

I have been following thai politics and law very intense all these years.

If I am wrong please tell me but I think.

Thai politiciens make laws using the

"Try and see if it work" method (Like children do).

Each year they make a law... they wait 1 year to see if it works...

If it don't (always) try and change it.

And so they continue...

I think theese new laws are just yet another stupid law that will change next year...

Am I completely wrong ?.

You’re not wrong, but this time there are going to be some drastic changes with strict enforcements.

Before, the Thai authorities were unperturbed as regards the complicity of under handed real estate and land dealings. But the problem has gotten out of hand and the system is being abused, wholesale.

These shadow financial backers of land already know the prohibitions for foreigners purchasing land, otherwise they would not be buying by proxy.

So who do you believe is to blame? The Thai authorities or those that are flaunting the laws on such a grand scale?

As I said; it is the actions of the minority that place the scutany on all of us.

You would do better in Pyongyang. You've got the instinct for it.

[Geekfreaklover]

"The new law includes a reward to anyone providing information about foreigners owning land through nominees. They will get 20% of the market price of that piece of land as a reward after the plot is sold,"

Are foreigners eligible for this reward... if so, I think I'll be dam_n rich pretty fast by providing infos :-)

You'll have to use a nominee to recieve the reward

[Unkomoncents]

hi guys , i just read the whole topic and its pretty scary. I would like to expose my situation and gets some advices.

2 years ago , i decided to buy a land , so i heard of basically the 2 possibles options ( company or leasing ) and after the thai girl from law office told me a company is 100 pcent safe and better for me than a leasing i went for this option. Now when i did that , i had a thai girlfriend since like 1 years and half. They told me that it would be safer to actually use a thai director for the transfer/signing of the land via the company. Basically i had to put a thai name first as director and will be able to change it later

So i did put my thai girlfriend as director and they make her sign " white share " , some undated papers giving their share to me at anytime i want in case like she decide to run away or something like that.

Recently i started to build a house on it , and i asked the building permit under company name. because many people told me it will be way more easy if i want to sell it , since both land and house was under company name , you could sell/change director of the company to the name of the buyer and it will be it.

So right now , my name is nowhere officialy in this company but its illegal anyway.( money comes from farang and nominee etc )The thing is i want to sell this house when its done , , so whats the best way ?

I dont change anything and i try to sell it like that ? land under company name , house building permit under company too.

Or can i " sell " the land owned by company to my fiancée's name ? and then she can make a lease out of it ? and in this option what about the house ? its will belongs directly to the "new " owner of the land ?

Thanks

You shouldn't ask these folks. They're way too jaded to offer practical advice. Talk to a lawyer. They offer free consultation. TILA legal is cheap (because they are Thai, which is a good thing) and is working hard to build a reputation. Talk to them.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Unkomoncents

[louse1953]

After 20 years in Thailand holding a renewable one-year visa and work permit I am still not allowed to legally own (that is, in my name) a single square metre of oh so sacred Thai land. Instead I am forced to still rent properties. I don't want to buy land FOR a Thai nominee with MY money, just to then have to "lease" it from them. We all know what sort of trouble this regularly entices. If I pay, I also want to own, it's a natural thing. Ironically, I could according to Thai law OWN the building that stands on the land I PAID for, but which in turn I CANNOT own. I am not playing along with those games and to this day am renting my residence, even though in the long run this is much more expensive than owning.

The true land grabbers are the hi-so, obscenely rich Thais themselves who buy up - often for a pittance and by intimidating Thai farmers - entire swathes of land for speculative purposes and even illegally occupy areas officially designated national park or protected area status. That practice seems to be perfectly alright, because it's not perpetrated by a foreigner. The ombusman's argument of "saving the land for our children" sounds hollow and cynical. How about those farmers' children?

What are the Thais concerns? That I might turn up in the middle of the night with a backhoe, scoop out their sacred soil down to the bedrock, fill it into sacks and ship it abroad?

A Singaporean group reportedly just invested 1.4 BILLION Baht in a new resort on Phuket. First of all, as foreigners they cannot own more than 49% in the company that probably had to be formed for that investment project. Assuming that these 1.4 billion Baht only represent 49%, can we assume that their 51%-holding Thai partners thus coughed up another 1.457 billion Baht to facilitate the project? Probably not. My guess is that either the Singaporeans came up with the entire amount and that those supposed Thai partners contributed nil (or rather, just on paper), or that these 1.4 billion Baht represent the TOTAL investment INCLUDING the land on which the property is to be built, because of course the land cannot be owned by Singaporeans. The question then arises: Have the Singaporeans possibly PAID their Thai investment partners for contributing the land, and why would they do that? Is it not customary that partners BRING IN funds or assets (such as property) to acquire 51% instead of being PAID by another party?

Meanwhile, rich Thais are buying up real estate all over the world. Many governments even actively encourage foreign investors (Thai and other) to do so, because they are aware that it generates a lot of money for the respective local economies and that land cannot be removed.

I've over the years become a staunch advocate of reciprocal legislature. If foreigners are barred from legally acquiring land in Thailand, Thai citizens should be barred from buying up real estate abroad. Then of course a storm of indignation would break lose all across the moneyed elite of Thailand, decrying the practice as "unfair" and "xenophobic".

The problem is actually very easy to solve. Introduce legislation that allows foreigners to legally buy and own land for RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES and restrict it to, say, 2 - 5 'rai', which is more than enough for any residential usage. If land bought under this provision is not graced with a residential building and occupied within, say, 2 years, the foreign ower will be required to either re-sell the property to the state (aqt a pre-determined price) or on the open market a local private entity that must not have any ties to the original buyer. If land is bought for business purposes (a factory, a hotel, etc.), similar legislation could be applied. Bying land for agricultural purposes would be excluded for obvious reasons.

Which brings me to another issue of inequality in this country that occasionally causes me heartburn: double, triple pricing. How would Thais react if they found a sign at a foreign tourist attraction that reads, for example, "Entrance Fee: Locals 2 Euros, Foreigners (including Thais) 40 Euros"? Indignant again?

In Australia you can become a citizen after 5 years(used to be 2)and pass an Oz knowledge test,then you can buy land,also on permanent resident visa.What have you been doing for 20 years,become a thai citizen and you will be equal in the eyes of the law.On the entrance fee issue,just show a thai driving licence,thai price every time.

[Maseratimartin]

All BS ...you cannot own land now and the ways farangs have hand on land are legal. So what they want....

Think about the thai kids....there is a law of nature and as hard it is...it's valid: Only the strong will survive!

Just count the many thai farang mix kids....are they now foreigners or thais?

This is the part Thailand should have hope in.

Just think about we farangs just move on to Cambodia...what is then left of Thailand?

Without the farang Thailand will sink in a deep hole and then they might have to build a wall around that their people will not run away...

Before the thais attack us farangs who bring them wealth....clean up your corrupt shit you are so proud of. Sending your kids to prostitution, greedy worse then animals ....

[Unkomoncents]

Aaaahhh, nice one! Let's hammer a few more nails into the coffin!!! I doubt that any other tourist destination in this world except Thailand is more agile, versatile, and determined in the area of shooting itself in the knee by coming up with frequent crackdowns and new laws to prevent foreign investment. As far as I can see, it is only Thailand that manages to be named "the Land of Smiles" while the majority of its people hold an aggressive anti-foreign / nationalistic sentiment.

Instead of granting foreigners the rights which Thai people are able to enjoy in most parts of the western world (such as being able to legally buy and own land, house and business there by a 100%), they reject and scare away not only potential foreign investors on a frequent basis but also the foreigners who love Thailand so much, that they would like to either live and work or retire here (and of course would spend most of their money here as well). Why - for Christ's sake - can you people not grant private foreigners their half or full Rai of land to live here legally and in peace? Why can't this nation come up with a proper legal basis for foreigners to invest without the need of 51% Thai co-ownership? Where is the problem? One can't physically take the land away from Thailand anyway, since it always was here and it always will remain here!

But no - especially in times where everything (including tourism in Thailand) already is on a drastic (or should I say "frightening") decline, officials here need to push it even farther. If anyone in Germany's parliament would come up in the open with such drastic measures against foreigners, he would be flamed and branded a "Nazi" by international media. A politician here in Thailand does it and is hailed a national hero... How weird is that?

I just hope that Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Burma (if the latter one ever rises up as a free country and free tourist destination, then behold Thailand!!!!) manage to get their act together and create on top of a functioning infra-structure a legal foreign-friendly "Welcome in our country" immigration policy like Malaysia. Perhaps then, when foreign visitor and investment numbers drop by over 50%, Thailand will finally wake up and implement more rights to foreigners when it already is too late. Until then, they just do with us what they want. Why? Because they can!

Become a thai citizen and you have all these rights.As far as tourist are concerned that couldn't give 2 hoots about land ownership,and i don't know if you noticed but they are opening up another airport to cope with the tourist hordes.I wouldn't be pinning my hopes on Burma in the near future,it took 60 years to get this far and forget about Cambodia if you want any type of living standard

You're right to be skeptical about Burma (I love that you call it by it's old name because that is pleasantly condescending), but Thailand is screwed. Bangkok WILL be flooded completely every year by 2050 (is what they say) so let's say 2060 or 2070 and I'm being a generous bastard. Becoming Thai entitles you to visit about 20 countries (mostly in ASEAN). Not too nice. It's much better to be from Hong Kong or Singapore. Go LOS!

Edited June 30, 2012 by Unkomoncents

[louse1953]

Thailand is no longer a poor country so the laws should be reciprocal - if you can't own land as a foreigner in Thailand then a Thai shouldn't be able to own it in your country either.

The Thais have got it right,the west has got it wrong.

[louse1953]

I guess they could start with the Singaporeans that just dropped 1.4 Billion baht on a resort in Phuket. http://www.thaivisa....-phuket-buyout/

It's a little early for the annual sabre rattling which now appears to be a bi annual event instead of an annual event.

GREAT FOR A THAI TO REPORT THIS AND THEN GET 20% OF THE VALUE,Also all farangs will be moving out of Thailand and buy homes in other countrys

Not all farangs,only the scammers,good riddance.

[kagan]

Snitches get Stitches guys, never rat on anyone. especially if the government tells u to. There are a lot of ways to make a decent living here. Let's not start selling each other out.

[Darrel]

if you had the money to meet the MM2H criteria you'd understand the difference.

My resources easily qualify me for the MM2H programme and my comprehension is excellent (and it is not dependent on my bank balance anyway).

What I am saying is that the total investment involved is a lot more than for the Thai retirement extension. Not just a little bit more but many, many times more.

[Darrel]

That's the best part about it.. It keeps all the chav's away. Actually compared to buying an 8 million baht house that you can't actually own. The piffling 180,000USD you need to qualify for the Malaysian scheme is a bargain.. Unless of course you don't have 180K..

Keeping the chavs away may indeed be desirable, but paying 180KUSD or whatever to live in Malaysia is only a bargain if you actually like it there and cant think of anywhere better to go.