Purchasing A Property In The Name Of A Company.

[up2you2]

Is again a legal option?

One of the more eminent international lawyers regarding Leasehold properties has written in the current edition of the Phuket Gazette:

"A way to protect against the possible non-performance by the Lessor of the renewal clauses, is for the purchaser to acquire an indirect if minority stake in the land owning company, coupled with effective minority management control to ensure that renewal of the term does take place."

They are proposing that using a company is again the option to use to safeguard your interests.

[trogers]

What is "effective minority management control"?

Only way to do this is the use of nominee(s) to dilute the voting power of the majority, which is just another way to hold majority control...

[Skorz]

What is "effective minority management control"?

Only way to do this is the use of nominee(s) to dilute the voting power of the majority, which is just another way to hold majority control...

It's illegal for a foreigner to own or 'control' land though company ownership. Effective Minority Management Control through the issuance of Preferential Shares is a waste of time of the share are being issued to foreigners for the purpose of land ownership. This is a product created by the dodgy legal services industry that has sprung up around foreign land ownership in Thailand (the law clearly states a foreigner must not CONTROL more than 49%, not own (obviously ownership also means control), thus rendering preferential shares useless as a legal mechanism for the purpose of land ownership (and control).

The only option for foreign 'ownership' is a 30 year lease. It is impossible for a farang to genuinely and legally secure a lease for longer than 30 years, although most real estators will crap on about 30-30-30 ad-infinitum extensions.

if you're planning on living on your Thai land plot longer than 30 years or are considering passing your land and house onto your children after your passing, it would be wise to prepare for a counter claim on the property by the younger relatives (i.e. children, nephews, nieces etc.) of the original owners. I predict this will become extremely common in the next 10 to 20 years when a lot of the original leases (drawn up with the 30-30-30 year horse crap contract) and taken out by foreigners 10 to 20 years ago start winding up.

Most 30 year thai-farang leases have not started expiring yet as most foreigners in Thailand bought/leased less than 30 years ago.

I would not be surprised also if this has a knock on effect against all the dodgy Sales Purchase Agreements taken out over the past decade where land has been transferred to Foreign Controlled Companies through the use of nominees (and this does include the use of a Thai spouse to take ownership of land on behalf of her foreign husband!!!). This could potentially blows upon a whole 'my daddy's land was sold illegally and we want it back now' culture amongst the new adult generate of Thais.

How the local Judge views Foreign vs Thai cases, especially when it comes to land cases should be taken into consideration when planning your defence.

[Khun Jean]

Don't forget about a usufruct! Costs are 180 baht, no taxes need to be paid and can include your children too, effectively having control over the land for the duration of your live and of that of your children if you have them.

[johnnyk]

What is "effective minority management control"?

Only way to do this is the use of nominee(s) to dilute the voting power of the majority, which is just another way to hold majority control...

It's illegal for a foreigner to own or 'control' land though company ownership. Effective Minority Management Control through the issuance of Preferential Shares is a waste of time of the share are being issued to foreigners for the purpose of land ownership. This is a product created by the dodgy legal services industry that has sprung up around foreign land ownership in Thailand (the law clearly states a foreigner must not CONTROL more than 49%, not own (obviously ownership also means control), thus rendering preferential shares useless as a legal mechanism for the purpose of land ownership (and control).

The only option for foreign 'ownership' is a 30 year lease. It is impossible for a farang to genuinely and legally secure a lease for longer than 30 years, although most real estators will crap on about 30-30-30 ad-infinitum extensions.

if you're planning on living on your Thai land plot longer than 30 years or are considering passing your land and house onto your children after your passing, it would be wise to prepare for a counter claim on the property by the younger relatives (i.e. children, nephews, nieces etc.) of the original owners. I predict this will become extremely common in the next 10 to 20 years when a lot of the original leases (drawn up with the 30-30-30 year horse crap contract) and taken out by foreigners 10 to 20 years ago start winding up.

Most 30 year thai-farang leases have not started expiring yet as most foreigners in Thailand bought/leased less than 30 years ago.

I would not be surprised also if this has a knock on effect against all the dodgy Sales Purchase Agreements taken out over the past decade where land has been transferred to Foreign Controlled Companies through the use of nominees (and this does include the use of a Thai spouse to take ownership of land on behalf of her foreign husband!!!). This could potentially blows upon a whole 'my daddy's land was sold illegally and we want it back now' culture amongst the new adult generate of Thais.

How the local Judge views Foreign vs Thai cases, especially when it comes to land cases should be taken into consideration when planning your defence.

Two classes of shares are perfectly legal in Thailand, as in westen countries.

BTW, Preferential Shares are the opposite in meaning to their western counterpart. Preferentials in Thailand are the same as common shares in the west.

Ordinary shares are the "preferred shares" and each one has 10 votes while Preferentials have 1 vote.

Thais can hold the majority of total shares, no problem. Thais hold 61% of the shares in my company and have 610 votes. I hold 39% and have 3900 votes which allows me to keep control, ie not be screwed.

[Skorz]

Don't forget about a usufruct! Costs are 180 baht, no taxes need to be paid and can include your children too, effectively having control over the land for the duration of your live and of that of your children if you have them.

True, I forgot about that. Reason being that on both occasions when I've tried to get one done, the land officer point blank refused saying it was basically unfair on my wife.

[Khun Jean]

The problem lies not in the shares but the question who invested their money in the company.

The company also has to proof that the land is needed, or else it is just an accommodation for the foreign minority owner.

Profit has to be the goal and efforts to make profit have to be proven. Renting out the house/land to the foreign minority company owner is not part of that effort.

A money trail has to be available for every shareholder. If that leads to the foreigner then the proof that nominees are used is made.

At that moment the company is setup illegally and can become a problem when investigated.

If someone told otherwise, they are incorrect.

[Khun Jean]

Don't forget about a usufruct! Costs are 180 baht, no taxes need to be paid and can include your children too, effectively having control over the land for the duration of your live and of that of your children if you have them.

True, I forgot about that. Reason being that on both occasions when I've tried to get one done, the land officer point blank refused saying it was basically unfair on my wife.

Fortunately he is not the one who takes care of your wife because that would be you.

In those circumstance it is good to use a lawyer. Does not matter which one, even the dumbest one is enough, just as long as he does exactly what you tell him to do. And that is to show the right articles from the law that allows the use of a ususfruct. The landofficer can do what he want but being bothered by a lawyer is not his idea of having fun and they will comply.

If there is one thing they strive for it is an easy day at the office.

btw a usufruct with your spouse is not really helpfull if security is sought. The same as with a lease the spouse can cancel the contract any moment, and even have to by law when divorced.

[Skorz]

What is "effective minority management control"?

Only way to do this is the use of nominee(s) to dilute the voting power of the majority, which is just another way to hold majority control...

It's illegal for a foreigner to own or 'control' land though company ownership. Effective Minority Management Control through the issuance of Preferential Shares is a waste of time of the share are being issued to foreigners for the purpose of land ownership. This is a product created by the dodgy legal services industry that has sprung up around foreign land ownership in Thailand (the law clearly states a foreigner must not CONTROL more than 49%, not own (obviously ownership also means control), thus rendering preferential shares useless as a legal mechanism for the purpose of land ownership (and control).

The only option for foreign 'ownership' is a 30 year lease. It is impossible for a farang to genuinely and legally secure a lease for longer than 30 years, although most real estators will crap on about 30-30-30 ad-infinitum extensions.

if you're planning on living on your Thai land plot longer than 30 years or are considering passing your land and house onto your children after your passing, it would be wise to prepare for a counter claim on the property by the younger relatives (i.e. children, nephews, nieces etc.) of the original owners. I predict this will become extremely common in the next 10 to 20 years when a lot of the original leases (drawn up with the 30-30-30 year horse crap contract) and taken out by foreigners 10 to 20 years ago start winding up.

Most 30 year thai-farang leases have not started expiring yet as most foreigners in Thailand bought/leased less than 30 years ago.

I would not be surprised also if this has a knock on effect against all the dodgy Sales Purchase Agreements taken out over the past decade where land has been transferred to Foreign Controlled Companies through the use of nominees (and this does include the use of a Thai spouse to take ownership of land on behalf of her foreign husband!!!). This could potentially blows upon a whole 'my daddy's land was sold illegally and we want it back now' culture amongst the new adult generate of Thais.

How the local Judge views Foreign vs Thai cases, especially when it comes to land cases should be taken into consideration when planning your defence.

Two classes of shares are perfectly legal in Thailand, as in westen countries.

BTW, Preferential Shares are the opposite in meaning to their western counterpart. Preferentials in Thailand are the same as common shares in the west.

Ordinary shares are the "preferred shares" and each one has 10 votes while Preferentials have 1 vote.

Thais can hold the majority of total shares, no problem. Thais hold 61% of the shares in my company and have 610 votes. I hold 39% and have 3900 votes which allows me to keep control, ie not be screwed.

Doesn't matter how creative you are with your share holdings with regards to real estate. As a foreigner you can't control/own more than 49% of the land. efore andunody mentions houses, a house is considered part of the land if it is deemed a permanent structure. Preferential shares are meant for Thais, not for Foreigners to use as a method for their own means, regardless of what your Thai lawer tells you.

Anyway, everything is at the discretion of the officer who deals with your case on the day. Someday different rules, depending upon how much you are prepared to pay the <deleted>*ker.

Personally I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to comment on this topic as I would never put money into property in a country as xenophobic and corrupt as Thailand ever again.

[johnnyk]

What is "effective minority management control"?

Only way to do this is the use of nominee(s) to dilute the voting power of the majority, which is just another way to hold majority control...

It's illegal for a foreigner to own or 'control' land though company ownership. Effective Minority Management Control through the issuance of Preferential Shares is a waste of time of the share are being issued to foreigners for the purpose of land ownership. This is a product created by the dodgy legal services industry that has sprung up around foreign land ownership in Thailand (the law clearly states a foreigner must not CONTROL more than 49%, not own (obviously ownership also means control), thus rendering preferential shares useless as a legal mechanism for the purpose of land ownership (and control).

The only option for foreign 'ownership' is a 30 year lease. It is impossible for a farang to genuinely and legally secure a lease for longer than 30 years, although most real estators will crap on about 30-30-30 ad-infinitum extensions.

if you're planning on living on your Thai land plot longer than 30 years or are considering passing your land and house onto your children after your passing, it would be wise to prepare for a counter claim on the property by the younger relatives (i.e. children, nephews, nieces etc.) of the original owners. I predict this will become extremely common in the next 10 to 20 years when a lot of the original leases (drawn up with the 30-30-30 year horse crap contract) and taken out by foreigners 10 to 20 years ago start winding up.

Most 30 year thai-farang leases have not started expiring yet as most foreigners in Thailand bought/leased less than 30 years ago.

I would not be surprised also if this has a knock on effect against all the dodgy Sales Purchase Agreements taken out over the past decade where land has been transferred to Foreign Controlled Companies through the use of nominees (and this does include the use of a Thai spouse to take ownership of land on behalf of her foreign husband!!!). This could potentially blows upon a whole 'my daddy's land was sold illegally and we want it back now' culture amongst the new adult generate of Thais.

How the local Judge views Foreign vs Thai cases, especially when it comes to land cases should be taken into consideration when planning your defence.

Two classes of shares are perfectly legal in Thailand, as in westen countries.

BTW, Preferential Shares are the opposite in meaning to their western counterpart. Preferentials in Thailand are the same as common shares in the west.

Ordinary shares are the "preferred shares" and each one has 10 votes while Preferentials have 1 vote.

Thais can hold the majority of total shares, no problem. Thais hold 61% of the shares in my company and have 610 votes. I hold 39% and have 3900 votes which allows me to keep control, ie not be screwed.

Doesn't matter how creative you are with your share holdings with regards to real estate. As a foreigner you can't control/own more than 49% of the land. efore andunody mentions houses, a house is considered part of the land if it is deemed a permanent structure. Preferential shares are meant for Thais, not for Foreigners to use as a method for their own means, regardless of what your Thai lawer tells you.

Anyway, everything is at the discretion of the officer who deals with your case on the day. Someday different rules, depending upon how much you are prepared to pay the <deleted>*ker.

Personally I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to comment on this topic as I would never put money into property in a country as xenophobic and corrupt as Thailand ever again.

House can be treated separately from land in Thailand. I don't know of any other country that does this so foreigners sometimes find it baffling. Bottom line is house and land can have separate ownership.

Anyway, I've owned for 6 years now and I'm worried a lot less about it than some people who don't own.

Edited September 2, 2012 by johnnyk

[Skorz]

House can be treated separately from land in Thailand. I don't know of any other country that does this so foreigners sometimes find it baffling. Bottom line is house and land can have separate ownership.

Anyway, I've owned for 6 years now and I'm worried a lot less about it than some people who don't own.

The house sits on the land, to get to the house you have to cross the land. To cross the land you need legal access. The only way to certainly show legal access, or some convoluted foreign controlled house situated on the land is by changing the title deed.

As such the Thai(s) names on the title deed controls the title deed, the land and thus ultimately any structures within the land.

Before anybody pipes up, the yellow (or blue if you're naturalised) Taabian Baan does not constitute legal ownership of a house.

A contract drawn up by a lawyer may provide some sort of psudo secutiry but at the end of the day, contracts can be broken and as we all know, when it comes to real estate in Thailand and foreign ownership, they frequently are.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Skorz

[trogers]

This post is about ensuring renewal of "Leasehold properties", probably about large landed developments that were approved as leaseholds but sold indicating promised 30+30 years leasehold in spite of Thai law limiting tenure of leaseholds to a max. of 30 years.

It is not about a single house on a piece of land and the use of a usufruct, nor about separating ownership of house and land.

[up2you2]

What I find disconcerting, is that when such a reputable firm of International lawyers should make such a statement, on a forum such as this there has not been so much as one post to back it up, substantiate, and confirm that it is accurate.

Let me state before I go any further, I wish and I hope that it is the case, that you still can purchase a property legally through a company.

However I have still to be convinced.

In fact all the countless debate on this topic points otherwise.

To those that would like to spend endless hours debating what has been laid down on the statue books, what is set in stone, put aside for one moment yours and everybodies else's interpretation of these laws.

Leaving aside the letter of the law, what do you think is the spirit of these laws are?

Further more what was the spirit when they were enacted, and how do you think this spirit would be interpreted today?

For me the writing is on the wall, let alone off the wall.

Yes there may still be those who might still wish to argue this, to those that would let me ask you this.

Since these laws were enacted, name me one amendment that has been passed to actively encourage foreigners to purchase a property in their own name. Through the use of nominees, preferential shares, companies, offshore companies and trusts, effective minority management control, and any other extra terrestrial schemes that have been proposed?

All that everybody is doing along these lines, is trying to deliberately circumvent what has been intentionally laid down.

[johnnyk]

House can be treated separately from land in Thailand. I don't know of any other country that does this so foreigners sometimes find it baffling. Bottom line is house and land can have separate ownership.

Anyway, I've owned for 6 years now and I'm worried a lot less about it than some people who don't own.

The house sits on the land, to get to the house you have to cross the land. To cross the land you need legal access. The only way to certainly show legal access, or some convoluted foreign controlled house situated on the land is by changing the title deed.

As such the Thai(s) names on the title deed controls the title deed, the land and thus ultimately any structures within the land.

Before anybody pipes up, the yellow (or blue if you're naturalised) Taabian Baan does not constitute legal ownership of a house.

A contract drawn up by a lawyer may provide some sort of psudo secutiry but at the end of the day, contracts can be broken and as we all know, when it comes to real estate in Thailand and foreign ownership, they frequently are.

As I said house and land ownership can be separate in Thailand. There are no restrctions on falangs owning houses in their own name.

Is anyone, aside from a rural Thai squatter, dumb enough to pay for a house to be built on land with no legal access? If so then they can't complain if it goes sideways. You can build yourself a house on LEASED land, i.e. separately owned land. Put it in the lease but at the end of the lease the landlord can tell you to remove your house or sell it to the landowner (don't be surprised at a low offer). He is under no obligation to renew the lease, nor are his heirs or successors though they are legally required to honor the lease to term.

Edited September 3, 2012 by johnnyk

[Skorz]

House can be treated separately from land in Thailand. I don't know of any other country that does this so foreigners sometimes find it baffling. Bottom line is house and land can have separate ownership.

Anyway, I've owned for 6 years now and I'm worried a lot less about it than some people who don't own.

The house sits on the land, to get to the house you have to cross the land. To cross the land you need legal access. The only way to certainly show legal access, or some convoluted foreign controlled house situated on the land is by changing the title deed.

As such the Thai(s) names on the title deed controls the title deed, the land and thus ultimately any structures within the land.

Before anybody pipes up, the yellow (or blue if you're naturalised) Taabian Baan does not constitute legal ownership of a house.

A contract drawn up by a lawyer may provide some sort of psudo secutiry but at the end of the day, contracts can be broken and as we all know, when it comes to real estate in Thailand and foreign ownership, they frequently are.

As I said house and land ownership can be separate in Thailand. There are no restrctions on falangs owning houses in their own name.

Is anyone, aside from a rural Thai squatter, dumb enough to pay for a house to be built on land with no legal access? If so then they can't complain if it goes sideways. You can build yourself a house on LEASED land, i.e. separately owned land. Put it in the lease but at the end of the lease the landlord can tell you to remove your house or sell it to the landowner (don't be surprised at a low offer). He is under no obligation to renew the lease, nor are his heirs or successors though they are legally required to honor the lease to term.

Tell me how I can legally own a house in Thailand (aside from a Condo or something under a 30 year lease) and how i can secure and control that house legally and for ever on Thai soil, pass it on legally and without grounds for a genuine and truthful dispute, as a component of my estate without circumventing the law. Finally tell me the name of the official government document that recognises house ownership (as a separate and legally recognised entity to land).

If you tell me all of this I will make you extremely rich and together we will go around buying houses and sticking our nations (or even our own) flags in the front garden demanding recognition as a sovereign states and diplomatic immunity.

With the greatest of respect, you've missed the point. A house must sit on land unless it's a boat or an airoplane house/flying saucer. We can't own or control land no matter how creative we or our lawyers get with leases, nominees etc. Access agreements are like any other contract - unless your name is on the back of a title dead. As a foreigner, you can't have your name on a title deed unless as a part of a company (which you can't control more than 49% of) or as a lease (which only legally lasts 30 years. Or as mentioned earlier, an ursfect.

Good luck in telling the Thai who buys the land plot on which you house sits that you intend to keep it once he's got his name on the title. of course, if you're selling to a perfectly reasonable farang andhis thai wife (which is of course illegal) then you might stand a better chance,. Until of course Mrs Thai wife decides on a whim to evict you and move her family in, open a <deleted>*king phone shop or some other random low-brow BS.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Skorz

[johnnyk]

House can be treated separately from land in Thailand. I don't know of any other country that does this so foreigners sometimes find it baffling. Bottom line is house and land can have separate ownership.

Anyway, I've owned for 6 years now and I'm worried a lot less about it than some people who don't own.

The house sits on the land, to get to the house you have to cross the land. To cross the land you need legal access. The only way to certainly show legal access, or some convoluted foreign controlled house situated on the land is by changing the title deed.

As such the Thai(s) names on the title deed controls the title deed, the land and thus ultimately any structures within the land.

Before anybody pipes up, the yellow (or blue if you're naturalised) Taabian Baan does not constitute legal ownership of a house.

A contract drawn up by a lawyer may provide some sort of psudo secutiry but at the end of the day, contracts can be broken and as we all know, when it comes to real estate in Thailand and foreign ownership, they frequently are.

As I said house and land ownership can be separate in Thailand. There are no restrctions on falangs owning houses in their own name.

Is anyone, aside from a rural Thai squatter, dumb enough to pay for a house to be built on land with no legal access? If so then they can't complain if it goes sideways. You can build yourself a house on LEASED land, i.e. separately owned land. Put it in the lease but at the end of the lease the landlord can tell you to remove your house or sell it to the landowner (don't be surprised at a low offer). He is under no obligation to renew the lease, nor are his heirs or successors though they are legally required to honor the lease to term.

Tell me how I can legally own a house in Thailand (aside from a Condo or something under a 30 year lease) and how i can secure and control that house legally and for ever on Thai soil, pass it on legally and without grounds for a genuine and truthful dispute, as a component of my estate without circumventing the law. Finally tell me the name of the official government document that recognises house ownership (as a separate and legally recognised entity to land).

If you tell me all of this I will make you extremely rich and together we will go around buying houses and sticking our nations (or even our own) flags in the front garden demanding recognition as a sovereign states and diplomatic immunity.

With the greatest of respect, you've missed the point. A house must sit on land unless it's a boat or an airoplane house/flying saucer. We can't own or control land no matter how creative we or our lawyers get with leases, nominees etc. Access agreements are like any other contract - unless your name is on the back of a title dead. As a foreigner, you can't have your name on a title deed unless as a part of a company (which you can't control more than 49% of) or as a lease (which only legally lasts 30 years. Or as mentioned earlier, an ursfect.

Good luck in telling the Thai who buys the land plot on which you house sits that you intend to keep it once he's got his name on the title. of course, if you're selling to a perfectly reasonable farang andhis thai wife (which is of course illegal) then you might stand a better chance,. Until of course Mrs Thai wife decides on a whim to evict you and move her family in, open a <deleted>*king phone shop or some other random low-brow BS.

You can have your name on the chanote as a leaseholder. I am aware that most houses sit on land. BTW, it's deed not dead.

Edited September 3, 2012 by johnnyk

[Skorz]

You can have your name on the chanote as a leaseholder. I am aware that most houses sit on land. BTW, it's deed not dead.

you can have your name on NorSor3 or NorSor3Gor as leaseholder as well as chanote, still only gives you 30 years. Lease is not freehold and does not service indefinite usage despite what Khun Kwai at PeePee Law will tell you - there is an alarming amount of miss information floating around on the subject, visit any real estate lawyers website and they'll be some polished variant on the dark art of foreign land ownership. Obviously the more risk free these people can make the process seem, the more people that will employ their worthless services.

House ownership is is comparable to owning (or claiming to own) a tree on somebody else's land. Show me a formal document that proves me wrong and we'll rewrite the history books.

[Khun Jean]

It is not so strange that Thailand wants to keep the land for Thais. Every country should follow their example in my opinion.

Leases for 30 years, or 50 years for industry is accepted and used.

Usufruct is a old law and still can be used to have control over land for the duration of ones live (and your children if you include them).

In our western countries you have landtitles, but are they actually ownership, because you still have to pay taxes on it, and those can be raised on a whim.

Sure you are the 'owner' but you still have to pay fees to the 'super owner'.

I am not aware of a country except Scotland that has allodial titles, which would be true ownership.

I think we just have to accept that 99.9% of us will never have real ownership and have to follow the law that is made to keep us not real owners.

In Thailand it just means that you can rent/lease/usufruct or buy a freehold condo(also not really true ownership, the crown owns all the land!).

As long as the rulers don't change the law it is something you can work within its framework and know your place, meaning somewhere all the way down in the dirt.

[bangkokburning]

Sorry Jean but there is absolutely no reason to disallow foreigners to buy land except that fewer buyers mean lower prices and most importantly reduces pool of buyers and restricts purchases to wealthy Thais.

We cant take land out of the country.

[PattayaPhom]

House can be treated separately from land in Thailand. I don't know of any other country that does this so foreigners sometimes find it baffling. Bottom line is house and land can have separate ownership.

Anyway, I've owned for 6 years now and I'm worried a lot less about it than some people who don't own.

The house sits on the land, to get to the house you have to cross the land. To cross the land you need legal access. The only way to certainly show legal access, or some convoluted foreign controlled house situated on the land is by changing the title deed.

As such the Thai(s) names on the title deed controls the title deed, the land and thus ultimately any structures within the land.

Before anybody pipes up, the yellow (or blue if you're naturalised) Taabian Baan does not constitute legal ownership of a house.

A contract drawn up by a lawyer may provide some sort of psudo secutiry but at the end of the day, contracts can be broken and as we all know, when it comes to real estate in Thailand and foreign ownership, they frequently are.

As I said house and land ownership can be separate in Thailand. There are no restrctions on falangs owning houses in their own name.

Is anyone, aside from a rural Thai squatter, dumb enough to pay for a house to be built on land with no legal access? If so then they can't complain if it goes sideways. You can build yourself a house on LEASED land, i.e. separately owned land. Put it in the lease but at the end of the lease the landlord can tell you to remove your house or sell it to the landowner (don't be surprised at a low offer). He is under no obligation to renew the lease, nor are his heirs or successors though they are legally required to honor the lease to term.

Tell me how I can legally own a house in Thailand (aside from a Condo or something under a 30 year lease) and how i can secure and control that house legally and for ever on Thai soil, pass it on legally and without grounds for a genuine and truthful dispute, as a component of my estate without circumventing the law. Finally tell me the name of the official government document that recognises house ownership (as a separate and legally recognised entity to land).

If you tell me all of this I will make you extremely rich and together we will go around buying houses and sticking our nations (or even our own) flags in the front garden demanding recognition as a sovereign states and diplomatic immunity.

With the greatest of respect, you've missed the point. A house must sit on land unless it's a boat or an airoplane house/flying saucer. We can't own or control land no matter how creative we or our lawyers get with leases, nominees etc. Access agreements are like any other contract - unless your name is on the back of a title dead. As a foreigner, you can't have your name on a title deed unless as a part of a company (which you can't control more than 49% of) or as a lease (which only legally lasts 30 years. Or as mentioned earlier, an ursfect.

Good luck in telling the Thai who buys the land plot on which you house sits that you intend to keep it once he's got his name on the title. of course, if you're selling to a perfectly reasonable farang andhis thai wife (which is of course illegal) then you might stand a better chance,. Until of course Mrs Thai wife decides on a whim to evict you and move her family in, open a <deleted>*king phone shop or some other random low-brow BS.

Why is selling to a Thai national that is married to a foreigner illegal???

[Skorz]

Transferring land into you thai wifes name is considered another form of nomination for the purpose of unrecognised land ownership/control. In truth it is rarely enforced and the majority of Thais I've discussed it with have little understanding of the implications.

http://www.pattaya-property.net/legal-information/#Can_my_Thai_Wife_Own_Land

Prior to 1998, any Thai woman who married a foreigner would lose her right to purchase land in Thailand. She could, however, still retain land that she owned prior to marrying the foreigner. However, 1999 a new Ministerial regulation changed that to allow Thai national's married to foreigners the right to purchase land, but the Thai spouse must prove that the money used in the purchase of freehold land is legally solely theirs with no foreign claim to it. This is usually achieved by the foreign spouse signing a declaration stating that the funds used for the purchase of property belonged to the Thai spouse prior to the marriage and are beyond his claim.

[Khun Jean]

You are free to give whatever you want to your wife. No law against that.

You just sign the paper that it is hers only in case it is land. She is not the nominee, she will be the lawful owner. You have no control whatsoever.

If the relationship goes bad, hope she has a 'good heart' otherwise it is bye bye land and money.

About that link, Mister Bolton has no clue at all, my goodness many subtle errors that can be the difference between security and none at all.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Khun Jean

[LennyW]

Deleted.

Edited September 14, 2012 by LennyW

[up2you2]

It's not every day you hear of a Thai lawyer pointing out the pitfalls of purchasing a property - Crafty property ideas 'will fail':

A lawyer who worked for eight years in Phuket, much of it on land and property issues, has warned that crafty attempts to circumvent Thai property law are most likely doomed to fail - and that a new law on shareholders' voting rights could well shake up the property industry.

Anant Akanisthaphichat, who is now based in Sra Kaew Province, gave advise to both property owners and developers, particularly on condominium law and land leases.

"Developers in Bangkok and Phuket are different,: he told around 50 members of the International Business association of Phuket (IBAP) at their monthly meeting at Urban Food in Central Festival last Friday (October 12).

"Developers in Bangkok have so much experience, while developers in Phuket just have money. If you're a customer you're better off buying from a more experienced and professional developer," he said.

He cited cases of less than ethical behaviour by condo developers - one who promised 20 units in the building, and a lobby, but then registered the lobby as a 21st unit; or another who kept ownership of the club house, and charged some condo users in later construction phases for using it.

He also gave instances of developers trying to get buyers to pay government fees that are by law the responsibility of the seller, such as withholding tax on the scale.

He also warned developers against lease contracts with clauses stating that they could be cancelled if the lease breaks "conditions",even though the lease has been paid in full.

"This is a bad idea for buyer confidence", he said.

"Developers, you should incorporate standard forms in your contracts, and please, do what you have advertised you will do. Buyers, know your rights."

He also examined land leases, in particular the 30+30+30-year agreements offered in contracts by many developers, pointing out potential pitfalls.

For example, he said, a contract might stipulate that the buyer pays B10 million at the beginning of the first 30 years, then just B100,000 at the start of the second period and third 30-year periods.

"But the Revenue Department is going to ask, 'Land price increase, don't they? So how can the renewal of the lease be so cheap?'" The result, he said, might be a large tax bill, with the developer deciding simply to declare bankruptcy, leaving lessees with a mess.

He also pointed out that the law allows for leases to be registered for only 30 years. "1987 is the oldest 30x3 agreement I have seen, so in about five years we'll see what will happen."

One of the audience pointed out that in Pattaya the 30x3 had been tested and had been supported by the court, but Mr Anant replied that although judges in Thailand could consider precedents, they were not bound by them.

He noted, too, that heirs to land leased on a 30x3 basis were not bound by a such a contract.

He also addressed some murky areas where the law and the common practice appear to go in separate directions.

One of these was the "condotel" model, whereby condos are operated as a hotel, allowing absent owners to get income from their units.

"The Land Office says they are not legal," he said. "A hotel cannot be a condo, or vice-versa; the licenses are different. If you ask me, it's not legal. But it works - Amazing Thailand."

Another was the common practice of having a development owned 49 per cent by foreigners and the remaining 51 per cent by a Thai company which, in itself, has 49 per cent foreign shareholding. The Land Office will say, 'This is owned more than 80 per cent by foreigners, so it's a foreign company.

"If you set up a Thai company like this, I'm not sure what the Land Office might do."

Finally, he warned about a new law on voting rights of shareholders, which may result in voting rights being invalidated if the company is set up in such a way that foreign shareholders have the majority of voting rights.

"The law has not been applied yet, and the Thai Government has not made it clear what is right and what is wrong."

He also made a plea to the Thai Government to "think about how to make foreigners comfortable", possible by applying the rules for industrial property, with it 50+50 land leases, to the residential sector. He also urged changes to the bankruptcy laws to handle land owned by companies that go broke.

[IamNotaNumber]

I tend to believe that if you need to engage a lawyer in order to do something then it will probably cost more than it's worth and is probably illegal anyway.

I also expect that one day the pack of cards that is farang ownership of Thai land via dodgy company structures will come tumbling down around the ears of all involved.

[Naam]

I tend to believe that if you need to engage a lawyer in order to do something then it will probably cost more than it's worth and is probably illegal anyway.

I also expect that one day the pack of cards that is farang ownership of Thai land via dodgy company structures will come tumbling down around the ears of all involved.

it is a fair assumption that Farangs who are involved in these kind of shady and illegal dealings will be circumcised, sentenced to 20 years hard labour in Thai coal mines and their wives and daughters will be sold into slavery.

[speedybuffalo]

A lot of documented doubts expressed in this thread.

I understand that in Thailand like in many other countries there is a reluctance to sell its land to foreigners for many reasons.

What I miss are some views what would happen, if the current arrangements become null and void? How much would the market break in, in areas preferred by foreigners? Would the local land owners accept the subsequent reduction of their wealth at these locations? Other tangible consequences? Would the system (government + private services involved) jeopardize its international credibility (face) by revoking the current arrangements or they wouldn't care?

I guess the next steps are likely to be forward - gradual, constructive, but pretty sure more expensive in terms of obtaining as well as holding. But I wonder what others think ...

[Naam]

I guess the next steps are likely to be forward - gradual, constructive, but pretty sure more expensive in terms of obtaining as well as holding. But I wonder what others think ...

sooner or later some clever Thai politicians will slap some nice tax on "companies holding property", which i'd consider a fair and acceptable deal.

[IamNotaNumber]

sooner or later some clever Thai politicians will slap some nice tax on "companies holding property", which i'd consider a fair and acceptable deal.

I'm amazed that it hasn't already happened.

Property taxes are amongst the easiest and cheapest to collect; the government knows exactly where all the property is, and who owns it, and if the owners dont pay up the government can easily seize the property and sell it.

[rgs2001uk]

sooner or later some clever Thai politicians will slap some nice tax on "companies holding property", which i'd consider a fair and acceptable deal.

I'm amazed that it hasn't already happened.

Property taxes are amongst the easiest and cheapest to collect; the government knows exactly where all the property is, and who owns it, and if the owners dont pay up the government can easily seize the property and sell it.

"I'm amazed that it hasn't already happened."

It would be a bit like turkeys voting for X-mas, why would the land/property owning lawmakers vote to pay taxes on their vast holdings?

Where would the taxes go, local level or central?

Who would put a value on the properties?

Who would ensure the values were actually correct?

Have you ever seen the reporting of property values at the local amphor offices when properties are purchased, and the underpricing that takes place?

As for the companies holding properties I agree.