low cost dentist. scale and polish
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
Latest posts...
-
20
Iran's Supreme Leader Demands Execution for Netanyahu and Israeli Leaders
Not sure if the Iranian Supreme Leader really suggested what's in OP. At least it's fully in line with Nuremberg's art. 19 and 21. -
6,679
Australian Aged Pension
I'm retired. I live in Thailand, and don't work. So, not only are you a tax dodger and Centerlink fraudster, you are also an international gold and gem smuggler. Some people have to commit crimes to keep their Thailand dream alive. -
46
Trump's Sex Crime Cabinet
No, definitely not Big nok never posts paragraphs or even complete thoughts -
-
61
Donald Trump has NO mandate -- not for his election and not for his extremist policies
What are you going to do about it? -
36
-
46
Trump's Sex Crime Cabinet
I don't care if you know or not. Truly Just google it ffs. It's hardly a secret. -
99
Thai housemaid’s 100 million baht fortune hits a legal snag
Many aspects of this case are unclear. I would have thought that if the two Thais are named on the legal documents as owners for 51% of the land purchased, (in accordance with the law), then they are owners for 51% of the land. (And of the houses built on it, in the absence of legally-binding agreements to the contrary) Would it matter as regards their ownership, from a legal point-of-view, if the money for their shares of the purchases came from their bank accounts or from elsewhere? If the money was gifted, then I suspect they should have declared it as income. A failure on their part. Perhaps the Thai owners of the properties received none of the profits from the rented properties? This would suggest that they did not regard themselves as owners, but merely as nominees in a bogus transaction. In the latter case they would have received some kind of "backhander" (maybe a generous 51% ownership of the land value?) at times of purchase. "Police identified two Thai nationals, … , as shareholders in Catherine’s company. Investigators SUSPECT the two acted as nominees, enabling Catherine to register her company and hold land on the island illegally." Surely this case must be based upon proof, not suspicion.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now