New Property Law For Foreigners Spreads Confusion

[elGrande]

one would have to be pretty resourceless to trust their 'wife' to be the owner of the houses, especially if we're talking an expensive house... 'wives' come and go, ESPECIALLY in Thailand.... just my .02

What kind of marriage do you have anyway! Must a sad marriage without trust.

LOL ... Good one

Trust your Thai wife with the house ... LMAO

Where do these guys come from.

[Phil Conners]

Not sure where you all get those ideas. Yes if you marry a bargirl and you are twice her age chance is it's not love - but it doesn't have to be like that.

We have been married for close to 15 years now, she own the house, our daughter will inherit, her family leave us alone, basically no problems

[womble]

one would have to be pretty resourceless to trust their 'wife' to be the owner of the houses, especially if we're talking an expensive house... 'wives' come and go, ESPECIALLY in Thailand.... just my .02

What kind of marriage do you have anyway! Must a sad marriage without trust.

The fact that most normal marriages end in divorce, and the fact that many relationships here are not what they seem due to the thai partner getting married for $ not love. I think thats good enough reason not to put your assets into your spouses name.

There are many variables that affect the marriage from both sides, as in the west your wife could find a lover and leave you, how would you feel being kicked out of your house for her to move a bf in.

Or imagine your wife dies, she may well have left it to her family, great booted out again so they can move in. It can't be left to you as foriegners can't own property.

Similar to a pre nup (which incidently I would definatley make any future western wife sign no matter how unromantic) it's a way for men to protect their assets.

One thing that gets on my nerves is all the people who make out they have the perfect marriage and somehow because others choose not to put 100% trust into their spouse and therethore risk important assets they somehow have inferior relationships.

By the way i'm not married.

[Bangkok Barry]

Erm, well you must be a very trusting kind of guy, when in Thailand the concept of trust and lying is a very flexible thing indeed!

There is no love for the falang in thailand! Love of his money... Now thats something altogether different!

I've bought a house and land for my wife (and me) and have no doubts at all that I won't be taken advantage of.

If you marry someone you don't trust then why would you marry them?

Suggesting that there is no concept of trust in Thailand suggests you are pretty poor at picking your partner. And yes, I've read all the Stickman stuff. But the truth is that some Thai people are at least as trustworthy as people from whatever country you're from. I have one as my wife. And have had for nearly 15 years. Even her family, mostly Issan farmers, have never asked me for anything either in all that time, except a couple of water buffalo for her father.

[ynze]

It's all a matter of personal preferences. The only reason that I would like to buy, is that it is less insecure than renting. Have been kicked out of my condo now twice because the landlord wanted to sell it or increase the rent at such an outrageous rate that it was just not worth staying.

For the rest: I have a great spouse, my family has more than enough money of themselves, I don't have any kids, so why should I worry about who gets the property after I am gone. The lease option would be the choice for me, but as I said: it's just a matter of personal preferenced.

I consider myself a fortunate guy to be allowed to live in this wonderful country. And if we think that only certain Thais are greedy: look at all the big companies, or just to your own country. It's the same anywhere, so why cling so much to property?

[taxexile]

the wonderful upside to all this is that hopefully there will be a mass exodus from these shores of those paragons of truthfulness and good business practice , the british land agent and seller of bali fusion infinity pooled dreams , along with a good number of swaggering loudmouthed jumped up brit brickies and builders and a whole lot of bottom feeding chinless hangers on who have turned beautiful landscapes into tawdry and third rate falang ghetto ghost towns.

there should also be plenty of tarted up toyota fortuners flooding the second hand car market soon.

the enforcing of these old laws is long overdue and very welcome.

thais (and after all it is their country) without land have never been happy with the way land prices have escalated in many areas , putting even the smallest plot well out of reach to them.

increases in land prices and the ridiculous prices asked for and obtained for poorly built homes have contributed greatly to the atmosphere of greed and dishonesty that has been spreading like a filthy pox in so many areas of thailand .

an undercurrent of resentment towards falangs is also a byproduct of the uncontrolled expansion of these "dream homes" that are now turning into nightmare homes.

hopefully those who have paid for the title to their houses wont be dispossessed , but if this crackdown slows down the pace of development , then it will be a blessing.

Edited May 30, 2006 by taxexile

[Mr.Capers]

There is no indication that people who currently own property in Thailand with a Thai company will be under any scrutiny or immediate danger of losing their investments over this new revelation.

They are only now putting the burden of proof on the company to show the source of the income, and the integrity of the shareholders before registering any NEW property. If you can not provide this proof, they will not register.

Its an easy restriction to implement "from now on" but it would be virtually impossible, after the fact, to go back and question the integrity of Thai shareholders in a properly formed and maintained company.

My condolences to those who have invested in resort properties which have yet to be built and tranferred to your (company) name.

[mrbojangles]

Well this topic has got people interested. 480 people currently reading this

Personally, i have only bought in Thailand in the wife's name. And it wouldn't hurt me one jot if i was to lose it but it does get my back up that she can freely buy whatever she wants in the UK....in her name. So if the worst came to it, she could keep it.

I think countries that have laws like this, just be prejudiced against in other countries. Seems fair to me. If foreigners can't buy in your country, your people can't buy in other countries.

Just my 2 "frustrated" satang

[KhunMarco]

In the meanwhile , I keep renting here really cheap, bring in the minimum amount of money for my needs, keep my money invested abroad.

Me happy , they happy. all good!

Edited May 30, 2006 by KhunMarco

[mrbojangles]

Or imagine your wife dies, she may well have left it to her family, great booted out again so they can move in. It can't be left to you as foriegners can't own property.

I think i'm right in saying your wrong there, womble. Someone confirm? If you are married and your wife dies, it can be left to you as a foreigner but you have to dispose of it in a certain timeframe. I think between 6 and 12 months but one of the legals might be able to confirm.

Edited May 30, 2006 by mrbojangles

[monty]

Yep, you can be left your wife's land, you have 12 months to dispose of it...

Obviously you are entitled to the full proceeds of the sale...

[pakvn]

one would have to be pretty resourceless to trust their 'wife' to be the owner of the houses, especially if we're talking an expensive house... 'wives' come and go, ESPECIALLY in Thailand.... just my .02

ESPECIALLY if you picked them up from a bar.

[married2surin]

one would have to be pretty resourceless to trust their 'wife' to be the owner of the houses, especially if we're talking an expensive house... 'wives' come and go, ESPECIALLY in Thailand.... just my .02

ESPECIALLY if you picked them up from a bar.

And she is half your age....

[Jai Yen Yen]

In the meanwhile , I keep renting here really cheap, bring in the minimum amount of money for my needs, keep my money invested abroad.

Me happy , they happy. all good!

That's the way to go unless you're lucky, like Madsere:

We have been married for close to 15 years now, she own the house, our daughter will inherit, her family leave us alone, basically no problems

[skippybangkok]

Will be alot saying "told ya so". As I recall along time ago, I also made a post about "tricking the system". Alot of self confident falangs make out that they were so smart find a way around the rules, and the "not so smart" Thai's. In essence, there are alot of smart people here ( good and / or bad ), and its just a matter of time before they real you in.

I posted about 6 months ago a story where the Tax dept waited on the side lines for a long time until they could inflict maximum damage ( with a clear intention of extorting a fee ) and made their jump on me. Fortunately, I had all the documentary proof that I was right and they were wrong, and they had to back off.

You dont trick these people.....they will try to take you down for what ever reason in good time.

Question is

1) will this be as well enforced as the "dont litter scheme, or bus lane schemes". Inititatives die a quick death here. ( so if i was in some of these guys boots, maybe sit tight and let the storm blow over ? )

2) what really behind this - why now ? what the objective ? Who stands to benefit from this ?

Cheers

[rexall]

Tue 30 May 06, 9:28 p.m.

Someone on another thread suggested that this might represent a boon for the condo market . . . but I wonder. I am not sure I would be eager to invest in a condo right now. Even though everyone says condo ownership is legal--and so far that has been true--who can say what will happen if the government gets its pee in a bubble over a sudden surge in condo sales from falang fleeing the housing market?

Same might be said for long-term leases. Does anyone know, they an asset? Can I sell and transfer my long term lease for a profit? If so--and if everyone transfers assets from freehold to leases (and even though the property will ultimately return to a Thai)--doesn't that have the same potential for creating a bubble in the market?

No longer the case, but for years vast areas of Hawaiian land were held in trust for the Hawaii people, and could be leased but not owned outright. Eventhough the value of a lease depreciated and eventually an old lease was not worth much, Hawaii real estate (and leaseholds) were still among the most expensive in the U.S.

Aloha,

Rex

[the gent]

Quite why the farang should get their presumptious knickers in a twist by this bit of tub thumping by the " Thai" is beyond me. It is only their own hubris which convinced them in the first place, albeit aided by some toad snake oil salesman estate agent, that they could circumvent the stricture on foreign ownership announced in the second line of the Thai national anthem. Wishful thinking did the rest but I daresay some further clarification will be made to allay fraying nerves pro tem.

But honestly, did the farang really think they were players in the Thai market? More fool them if they did. The Chinese own Thailand. The rest is just grist to the nationalist mill.

Build your dreams elsewhere but cheap is no guide to their realisation.

Edited May 30, 2006 by the gent

[Chua]

Just the ban (or forced editing) of the movie "Tha DaVinci Code" which was overturned within 2 days, or the other rules which seem to get enforced, then unforced, it seems likely that as soon as people in power above this land office fellow who issued the statement, will issue some kind of reversal or re-statement. Thailand's number one economic sector is driven by tourism. They will soon realize that foreign owned property investment is a GOOD idea as it is a big incentive for tourism, bringing big spenders here on a regular basis with the knowledge that their homes will be worth more in the future, not less. It also puts a lot of money into the hands of formerly poor Thai people who have inherited land from their family, and can now sell at a dramatically higher price because of foreign interest in real estate. They should realize that Thai owned construction companies, Thai laborers, building materials companies, Thai real estate brokerages, etc, will all see a huge drop in revenues, forcing many out of business if foreign investment capital is excluded. Even the Thai government will loose because of the enevitable loss of tax revenues.

Surely someone with more wisdom and authority than the Deputy Director of the Ministry of the Interior will set things right before they start getting massive complaints from 100% Thai owned construction, building material, and real-estate agents.

[Rudyruns]

Law is the Law. If you did it right, then you will not have a problem?

This is Thailand. They can change every day the law and the foreign invester will always loose.

You should know this already. You can not own land or houses in Thailand. That you can own a condiuminium is also a fairytale.

The only thing what you can do is, bring alot of money in Thailand, that's what they like.

The best and easiest thing is: Let your wife buy the land and house and make a lease contract for 30 years with an extention. This is safe and you don't have to make a company, use an account etc.

You can sale the house when you want or rent it to other people.

Foreigner who invests 40 million baht or more in a Thai Company is eligible to purchase land and a house at the size of maximum 400 square wah maximum total land area.(1 square wah = 4 square meters).

YOU MOST BE AN IDIOT IF YOU DO THAT

[Sunbelt Asia]

Yes, confusion does seem to be the key word. As like any written word, different interpretations will happen. This is more common in the Thai language as it does not have commas or full stop so Thais themselves can get different meanings of the word. The Bible is another case in point, how many religions are there from the same written word?

A number of Land offices are allowing foreigners who are holding shares of a Thai company to buy land today and yesterday as one officer stated " it was quite clear that the purpose of this new rule is to curtail the property developer who are foreigners who set up company first with the objective to buy land for office or for home then apply for objective changes to be real estate development."

Case in point, a Thai company bought land today. Even though these Thai shareholders would ready to show their proof of income, the officer waved the proof off, while he stated " no need as this is for buying a office and land for a import export company NOT real estate development' This was a Thai company with 49% foreigners and a Foreign Director. We are hearing other reports of the same.

Looking at the literal translation the new rule did clearly state that the investigation of the Thai shareholders' financials is for the company which has the business objective to do any real estate business.

However, as I said many times the rule is written in black and white but it is up to

The officer who you dealt with how he wants to interpret the law.

Here is another different translation of the ruling.

Referring to the guidelines of land ownership set up jointly by the Land Bureau and the Ministry of Interior for legal entity which has foreign ownership:

There upon, the Ministry of Interior was reported that there have been foreigners working with Thais or had commissioned the Thais to set up corporation to do property trading by initially buying land and house for the purpose of making it a home or office and subsequently apply to change the usage to for sale or sub-divide and sale to foreigners which constitutes a breach of law.

For the purpose of preempting any actions which may circumvent the laws or as to prevent the purchase of land which may benefit foreigners under the Land Act 74, second paragraph, the Ministry foresees that an additional practice should be applied in the event that a company limited, limited partnership or partnership which has already been set up and apply to own land for the objective of doing business in real estate (except public company limited or other legal entities which were permitted to own land under other applicable laws such section 27 of Board of Investment Act B.E 2527 or property fund, commercial bank, banks set up under special law, finance company, security firms, life and non-life insurance companies).

If it is appears that the company is having foreigner as shareholder or Director or if there is a reason to believe that it is nominating the Thais to hold shares for the foreigners, the officer is to investigate income of every Thai shareholders in the legal entity by looking into their work history of what kind of work they have done and what monthly salary they earned, all of these proved by evidence. If the purchased is funded by loan, then loan evidence must be provided. If after the investigation, it is led to believe that the application for land ownership is circumventing the law or any individual is purchasing land to the benefit of foreigners under the Land Act 74, paragraph 2, the officer is to investigate the case in detail and report to the Land Bureau to be waiting for further advise from the Minister.

www.lawyer.th.com

[Chua]

More discussion and the new law enforcement translated here.

Did anyone happen to notice that the letter scanned and posted here seems to be directed at the Chonburi land office specifically? Why? Does this letter really direct all districts to change their enforcement?

[JimsKnight]

one would have to be pretty resourceless to trust their 'wife' to be the owner of the houses, especially if we're talking an expensive house... 'wives' come and go, ESPECIALLY in Thailand.... just my .02

What kind of marriage do you have anyway! Must a sad marriage without trust.

The fact that most normal marriages end in divorce, and the fact that many relationships here are not what they seem due to the thai partner getting married for $ not love. I think thats good enough reason not to put your assets into your spouses name.

There are many variables that affect the marriage from both sides, as in the west your wife could find a lover and leave you, how would you feel being kicked out of your house for her to move a bf in.

Or imagine your wife dies, she may well have left it to her family, great booted out again so they can move in. It can't be left to you as foriegners can't own property.

Similar to a pre nup (which incidently I would definatley make any future western wife sign no matter how unromantic) it's a way for men to protect their assets.

One thing that gets on my nerves is all the people who make out they have the perfect marriage and somehow because others choose not to put 100% trust into their spouse and therethore risk important assets they somehow have inferior relationships.

By the way i'm not married.

Right On! Thats exactly what I've been talking about!

Using the 'honey trap' to lure the foreign guys into marriage is one of the best kept secrets of thailand! In Issan its an accepted way of life! Indeed even if a falang could speak thai, the language of issan is very convenient way of plotting and planning in secret!

The thais who rebel against this are the ones who have confirmed these tricks. Once the falang is gone the thais take over! Its as simple as that! One reason behind all these stringent laws!

Maybe we should start a faction from all the poor falang who've been screwed over by the thais!

I'd be one hel_l of a following! I think the GDP of thailand may suffer if enough falangs wised up to the thais tricks! Booshka! Rant over!

[ya5702]

We got tricked. We all got tricked who bought here.

Only if you had bought the illegal way!

I swear I will never never trust a chinese man again never.

Aha! Outsmarted by the Chinese again!

Property in thailand is now. I wish all the money the few political lowlifes make from screwing over all the foreigners brings them all the unhappiness hunger and greed they can handle. They deserve it. it is just a shame the rest of the thai population has to suffer because of them.

That's business.

[austallia_1980]

"Because I intend to squeeze you. I don't like your kind of people. I don't like to see you come out to this clean country in your oily hair -- dressed up in those silk suits - and try to pass yourselves off as decent Americans. I'll do business with you, but the fact is, I despise your masquerade -- the dishonest way you pose yourself. Yourself, and your whole ######ing family."

[Netfan]

I don't see the perfectly legal purchase of condos being affected at all by this regulation.

What foreigner in their right mind would go out and buy a condo in Thailand right now? Especially with so much of the anti-thaksin (i don't like him) in such a nationalist frame of mind? This will have a big effect on the entire real estate market.

[marquess]

[Personally speaking the whole property thing here stinks, and I would advise not to invest. Take my postion I have been married for six years and during that time, I have live in my wifes house. I pay half the mortgage with her and share all the house hold expenses. She did own the house before I met her, but should she pre decease me, I will have to move out. The only way I would be prepared to invest, would be if we had children, then it could go in their names. Otherwise, it is like asking someone to look after your money, with no kind of gurantee of getting it back! Leave the property market to Thais!

[Rudyruns]

This is Thailand. They can change every day the law and the foreign invester will always loose.

You should know this already. You can not own land or houses in Thailand. That you can own a condiuminium is also a fairytale.

The only thing what you can do is, bring alot of money in Thailand, that's what they like.

The best and easiest thing is: Let your wife buy the land and house and make a lease contract for 30 years with an extention. This is safe and you don't have to make a company, use an account etc.

You can sale the house when you want or rent it to other people.

Foreigner who invests 40 million baht or more in a Thai Company is eligible to purchase land and a house at the size of maximum 400 square wah maximum total land area.(1 square wah = 4 square meters).

YOU MOST BE AN IDIOT IF YOU DO THAT

I am not sure of the correct answers to all of these questions, nor would I accuse someone of being an "idiot" unless they did not seek legal advise to figure out the facts of buying land, property and the "new laws", but one thing I have found out in the three years I have lived here, is use common sense and don't believe everything you hear. I have seen many people get burned on both, large and small scale...trust is not what you learn in law school....but the legal system...and that is what will dictate the whole senerio.

I have some pertinent info for those whom wish to take the time:

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.

Finally: Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

Rudy

[Sulaphat]

Yes, confusion does seem to be the key word. As like any written word, different interpretations will happen. This is more common in the Thai language as it does not have commas or full stop so Thais themselves can get different meanings of the word. The Bible is another case in point, how many religions are there from the same written word?

A number of Land offices are allowing foreigners who are holding shares of a Thai company to buy land today and yesterday as one officer stated " it was quite clear that the purpose of this new rule is to curtail the property developer who are foreigners who set up company first with the objective to buy land for office or for home then apply for objective changes to be real estate development."

Case in point, a Thai company bought land today. Even though these Thai shareholders would ready to show their proof of income, the officer waved the proof off, while he stated " no need as this is for buying a office and land for a import export company NOT real estate development' This was a Thai company with 49% foreigners and a Foreign Director. We are hearing other reports of the same.

Looking at the literal translation the new rule did clearly state that the investigation of the Thai shareholders' financials is for the company which has the business objective to do any real estate business.

However, as I said many times the rule is written in black and white but it is up to

The officer who you dealt with how he wants to interpret the law.

www.lawyer.th.com

Based upon the above, it would seem that the intent of the new directive is indeed a measured response to specific complaints/issues rather than an across the board policy change affecting all foreign invested companies seeking to own land. If so, business as usual for most, tough going for some property developers. I can't help but think that someone must have stepped on someone's influential toes.

[roamer]

There is no indication that people who currently own property in Thailand with a Thai company will be under any scrutiny or immediate danger of losing their investments over this new revelation.

They are only now putting the burden of proof on the company to show the source of the income, and the integrity of the shareholders before registering any NEW property. If you can not provide this proof, they will not register.

Its an easy restriction to implement "from now on" but it would be virtually impossible, after the fact, to go back and question the integrity of Thai shareholders in a properly formed and maintained company.

My condolences to those who have invested in resort properties which have yet to be built and tranferred to your (company) name.

Thats not how I would interpret it. I'm not saying that prior purchases will come under the spotlight but the only reasons for them not to are political, not legal. And then again, under a future govt, the reasons for doing so could be political. Trying to predict the outcome here is like trying to tattoo a soap bubble.

[SteveH]

one would have to be pretty resourceless to trust their 'wife' to be the owner of the houses, especially if we're talking an expensive house... 'wives' come and go, ESPECIALLY in Thailand.... just my .02

Whilst I guess I know what your saying, I have been married to my Thai wife for 30 years, we bought some land 3 years ago and built a property on it. I know our kids will inherit it when we're gone. It's the old story use your common sense and know who to trust but please don't tar all Thai wives with the same brush.