Land Crackdown Targets Thai Shareholders

[stevehaigh]

I just transferred land from my company to my wife, I figure it's not worth the sleepless nights worrying about the knock on the door.

I registered a Sitthigapgintalordsheevit as the same time. For those unfamiliar with that, it's like a lifetime (some say 30 year) lease but does not require any tax be paid.

I certainly do trust my wife more that I trust my lawyer/the government and if things go tits up with the marriage, I have control of the land until I die.

Mods, the multiple treads on this subject are annoying, maybe fold them into one and close the others?

[chingching]

This seems like such a long thread, that no one has suggested suing your lawyer or your real estate agent. If you took their advice in buying the land it would seem they are culpable. I know in the states that would be the first alternative. As professionals they would have an obligation to know the law; while you as a layman would not. I see a huge sign in Pattaya across from the Marriot, that says "Foreigners can own Land" If not criminal liability, certainly civil.

[Chang_paarp]

Going back to the initial quote by George, I get the feeling the authorities are trying to stop the trend where company's, that are falang controled, are buying large plots of land then sub-dividing them, re-registering the plot's with the land office then selling on the individual plots at a greater profit.

I don't think they are so much targeting 'Pattaya Pete' who is living with or married to 'Nakon Nok' and just trying to keep his property should things got tit's up.

None of the government spokespeople were specific in who they were targeting. Any farang holding land thru a company where the thai nominees can't prove their source of capital is vulnerable, no matter how small or large the land holding. Could be a 4 million baht house or a 200 million baht resort, doesn't matter. Someone mentioned on this site that that foreign-owned hotels and resorts would be exempt, because they're engaging in trade. They are not exempt, because they own land and that is illegal, period, unless somehow or another they can prove the thai nominees source of capital. Many businesses, homes, etc, are at risk here, not just land speculators. Also, if this law is enforced, people who have land and house leasehold can expect to see their property values drop as well.

Most investment of that size have BOI exemptions to many of the annoying little laws we are discussing. The correct project can also get excemption to taxes for a number of years. These companies can afford the expensive lawyers and accountants that are needed to get these legitimate consessions.

As a matter of interest many hotel and resort chains do not own the properties they operate, they merely run them. When the property is no longer to their standard they move on.

[taxexile]

If you took their advice in buying the land it would seem they are culpable. I know in the states that would be the first alternative. As professionals they would have an obligation to know the law;

the small print on the contracts that are signed with land agents will almost certainly have some disclaimer nonsense about the purchaser not having any comeback should things go wrong as a result of incorrect advice or information.

suing a lawyer here would take years and years with no guarantee of a favourable outcome. the only guarantee would be that it would cost more than the house that you are fighting for the right to keep.

lawyers are the last people in thailand who could be described as professional.

next to last come the land agents.

the fact that buyers have so little protection here is one of the reasons it is so easy for sellers to misrepresent what they are selling at every stage of the process , and the pen pushers at the land office wont do anything about it until they get a kick from the government like they did this week.

[stevehaigh]

This seems like such a long thread, that no one has suggested suing your lawyer or your real estate agent. If you took their advice in buying the land it would seem they are culpable. I know in the states that would be the first alternative. As professionals they would have an obligation to know the law; while you as a layman would not. I see a huge sign in Pattaya across from the Marriot, that says "Foreigners can own Land" If not criminal liability, certainly civil.

many lawyers, their office staff and real estate agent office staff act as thai nominees. they are probably been investiaged right now, especially if they are shareholds in hundreds of companies!

[Crossy]

I registered a Sitthigapgintalordsheevit as the same time. For those unfamiliar with that, it's like a lifetime (some say 30 year) lease but does not require any tax be paid.

Steve, is Sitthigapgintalordsheevit similar / the same as the Usufruct that some advocate as a means of retaining use of the land in the event you beloved dies before you??

[Dragonman]

Why? As "sin sot" is paid to parents and not the wife, if they decided to give to wife it would be a gift from them, not the husband. Did the Land Office come up with this "gem"?

Not sure about the why, but the form which a foreigner has to sign allowing a wife to own property clearly states that the Money must not be part of a Sin Sot

Ahhh this is why the Ministry of Interior has to clarify the law and what they must do! Because from a legal aspect they are generally totally inept.

[thestirfry]

<inappropriate comment deleted>

Edited June 1, 2006 by Jai Dee

[stevehaigh]

<inappropriate comment deleted>

oh man, i cold have so much fun with this one, but would doubtless get banned!

in response to the other question, Sitthigapgintalordsheevit is the same a usefruct and has nothing to with your wife dying, it's a registration on the use of the land, it would survive a change of owner.

steve

[Dragonman]

I registered a Sitthigapgintalordsheevit as the same time. For those unfamiliar with that, it's like a lifetime (some say 30 year) lease but does not require any tax be paid.

Steve, is Sitthigapgintalordsheevit similar / the same as the Usufruct that some advocate as a means of retaining use of the land in the event you beloved dies before you??

Steve is aware of my negative feelings for usufructs

Unlike a lease, which is clarified in Thai Law, the Civil Code basically determines usufruct in Thai Law, but is superceeded by Laws regarding foreign ownership. Judges have determined in the past that the obtaining of a lifetime usufruct by a farang is tantamount to that person obtaining freehold ownership and hence is prohibited. However not being unreasonable the lifetime usufruct is reduced to 30 years as allowed under leasehold laws.

[george]

Thailand foreign land ownership: Belmont Limcharoen press release

Response to the new interior ministry regulations regarding foreigners purchasing land in Thailand

By: Belmont Limcharoen International Law Firm

We refer to recent media reports of new regulations issued by the Deputy Ministry of Interior regarding foreigners purchasing land in Thailand.

Land ownership issues will always be a sensitive issue amongst Thai people. There would be controversial political consequences if any government in power attempts to change the Land Code to accommodate foreign ownership of land. Whilst many foreigners elect to arrange, with majority shareholding Thai partners, to set up Thai companies and thereby operate in a ´grey area´ of the law, we believe the most practical and legal way to deal with the issue of foreign ownership would be resolved by legislative means, that is passing an act similar to Landlord and Tenant Acts in other jurisdictions which provide proper protection of lessees under a lease with changes to the maximum term of a lease for foreigners.

Whilst providing an opportunity to foreigners to have more secure investments in Thailand this would also solve the sensitivities attached to the concept or thought of foreigners “owning” or indirectly owning land in the Kingdom of Thailand. Whilst such improved leasehold legislation does not presently exist, there will continue to be, as there has been for many years, debate on what constitutes a company that is set up illegally, or what has been set up legally and which is a good structure for investment in real estate by foreigners. Unless there is a clear law that states foreigners cannot inject monies into a Thai company which has real estate assets there will be opportunities for investment and ways of protecting investors who inject more monies than others into an investment.

Ultimately, the majority of a Thai company which owns land must be owned 51% as a minimum by Thais in any event. If companies are scrutinized when title is due to be transferred this will potentially slow transactions down where the companies do not meet the requirements the officers are looking for. There is no indication that a real transaction with a real Thai company, set up correctly with real Thai shareholders and real foreign shareholders in accordance with the law, will be refused but perhaps will be subject to review. Belmont Limcharoen and its attorneys are trying to encourage the concerned government agencies to look into the possibility to start the process of legislation of a Thai Landlord and Tenant Act, an act that will seemingly take a long time to bear fruit as the nation still has no legislative body.

-- www.BelmontLimcharoen.com 2006-06-01

[Gary A]

I bought my Thai wife some land and was told by the people at the amphur land office that they didn't care where she got the money. I just had to sign a document declaring that I had no financial interest in the land. It's not a lie. I DON'T have any financial interest in it. It's hers anyway you look at it.

Don't spend more than you can afford to lose and never be worth more dead than alive. My wife takes great care of her walking ATM.

[george]

Bangkok Post causes property panic

Panic swept through sections of the foreign investment community on Tuesday night following publication online of a story in the Bangkok Post entitled ‘New property law stuns foreigners’. The piece, which appeared in print yesterday, drew attention to a directive from the land office in Chonburi which said that one of the traditional routes to property ownership for foreigners in Thailand – 49% ownership of a Thai company – would be put under increased scrutiny, and that the Thai shareholders involved would have to disclose their assets. Quickly picked up by popular forum site, ThaiVisa.com, the story had generated over 200 posts by 6pm yesterday. These ranged from anti-Thai rants, to questions about the future validity of condominium ownership and debates over when it is appropriate to put property in a Thai spouse’s name.

Several agents around the country reported calls from Hong Kong and further afield, expressing concern about what had been written. They also expressed the opinion that the dramatic tone of the Post piece, with its quotes claiming ‘the property boom ended on 25 May’, amounted to unnecessary sensationalism.

The main effect of the directive has so far been confined to Chonburi’s Land Office, which deals with Pattaya and the Eastern Seaboard, where, as of yesterday, title transfers have been refused. However, company representatives have merely been told to return the following week; no investigations into Thai shareholders have taken place.

“I think it will all blow over,” a well-known Pattaya agent, who wished to speak off the record, said, “probably within a week or ten days. Ninety nine per cent of developments here are Thai owned and run, but they are selling to the foreign market and do not want to see this kind of thing happening. Similar things have happened in Chonburi in the past, with no foreign bank accounts being allowed and no work permits being issued for periods of time, so I am not overly concerned about this. However, it will understandably make new investors wary for a period of time.”

Samui lawyer Manit Taejaw, a partner in Miklaw Associates, had already received over 100 emails from concerned clients by 10 o’clock yesterday morning. He also said that he had spoken to the Samui Land Office and that its officers had no knowledge of any new regulations coming into force. Transfers were continuing to take place as usual.

International law firm Belmont Limcharoen, which has offices in Bangkok, Samui and Phuket issued a press release on the news last night.

“Land ownership issues will always be a sensitive issue amongst Thai people,” it said. “There would be controversial political consequences if any government in power attempts to change the Land Code to accommodate foreign ownership of land. Whilst many foreigners elect to arrange, with majority shareholding Thai partners, to set up Thai companies and thereby operate in a ´grey area´ of the law, we believe the most practical and legal way to deal with the issue of foreign ownership would be resolved by legislative means, that is passing an act similar to Landlord and Tenant Acts in other jurisdictions which provide proper protection of lessees under a lease with changes to the maximum term of a lease for foreigners.”

“Whilst providing an opportunity to foreigners to have more secure investments in Thailand this would also solve the sensitivities attached to the concept or thought of foreigners “owning” or indirectly owning land in the Kingdom of Thailand. Whilst such improved leasehold legislation does not presently exist, there will continue to be, as there has been for many years, debate on what constitutes a company that is set up illegally, or what has been set up legally and which is a good structure for investment in real estate by foreigners. Unless there is a clear law that states foreigners cannot inject monies into a Thai company which has real estate assets there will be opportunities for investment and ways of protecting investors who inject more monies than others into an investment.”

In an interview with TPR last year Gary Biesty, managing partner in international law firm Johnson Stokes and Master spoke at length about foreign ownership of property in Thailand. He was asked if he thought foreign investors had become fairly blasé about establishing companies to circumvent freehold laws, especially in resorts, and whether or not it concerned him.

“Any attempt to circumvent the laws concerns me,” he responded. “It is possible within corporate commercial law in Thailand for companies to be created to allow foreign investors to enjoy effective freehold ownership. If properly followed and conscientiously adopted, this is not circumventing the law, it is simply following the law. So provided that those corporations are created in accordance with the law, I have no concern. If, as you suggest, people are becoming blasé, then there is a danger, because that would suggest people are not correctly incorporating companies and with that, there is a much higher risk that they may ultimately find they don’t effectively own the freehold that they thought they did.”

Although the directive in Chonburi will clearly require further clarification in the coming days, for now at least with no Thai parliament in session and, therefore, no possibility of new legislation being implemented, the law regarding foreign investment in real estate has not actually changed at all.

--Property-Report.com 2006-06-01

[imjustagirl]

imjustagirl:

the current baht fluctuations are nothing unusual, mostly related to fluctuations of major currencies.

you cant devalue the baht anymore, because it is moving more or less freely.

I think it is a safe be though that it will slowly depreciate against major currencies, seeing the baht to the dollar at around 50 in 4-5 years.

if you have your live savings in baht and you plan to spend your life in thailand, I would not bother too much.

otherwise it is a wise decision to have money in property (convenience is king!!!) or hard currencies, as you will surely make gains over the years against the baht.

just have in thai baht what you need for the current living expenses. but dont have all your money on a baht savings account. you can as well burn money.

Thank you Danone for your advice, I am beginning to feel unwelcome here in thailand which upsets me greatly. I understand that their is bad feeling towards some types of farang but (as my name says) I'm just a girl, well- young woman who has decided to start a new life in a beautiful country....I have a job in england (but work from here) and pay taxes and support the thai economy with my british wages, have thai friends even volunteer in the local effort to keep thailand beautiful through cleanup days! etc. however now that i have been here a year and have learnt some thai language I am increasingly hearing the truth behind coments and the 'thai smile'(they don't realise i understand their converstations). I am asking myself do i want to be in a country where i don't seem to be welcome other than to line their pockets when it suits them and be slandered behind my back....

This blow to my plans of buying a home here just makes me feel even less welcome.

[VanZam]

This, like many other "crackdowns" will blow over.. The question remains... Do you want to remain in a position where the law can be enforced within a moments notice, and leave you high and dry?

The inability to have stable investments in this country will be its downfall. Other countries in the Asian area offer far better deals to people willing to invest.

I for one, will be investing no more in Thailand, the system rightfully protects Thai interests, although has the habbit of extracting as much cash out of foreigners as possible and providing no security whatsoever for those investors.

[Mobi]

Perhaps we see things differently. I, too, hold land thru a company, but unlike you, I do care about my wife's financial future after I die, and so I am concerned about property values.

Hey there - of course I care about my wife's financial future. I dao have a lot of other assets that will be going her way after I die, which will be substantially more than any house I happen to leave her in Thailand. Whatever happens she and her family will be extremely well off for the rest of their lives - I'm simply not relying on some dodgy house ownership in Thailand to provide for that security - that's why I'm not having sleepless nights about it, and not too bothered about the value going up or down. OK?

Not exactly how you presented yourself in your original comment. This is a thread to discuss what is happening with regards to the new directive from the Land Office. If you're not interested in the financial impact of this upon your family, perhaps you might be better off commenting in the photography or bird-watching forums.

Look here - don't turn this into a f..cking pissing contest.

I have made many posts on what is now a combined thread, discussing the serious aspects of being deprived of the ownership of my property. I have already stated that the financial future of my Thai family is well taken care of and is not an issue - therefor it is of little interest to me if the short to medium term value of my house drops. I have, God willing, at least another 20 years on this earth, and by that time I can only imagine the house will be worth a reasonable amount. If not - it's simply not a big deal. Ok? Got it??

In any case, I wasn't aware that the sole purpose of this thread was to discuss the financial impact on families.

I would never have bought property here as a "nest egg" for my family, as I was aware of the risks and knew there was a chance I might lose it. I only invest in Thailand what I can afford to lose, as many have already advised - on this thread! How about you?

But that doesn't stop me discussing the current situation, and whether or not I can retain my current ownership.

Maybe you had better apply for a postion as a moderator as you seem keen on telling people which threads they should post on.?

Back to the subject in hand..

I have just been told through the "grapevine" that certain developers are planning to circumvent the new crackdown by simply transferring their shareholding in their companies rather than transferring the land to a new company.

Apparently, one particular developer has separate companies for each house he has built and he says he will transfer the 49% shareholding to the buyers when he sells the houses. No need to go to the land office, just transfer the shares in the existing companies, and thus solve the problem.

Seems too easy to be true

Any comments?

Edited June 1, 2006 by Mobi D'Ark

[bander]

I just transfer my house to my wifes name, and want to close down the company.

My lawyer didn't like that so now she want 50.000 bath fee to do it.

Is there an other way to close a company?

Thanks for any advise!

[arthsch]

business as usual: open a trap, let the mouse come it and the thais have cought the farang. not fair, but this is how it works.

i am wondering about the fear of the thais: are they thinking, the farang would put the land in an envelope and send it out of the country?

can chinese own property of land? and why?

i bought all the land for my wife and my son. if i would get divorced, i would lose everything. it don't bother me.

but i ask the thai lawmakers: is this right and honorable?

[Janiew]

By the way if you are married with a Thai lady, technically you can not even buy land anymore, UNLESS she can prove that she is the source of income and so on. But for those who have a boyfriend, or a husband they are allowed to buy.

And no it is not legal when they prove a loan which will not be paid back....

-Hi deminister, just saw this..... is this right? Do you mean a foreign lady with Thai boyfriend/husband is allowed to own /buy land? I didn't think so! Can you confirm this? Thanks.

[t.s]

Speculation, panic, sniping and flames, but very little information.

Why would you act before you know the facts?

better yet, why pretend you know the facts before 98% of the land offices in Thailand do?

no parilament sits, ergo no law has been passed.

ts

[thestirfry]

true t.s

its all nin tah

where is the proof

[Prakanong2005]

Stevieff

It was me who thought

"Someone mentioned on this site that that foreign-owned hotels and resorts would be exempt, because they're engaging in trade"

and as I have no experience in this area it was a view taking from reading this and other boards so am willing to stand corrected.

However sunbelt Asia has said other lanholdings are going through such as a purchase of an office building as the main business is not the land ownership.

Would this then not be the case with a hotel or resort?

I hope this can be clarified.

[edd]

When we buy a new house in my wife’s name and if she is asked where she got the money from, is it permitted for her to just say from our joint bank account.

The money will be transferred from our joint account in the UK to our joint account in Thailand.

All money is above board and traceable.

I only wish I had some OTHER money but I have had to spent a lifetime working for the money we have.

[tango]

....The inability to have stable investments in this country will be its downfall. Other countries in the Asian area offer far better deals to people willing to invest.

Here is an excerpt of a recent offer by the Malasian Government to encourage foreigners to settle there, assuming of course you accept the muslim situation there:"Com'on down, y'all!!"

Malaysia invites foreigners to make themselves at home

By Alex Frew McMillan International Herald Tribune

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2006

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/11/news/rebuymalay.php

Like many Southeast Asian nations, Malaysia has two primary property markets that are attractive to overseas buyers: the area around the capital’s central business district and the resort properties on the coast.

But unlike some of its neighbors, Malaysia makes it fairly easy to buy property. Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and even Singapore all prevent foreigners from owning land, restricting them to buying apartments or to using leasehold arrangements.

“In Malaysia, you’ve got a government that is really trying to improve the environment for people looking to invest in the country,” said Darien Bradshaw, regional director of business development for Colliers International real estate brokerage.

That was not always the case. In the 1990s, the country feared that foreign buyers were driving prices beyond the reach of locals and, in reaction, it set up a Foreign Investment Committee and enacted restrictions. Now, however, the country even has a program aimed at overseas buyers, “Malaysia: My Second Home.”

Malaysia’s real estate market is considered transparent in comparison with other Southeast Asian countries. And owners can avoid a 30 percent capital gains tax by holding their property for at least five years, after which they pay 5 percent on any gains.

Brokers and buyers alike say Malaysian banks are eager to issue mortgages to overseas citizens. Mortgages are generally issued up front. “In terms of financing ability, compared to other countries, the banks are very liberal,” Bradshaw noted. “People can secure up to 90 percent finance.” [Continued at url above].

[george]

Property boom makes tax office glow

PHUKET CITY: -- If taxes paid are any indication of economic health, then Phuket’s economy, in particular the property sector, is very healthy indeed.

Between October 1 last year and April 30 this year, the Phuket Area Revenue Office (PARO) collected 455.75 million baht in taxes from property businesses alone – an increase of 64.58% on the same six-month period a year earlier.

On Tuesday, PARO Chief Pensri Passakul explained at Governor Udomsak Uswarangkura’s monthly meeting with Provincial Office Chiefs that the increase in property taxes collected has been a boon for the government’s coffers.

“Our figures show that [in the first half] this [fiscal] year we have collected 2.73 billion baht, which is 27.16% more than we collected in the same period a year ago.

In the tax year from October 1, 2004, to September 30 last year, she said, taxes collected amounted to about 4 billion baht. “We believe that this year we will collect more than that,”she added.

“Tax collected in April this year totaled 476.3 million baht, a rise of 36.72% compared with April last year, when 348.39 million baht was collected,” K. Pensri said.

She explained that the rise in taxes collected from property businesses had resulted from an improved economy this year, with more transfers of land ownership, and the expansion of the property industry.

Gov Udomsak also attributed the boost in taxes collected to good work by the central government and the private sector in promoting Phuket as a tourist destination.

However, he criticized Thai Airways International (THAI) for not reintroducing direct international flights canceled after the tsunami.

“I have heard from travel agencies that forward bookings for next year are good, but I have to negotiate with THAI to have more direct flights to Phuket because there are people who want to come but there are no direct flights [for them],” the Governor said.

-- Phuket Gazette 2006-06-01

[BlackJack]

seems like a bit of misdirection to me

Looking around i can see 1000's of condo's coming into the market within the next 18 months - and more being built

So put the squeeze on the house and land and force the punters into buying the condo's

lets see

mmm maybe i should buy that other condo in Pattaya and see the price go through the roof

[LivinLOS]

Speculation, panic, sniping and flames, but very little information.

Why would you act before you know the facts?

better yet, why pretend you know the facts before 98% of the land offices in Thailand do?

no parilament sits, ergo no law has been passed.

ts

No law needs to be passed.. This is ALREADY the law..

As ever in the land of shifting legal sands its all in todays interpretation of the law..

[LivinLOS]

By the way if you are married with a Thai lady, technically you can not even buy land anymore, UNLESS she can prove that she is the source of income and so on. But for those who have a boyfriend, or a husband they are allowed to buy.

And no it is not legal when they prove a loan which will not be paid back....

-Hi deminister, just saw this..... is this right? Do you mean a foreign lady with Thai boyfriend/husband is allowed to own /buy land? I didn't think so! Can you confirm this? Thanks.

A farang lady marrying a Thai national can gain PR and Thai nationality (I am told) fairly easily.. Of course a Farang man marrying a Thai woman gets no such advantages.

[LivinLOS]

Perhaps we see things differently. I, too, hold land thru a company, but unlike you, I do care about my wife's financial future after I die, and so I am concerned about property values.

Hey there - of course I care about my wife's financial future. I dao have a lot of other assets that will be going her way after I die, which will be substantially more than any house I happen to leave her in Thailand. Whatever happens she and her family will be extremely well off for the rest of their lives - I'm simply not relying on some dodgy house ownership in Thailand to provide for that security - that's why I'm not having sleepless nights about it, and not too bothered about the value going up or down. OK?

Not exactly how you presented yourself in your original comment. This is a thread to discuss what is happening with regards to the new directive from the Land Office. If you're not interested in the financial impact of this upon your family, perhaps you might be better off commenting in the photography or bird-watching forums.

Look here - don't turn this into a f..cking pissing contest.

I have made many posts on what is now a combined thread, discussing the serious aspects of being deprived of the ownership of my property. I have already stated that the financial future of my Thai family is well taken care of and is not an issue - therefor it is of little interest to me if the short to medium term value of my house drops. I have, God willing, at least another 20 years on this earth, and by that time I can only imagine the house will be worth a reasonable amount. If not - it's simply not a big deal. Ok? Got it??

In any case, I wasn't aware that the sole purpose of this thread was to discuss the financial impact on families.

I would never have bought property here as a "nest egg" for my family, as I was aware of the risks and knew there was a chance I might lose it. I only invest in Thailand what I can afford to lose, as many have already advised - on this thread! How about you?

But that doesn't stop me discussing the current situation, and whether or not I can retain my current ownership.

Maybe you had better apply for a postion as a moderator as you seem keen on telling people which threads they should post on.?

Back to the subject in hand..

I have just been told through the "grapevine" that certain developers are planning to circumvent the new crackdown by simply transferring their shareholding in their companies rather than transferring the land to a new company.

Apparently, one particular developer has separate companies for each house he has built and he says he will transfer the 49% shareholding to the buyers when he sells the houses. No need to go to the land office, just transfer the shares in the existing companies, and thus solve the problem.

Seems too easy to be true

Any comments?

It seems that this has been a trend that has come about due to forcing farang ownership down the corporate route..

Now the company owns land and so they just change the non thai shareholder and land transfer taxes are not due !!

[onlooker]

This is what one of Bangkok's best known law firms has been telling clients who have purchased land through a company specifically set up to allow a foreigner to do so:

Comments from Dragonman / Nadia2 are welcome. . .

The Thai government did recently change the laws on acquiring land with a

foreign company. Fortunately you were able to purchase and register the land

before this came about. The main problem people have now is forming a

company and trying to register the land. The land department wont do it.

There has been no indication that existing companies holding land will have

problems. Actually, as it stands now, your property purchase has appreciated

substantially as you can sell your land to another farang by simply

selling the shares in the company.

Your company has not actually done anything “illegal” by purchasing the

land. We simply slipped through an open loophole. You can still register

land with a company of your type, the only difference is now you must show

proof that the Thai shareholders have the ability to pay for their shares.

Its easy for them to implement “from now on”, but it would be impossible for

them to go back and investigate the shareholders in every land purchase.

What’s the worst case scenario? They could investigate your company and find

you in violation of land registration laws. In this case you would have 1

year to sell the property.