Land Law Clarification

[Dragonman]

I think I've got the solution:

MARRY A THAI MULTI-MILLIONAIRE!

(of the opposite gender, of course, so it's a legal marriage )

Then you live in her house that she bought with her Daddy's money!

My wife's a Multi-Millionaire. Baht of course.

[Lazy Sod]

A few posters imply that the Company method is only promoted by sleezy lawyers and developers, and the people who went that route are equally sleezy and thus get what they deserve

It should be highlighted that the Company purchase method has been widely practiced and promoted by some of the largest Companies in Thailand. For example, Raimon Land Plc encourages this method of purchase on their website http://www.raimonland.com/english/Ownership.aspx

The government has allowed this practice to continue for many years, until it became accepted as almost normal, and so they are equally responsible.

Edited June 10, 2006 by Lazy Sod

[Thaiquila]

Lazy, I agree with you, didn't mean to impy otherwise.

This method was fully promoted as "normal" and "safe" by very "respectable" companies. I have deep concern for those farangs who are in danger of losing massive amounts of their hard earned money after buying through this method. Lets hope the Thai authorities recognize how serious this issue is to continued investment in Thailand and take the appropriate action.

Edited June 10, 2006 by Thaiquila

[Mobi]

A few posters imply that the Company method is only promoted by sleezy lawyers and developers, and the people who went that route are equally sleezy and thus get what they deserve

It should be highlighted that the Company purchase method has been widely practiced and promoted by some of the largest Companies in Thailand. For example, Raimon Land Plc encourages this method of purchase on their website http://www.raimonland.com/english/Ownership.aspx

The government has allowed this practice to continue for many years, until it became accepted as almost normal, and so they are equally responsible.

Hi Lazy Sod - I see you deleted your last paragraph, which I agree woth BTW.

I have already stated on this forum several times that I knew the risks and still decided to go ahead, and must be prepared to accept whatever the consequences may be.

However, it is interesting to note that a few months back, I did start to get very incomfortable about my "legal" situation, and posted a topic on the forum asking the"experts'whether they would advise me to transfer my house to my wife and do a lease back, and almost to a man, the advice was that I should leave everything as is, as nothing was likely to happen in the foreseable future. If I could be bothered to look it up, which I can't, I bet I would find that some of those who were advising me to leave well alone are now the ones saying "I told you so".

Hypocracy is alive and well on TV.

Edited June 10, 2006 by Mobi D'Ark

[thaigene2]

I'd like someone to investigate how all the chinese-thais here managed to snap up so much freehold property, especially those who's parents weren't born in Thailand. If the authorities are going to investigate 'foreigners' owning property..then let's go back over the last 50 years and have a good luck at property transfers to those families who are now well and truly land-LORDS..

The majority of laws regulating foreign ownership as of today are less than 7-8 years old. Many things were different before then.

Section 86 Land Code 1954 ( nearly as old as me ). Although only applicable to everyone since around 1970.

Thanks Dragonman.

So if I understand correctly, that brings me back to my original question above. How did these people who were not Thai manage to buy up so much land? And why shouldn't they be investigated too (ok..that last part is rhetorical - we know the answer).

Also I'm interested to know what you mean by 'only appliacble to everyone since around 1970.' Were there certain foreigners the rules did not apply to between 1954 and 1970?

Thaigene.

[Dragonman]

I'd like someone to investigate how all the chinese-thais here managed to snap up so much freehold property, especially those who's parents weren't born in Thailand. If the authorities are going to investigate 'foreigners' owning property..then let's go back over the last 50 years and have a good luck at property transfers to those families who are now well and truly land-LORDS..

The majority of laws regulating foreign ownership as of today are less than 7-8 years old. Many things were different before then.

Section 86 Land Code 1954 ( nearly as old as me ). Although only applicable to everyone since around 1970.

Thanks Dragonman.

So if I understand correctly, that brings me back to my original question above. How did these people who were not Thai manage to buy up so much land? And why shouldn't they be investigated too (ok..that last part is rhetorical - we know the answer).

Also I'm interested to know what you mean by 'only appliacble to everyone since around 1970.' Were there certain foreigners the rules did not apply to between 1954 and 1970?

Thaigene.

I think you would find that the chinese in general bought as families and could always find a Thai national in their family to buy on their behalf.

1954 until 27 Feb. 1970 following countries nationals could acquire:

United States; Great Britain;Switzerland;Denmark;Norway; Germany;Netherlands;France;India;Belgium;Sweden;Italy;Japan;Burma;Portugal;

Pakistan. Not China!

[SunbeltAsia]

1954 until 27 Feb. 1970 following countries nationals could acquire:

United States; Great Britain;Switzerland;Denmark;Norway; Germany;Netherlands;France;India;Belgium;Sweden;Italy;Japan;Burma;Portugal;

Pakistan. Not China!

Americans could not own land in Thailand after 1966 and my understanding it was the American government that push for this restriction! Think they wanted the American military enjoying Thailand to go back home, after the Vietnam war would end!

www.lawyer.th.com

[Dragonman]

1954 until 27 Feb. 1970 following countries nationals could acquire:

United States; Great Britain;Switzerland;Denmark;Norway; Germany;Netherlands;France;India;Belgium;Sweden;Italy;Japan;Burma;Portugal;

Pakistan. Not China!

Americans could not own land in Thailand after 1966 and my understanding it was the American government that push for this restriction! Think they wanted the American military enjoying Thailand to go back home, after the Vietnam war would end!

www.lawyer.th.com

Do you mean Amity which came into force in 1968 put an end to it, or is there some other treaty I don't have? Mention of land purchase, other than leases, in Amity is conspicuous by it's absence! By implication it could mean Thais can't purchase in the US. as law allows the Government to stop land purchase by foreign nationals where their Country does not allow such.

[thaigene2]

I think you would find that the chinese in general bought as families and could always find a Thai national in their family to buy on their behalf.

..And I think you would find that "Thai National" got the money to buy the land from the Chinese family (the foreigner..so Same-Same..) But I guess back then there was no requirement to make this declaration that the money came from someone else?

Like I said before..it the final touches by those who benefitted from the landrush or landgrab then finally managed to slam the door to make sure no one else could follow! Think it's more to do with making sure foreign businesses can't get a foothold without a controlling Thai partner (e.g. Central, Lotus, CP, etc) than preventing some poor key-nok farang from owning a small residential property..

...(from) 1954 until 27 Feb. 1970 following countries nationals could acquire:

United States; Great Britain;Switzerland;Denmark;Norway; Germany;Netherlands;France;India;Belgium;Sweden;Italy;Japan;Burma;Portugal;

Pakistan. Not China!

That's very interesting..Thanks Dragonman. Would be interesting if some American were able to use the Amity provisions to demand that the US bar Thais from future property acquisitions. Is there a mechanism for disputes? Penalties to be applied like the WTO for losses suffered? Must be..

[Dragonman]

I think you would find that the chinese in general bought as families and could always find a Thai national in their family to buy on their behalf.

..And I think you would find that "Thai National" got the money to buy the land from the Chinese family (the foreigner..so Same-Same..) But I guess back then there was no requirement to make this declaration that the money came from someone else?

Like I said before..it the final touches by those who benefitted from the landrush or landgrab then finally managed to slam the door to make sure no one else could follow! Think it's more to do with making sure foreign businesses can't get a foothold without a controlling Thai partner (e.g. Central, Lotus, CP, etc) than preventing some poor key-nok farang from owning a small residential property..

...(from) 1954 until 27 Feb. 1970 following countries nationals could acquire:

United States; Great Britain;Switzerland;Denmark;Norway; Germany;Netherlands;France;India;Belgium;Sweden;Italy;Japan;Burma;Portugal;

Pakistan. Not China!

That's very interesting..Thanks Dragonman. Would be interesting if some American were able to use the Amity provisions to demand that the US bar Thais from future property acquisitions. Is there a mechanism for disputes? Penalties to be applied like the WTO for losses suffered? Must be..

The United States has never, as far as I am aware, refused ownership on the basis of the Country of the National having restrictive laws, although there are many Federal and State Laws allowing such. Diplomacy presumably.

[Schooner]

Today I read that one option is to buy the house and lease the land from a Thai. Apparently, many people buy the house and have a 30 year renewable lease with the developer. Obviously the lease agreement would have to be well written. It follows that I could sell the land to my girlfriend (or give it to her) and then lease it back from her under a similar agreement.

[SunbeltAsia]

Do you mean Amity which came into force in 1968 put an end to it, or is there some other treaty I don't have? Mention of land purchase, other than leases, in Amity is conspicuous by it's absence!

Yes the Amity treaty put a end to it. But as it was the US government that wanted the restriction on owning land in Thailand and that he other restriction they were pushing for was " Engaging in banking involving depository functions" Hence they did not require Thai investors in the USA to have the same restrictions as Americans investing in Thailand.

[bangsaenguy]

This whole issue just scares the hel_l out of me. My wife and I have a legitimate copmpany. The company owns 2 houses and a bit of land. The company pays taxes regularly.

Thaksin wins. I've told the wife to put it all on the market and close the company. We'll consider what to do then. The solution will not be a condo. It will probably be a move to KL.

Thaksin wants to stop foreign investment. We should help him.

[ya5702]

This whole issue just scares the hel_l out of me. My wife and I have a legitimate copmpany. The company owns 2 houses and a bit of land. The company pays taxes regularly.

Thaksin wins. I've told the wife to put it all on the market and close the company. We'll consider what to do then. The solution will not be a condo. It will probably be a move to KL.

Thaksin wants to stop foreign investment. We should help him.

If your company is all legit, you are perfectly okay.

Moving to KL, or anywhere for that matter, has its own set of rules. In fact KL may be even more restrictive. They have the "Bumiputras first" policy.

[SunbeltAsia]

Today I read that one option is to buy the house and lease the land from a Thai. Apparently, many people buy the house and have a 30 year renewable lease with the developer. Obviously the lease agreement would have to be well written. It follows that I could sell the land to my girlfriend (or give it to her) and then lease it back from her under a similar agreement.

It is not clear-cut. To decide to what extent such interpretation is indeed legal or not, will in many cases depend on a number of circumstances. Should the arrangement be made with a bank where the foreigner agrees to deposit an amount for a long term, and should the bank be the purchaser of the land and lease it on a long term to the foreigner, such a transaction would most probably be considered legal. having a 30 year lease with the developer or seller would also be legal.

However when a foreigner finances a Thai friend to purchase the land and then leases it from her, suspicions could arise. If you have good intentions and a justifiable transaction, you will be protected by the Land Code but you should be aware that the above practice of a "nominee" is against the restriction of the Land Code. The fabricated juristic act between the related parties may be challenged and nullified for violation of the Land Code unless you prove that the transaction are justifiable with a good intentions. If she owned the land already, thats a different story but you should carefully be aware of the legal exposure of a "nominee."

[Mobi]

However when a foreigner finances a Thai friend to purchase the land and then leases it from her, suspicions could arise.

I assume that would not apply if the Thai is your legal wife? Many foreigners are now transferring houses from their companies to their wives and then leasing them back. Is this OK? or would it also be regarded as suspicious?

Quote

"Thaksin wins. I've told the wife to put it all on the market and close the company. We'll consider what to do then. The solution will not be a condo. It will probably be a move to KL.

Thaksin wants to stop foreign investment. We should help him."

Unquote

I doubt if Thaksin had much to do with this crackdown. I am sure realises the knock on effects of this, and would not approve. Clearly he doesn't control everything - especially during the current political uncertainty.

As much as he hates us, and stirs up the Thai people to hate us, he still welcomes our money. Ironically, much as I loathe him, he may be our saviour on this particular issue.

[SunbeltAsia]

However when a foreigner finances a Thai friend to purchase the land and then leases it from her, suspicions could arise.

I assume that would not apply if the Thai is your legal wife? Many foreigners are now transferring houses from their companies to their wives and then leasing them back. Is this OK? or would it also be regarded as suspicious?

Thai women married foreigners are entitled to ownership of land. However, a wife and her foreign husband have to declare with the land registrar that the money to buy the land is her own money not from her husband. ( Easy to justify as under Thai custom, you have the dowry from the husband) As a legal consequence, the land bought accordingly will not be a marital property whereby the husband cannot share 50% as the common property. In case of separation or divorce, the foreign husband will not rights of owning or getting money back from the land. This is advisable for a legally married Foreigner and Thai wife.

However, foreign husband can have the ownership of house.. If the house is built up on the empty piece of land, the husband should register the habitation right with the Land Office and request for the construction permit under his name. The foreign husband can request the district office to issue him a Yellow Book of House Registration Certificate which is granted only for foreigners.

To further safeguard her husband, she can have a will and testament to leave her husband the land. If the husband does inherit the land, approval from the Minister of Interior must also be obtained. However, where approval is granted, the approval will still be applicable for the ownership of not more than 1 Rai in total area ( In certain cases, the heir may inherit land from other estates as well, which could be the cause for that heir to receive more than 1 Rai. But this could be suspicious if his Thai wives keep dying)

[thaigene2]

However when a foreigner finances a Thai friend to purchase the land and then leases it from her, suspicions could arise.

I assume that would not apply if the Thai is your legal wife? Many foreigners are now transferring houses from their companies to their wives and then leasing them back. Is this OK? or would it also be regarded as suspicious?

Thai women married foreigners are entitled to ownership of land. However, a wife and her foreign husband have to declare with the land registrar that the money to buy the land is her own money not from her husband. ( Easy to justify as under Thai custom, you have the dowry from the husband)

This present controversy over LTD companies actually brings into serious doubt the other issue of buying a house in the Thai wife's name (as above).

I think you are now treading on thin ice..and I disagree with your suggestion giving your wife the money to buy the house is "Easy to justify" because of a dowry or gift.

The Land Office, as you point out, requires the wife to claim she bought this WITH HER OWN MONEY. I would think that if I give her the money today, she buys the house tomorrow, and then says the transaction took place with her own money fools no one. And since they're getting tough over violations to the spirit and intentions of the laws regarding who the juristic people of a Limited Company are, and where THEY got their money for the shares, then I'd advise caution over buying outright in your wife's name too.

You are putting you wife in harm's way by doing this. Sure chances are it will sail through the rubber stamps at the Land Office..But it's a lie. And if they want to call you on it then you're stuffed.

[Mobi]

....I think you are now treading on thin ice..and I disagree with your suggestion giving your wife the money to buy the house is "Easy to justify" because of a dowry or gift.

The Land Office, as you point out, requires the wife to claim she bought this WITH HER OWN MONEY. I would think that if I give her the money today, she buys the house tomorrow, and then says the transaction took place with her own money fools no one. And since they're getting tough over violations to the spirit and intentions of the laws regarding who the juristic people of a Limited Company are, and where THEY got their money for the shares, then I'd advise caution over buying outright in your wife's name too.

You are putting you wife in harm's way by doing this. Sure chances are it will sail through the rubber stamps at the Land Office..But it's a lie. And if they want to call you on it then you're stuffed.

Just to get this clear.

Are you saying that for any farang who currently 'owns' a house through a 49% company, there is no way to solve the problem completely legally, other than to sell his property to a bone fide Thai buyer, who would undoubtedly pay well below the original purchase price - if you could find one at all?

[SunbeltAsia]

This present controversy over LTD companies actually brings into serious doubt the other issue of buying a house in the Thai wife's name (as above).

I think you are now treading on thin ice..and I disagree with your suggestion giving your wife the money to buy the house is "Easy to justify" because of a dowry or gift.

The Land Office, as you point out, requires the wife to claim she bought this WITH HER OWN MONEY. I would think that if I give her the money today, she buys the house tomorrow, and then says the transaction took place with her own money fools no one. And since they're getting tough over violations to the spirit and intentions of the laws regarding who the juristic people of a Limited Company are, and where THEY got their money for the shares, then I'd advise caution over buying outright in your wife's name too.

You are putting you wife in harm's way by doing this. Sure chances are it will sail through the rubber stamps at the Land Office..But it's a lie. And if they want to call you on it then you're stuffed.

The point is you are able to justify it much more than by simply having a Thai "nominee" Husbands do give dowry or gifts or promise of such to the wife before the marriage. If you were uncomfortable that this was lying and putting your wife in jeopardy. By all means disclose it by stating.” This money that she is using to buy this land, was a gift from me. ( If you promise her this money was for the dowry, by all means state it, and she will say ,"you never promise her just a rose garden" ) and that you understand however, you will never have any rights to this land." See if they will approve the registration. Just to be sure, take two witnesses with you to the land Dept to be even more comfortable.

In case where a Thai national who has an foreign spouse, whether legitimate or illegitimate, applies for permission to accept a gift of land during marriage or cohabitation as husband and wife, if the inquiry reveals that the acceptance of the gift is made with the intention that the land will become the separate property or personal property of the Thai national without resulting in the foreign spouse having co-ownership in the land, the competent official will proceed with the registration.

[Dragonman]

However when a foreigner finances a Thai friend to purchase the land and then leases it from her, suspicions could arise.

I assume that would not apply if the Thai is your legal wife? Many foreigners are now transferring houses from their companies to their wives and then leasing them back. Is this OK? or would it also be regarded as suspicious?

Thai women married foreigners are entitled to ownership of land. However, a wife and her foreign husband have to declare with the land registrar that the money to buy the land is her own money not from her husband. ( Easy to justify as under Thai custom, you have the dowry from the husband)

This present controversy over LTD companies actually brings into serious doubt the other issue of buying a house in the Thai wife's name (as above).

I think you are now treading on thin ice..and I disagree with your suggestion giving your wife the money to buy the house is "Easy to justify" because of a dowry or gift.

The Land Office, as you point out, requires the wife to claim she bought this WITH HER OWN MONEY. I would think that if I give her the money today, she buys the house tomorrow, and then says the transaction took place with her own money fools no one. And since they're getting tough over violations to the spirit and intentions of the laws regarding who the juristic people of a Limited Company are, and where THEY got their money for the shares, then I'd advise caution over buying outright in your wife's name too.

You are putting you wife in harm's way by doing this. Sure chances are it will sail through the rubber stamps at the Land Office..But it's a lie. And if they want to call you on it then you're stuffed.

The only requirement is that it is the wife's money at time of signatures. A gift may have been made by the husband prior to this, however apparently recent forms have stated this gift cannot be any part of the dowry, for some strange reason.

A Law to inflict what is in effect a post nup. contract on an individual is nonsensical, however it was devised by the Constitutional Court.

With regard to obtaining a 30 year lease, I do not imagine any Judge tampering with what is an Internationally accepted legal document nowadays, although some years ago Judges seemed confused in Thailand. To interpret a 30 year lease as being tantamount to ownership under the Land Code would be stretching all Property Law. This is why "options" are practically worthless, and lifetime usufructs could be construed as circumventing Land Laws.

[malcolminthemiddle]

However when a foreigner finances a Thai friend to purchase the land and then leases it from her, suspicions could arise.

I assume that would not apply if the Thai is your legal wife? Many foreigners are now transferring houses from their companies to their wives and then leasing them back. Is this OK? or would it also be regarded as suspicious?

Thai women married foreigners are entitled to ownership of land. However, a wife and her foreign husband have to declare with the land registrar that the money to buy the land is her own money not from her husband. ( Easy to justify as under Thai custom, you have the dowry from the husband) As a legal consequence, the land bought accordingly will not be a marital property whereby the husband cannot share 50% as the common property. In case of separation or divorce, the foreign husband will not rights of owning or getting money back from the land. This is advisable for a legally married Foreigner and Thai wife.

However, foreign husband can have the ownership of house.. If the house is built up on the empty piece of land, the husband should register the habitation right with the Land Office and request for the construction permit under his name. The foreign husband can request the district office to issue him a Yellow Book of House Registration Certificate which is granted only for foreigners.

To further safeguard her husband, she can have a will and testament to leave her husband the land. If the husband does inherit the land, approval from the Minister of Interior must also be obtained. However, where approval is granted, the approval will still be applicable for the ownership of not more than 1 Rai in total area ( In certain cases, the heir may inherit land from other estates as well, which could be the cause for that heir to receive more than 1 Rai. But this could be suspicious if his Thai wives keep dying)

Don't mean to throw a spanner in the works but I was under the impression that Building Permit applications could be made only by the land title owner, makes sense?

[JimGant]

Here's another thought though...why should the husband need to sign any flipping form? What's it got to do with him anyway?? Another insult to Thai women who only begrugingly were recently allowed to own property if married to a foreigner

My Thai wife, of nearly 30 years, bought our property 6 years ago. She kept her Thai name when we married, so when she bought the property, she thought nothing of not mentioning her marriage status, particularly to a farang. I think we knew the law had changed, but we both knew being Thai and married was an added hassle for a Thai female.

The actual money for the land was from stocks held as "joint tenants, with right of survivorship." Wouldn't that be fun to see a Thai court sort out who's money really bought the land. (Do Thais really have a notion, with married couples, about 'his' money and 'her money?) But the bottom line is really: I can't own land, she can, so why the phuck should anyone, particularly the Land Office, need a statement about whose money it is -- the land AIN'T mine; CAN'T be mine. Period.

I really would have liked to have signed a form saying: "All the money used for this land purchase was mine. It now belongs to the previous land owner. You're welcome." Because if push came to shove with the wife, what are the only two possible outcomes: 1. The court says the land belongs entirely to my wife; or 2. the court says the land is wholly/partially mine, so you have to sell it and divvy up the proceeds. In both cases, I still don't/can't own the land; so why again does the Land Office need a statement saying it's her money buying the land, as there is no danger of a farang owning Thai soil thru any community property court case.

As someone else said, you could land in jail by essentially lying on the Land Registry declaration that she bought with all her own money.

BS. Somebody who writes Thai laws must have lived in a US community property State -- probably California -- and thought it would sound sophisticated to have such an exclusion. In fact, as explained above, it has no practical effect.

Interestingly, since I signed NO statement as to whose money the land was bought with, I've got more solid ground to stand on should laws change and community property rights become arguable. Meanwhile, there's a piece of paper in our file cabinet, signed by me, that says it was her money that bought the land. Post dated to the purchase date. You never know.........

[LoveDaBlues]

I would advise anyone wanting to own land and a house to wait until you can own it freehold and legally.

In the meantime buy a condo freehold because you will NEVER be able own land in Thailand.

As an afterthought, other than a freehold condo, the taxes, contracts, accountants and filings will pay a good portion of your annual rent.

Not sure about this advice Gary. My rent of 6,000 is about to break me!

I'd MUCH rather be a 'land owner' and sweating bullets right now.

[SunbeltAsia]

Don't mean to throw a spanner in the works but I was under the impression that Building Permit applications could be made only by the land title owner, makes sense?

Remember the foreigner has a 30 year lease, so he can apply for the building permit in his name.

[eddy-ham]

Don't mean to throw a spanner in the works but I was under the impression that Building Permit applications could be made only by the land title owner, makes sense?

Remember the foreigner has a 30 year lease, so he can apply for the building permit in his name.

Hi,

I was thinking of property over here but at present the state of the market seems

pretty murcky and unstable.I don't really want to pay a price now and see the market fall 20%

in the next year.

However, attached below is the offical sale speak from the company I was interested in buying from, can anybody give comments on it in a serious manner..All help will be appreciated::::

................................................................................

............................................................

Under the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand a juristic person enjoys the same rights and is subject the same duties as a natural person.

The Alien Business Operations Acts and Section 97 of the Land Code provide that alien person includes a juristic person with half of the shares constituting its capital held by alien. Therefore, a company has the same rights as a Thai Person.

Under Section 1144 of the Civil and Commercial Code, every limited company shall be managed by a director or directors under the control of the general meeting of shareholders and according to the by-law of the company.

[Dragonman]

Here's another thought though...why should the husband need to sign any flipping form? What's it got to do with him anyway?? Another insult to Thai women who only begrugingly were recently allowed to own property if married to a foreigner

My Thai wife, of nearly 30 years, bought our property 6 years ago. She kept her Thai name when we married, so when she bought the property, she thought nothing of not mentioning her marriage status, particularly to a farang. I think we knew the law had changed, but we both knew being Thai and married was an added hassle for a Thai female.

The actual money for the land was from stocks held as "joint tenants, with right of survivorship." Wouldn't that be fun to see a Thai court sort out who's money really bought the land. (Do Thais really have a notion, with married couples, about 'his' money and 'her money?) But the bottom line is really: I can't own land, she can, so why the phuck should anyone, particularly the Land Office, need a statement about whose money it is -- the land AIN'T mine; CAN'T be mine. Period.

I really would have liked to have signed a form saying: "All the money used for this land purchase was mine. It now belongs to the previous land owner. You're welcome." Because if push came to shove with the wife, what are the only two possible outcomes: 1. The court says the land belongs entirely to my wife; or 2. the court says the land is wholly/partially mine, so you have to sell it and divvy up the proceeds. In both cases, I still don't/can't own the land; so why again does the Land Office need a statement saying it's her money buying the land, as there is no danger of a farang owning Thai soil thru any community property court case.

As someone else said, you could land in jail by essentially lying on the Land Registry declaration that she bought with all her own money.

BS. Somebody who writes Thai laws must have lived in a US community property State -- probably California -- and thought it would sound sophisticated to have such an exclusion. In fact, as explained above, it has no practical effect.

Interestingly, since I signed NO statement as to whose money the land was bought with, I've got more solid ground to stand on should laws change and community property rights become arguable. Meanwhile, there's a piece of paper in our file cabinet, signed by me, that says it was her money that bought the land. Post dated to the purchase date. You never know.........

You're correct Jim. It has always been my opinion that the signature is totally superfluous as the Constitutional Court ruling cannot be overturned. However the Court Judges were frightened by their own power back in 1998 and decided on this requirement to sign a "post nup".

I can't decide on what law you would be prosecuted under! Fraud? But there is no pecuniary gain, unless as you say the laws change. Possibly Criminal Deception in order to acquire a property. The good news is the charge would be against your wife, not you However there is a fine for not following Land Department rules!

[JimGant]

However there is a fine for not following Land Department rules!

No doubt. But we sure don't lose any sleep over anything coming of this.

Somewhat relatedly, I bet a lot of land was bought fraudently before the law was changed about being married to a foreigner -- many no doubt using their Thai maiden names to disguise their new foreign surnames (assuming they never changed their names on their Thai ID cards, which many didn't). But I would think this situation would never come to the attention of the Land Office, or ever be of any real concern to them, particularly with the subsequent law change.

But, out of curiosity, could the chanote remain indefinitely in the maiden name -- or does Thai law require it to eventually be changed to one's legal (married) name?

[tominchaam]

Eddy wrote:

Hi,

I was thinking of property over here but at present the state of the market seems

pretty murcky and unstable.I don't really want to pay a price now and see the market fall 20%

in the next year.

Eddy - stay out of property market in Thailand until it is clear what will happen. No way the prices will go up and 20% down seems to be optimistic! Those developers telling you something else are just trying to protect their own interest - to no gain to you!

[pepi1]

Its funny now ,how all this legal advice is just flowing out now! Why didnt lawyers tell anybody about the obvious pifalls of ltd cos. when first instructed. (barr the odd exeception). As I have said before watch developers and agents go to the wall (bust) and leave people high and dry. I forecast at least a 20% drop in home prices during the next 6 months. Who, in their right mind would sign over ownership to their Thai wife ,only to be thrown out shortly after! We all know of or heard of somebody who has been in this situation. All in my opinion