How easy it is to buy a house through company in CM?

[expatsupreme]

I think at least half of the farangs with houses must have done it, I am sure most of them are not so stupid to trust thai woman and sign the house to her

[Oscar2]

trolling eh? this has to be the 3rd time you started the same topic.

starting a company in Thailand for the purpose of buying real property is illegal.

[Chicog]

trolling eh? this has to be the 3rd time you started the same topic.

starting a company in Thailand for the purpose of buying real property is illegal.

Why?

I thought starting a company that isn't properly funded is the unlawful part.

[zeichen]

it is illegal. The chances of getting caught or reported are rare but it is fraud.

[Rooo]

Post containing a flame removed.

[Chicog]

it is illegal. The chances of getting caught or reported are rare but it is fraud.

Saying it is illegal does not make it so.

Why is it illegal if you have a properly funded company with the correct shareholders, according to the law?

[true blue]

it is illegal. The chances of getting caught or reported are rare but it is fraud.

Saying it is illegal does not make it so.

Why is it illegal if you have a properly funded company with the correct shareholders, according to the law?

interesting reply,i think a lot of people are under the impression one can not just set a company up to buy personall property,ive always thought it was a grey area in los,but interesting anyway,be nice to see some positive replys on subject.

[expatsupreme]

I would say there are thousadns of houses bought that way, thousands and than there is some scary pants trying to scare us all

[Chicog]

I believe the illegality is when you have anonymous Thais as shareholders who clearly have not provided any funding to the company.

At least that's what they always say when they rattle the cage about investigating these companies.

Perhaps we have an actual lawyer who would care to comment (rather than an armchair version).

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I believe the illegality is when you have anonymous Thais as shareholders who clearly have not provided any funding to the company.

Not at all. There is no rule whatsoever that a shareholder needs to invest.

The illegal part is when a company is set up *solely for the purpose* of controlling land.

If it is a regular company that does regular business then you can be a shareholder just fine, and it can own land just fine. And it doesn't matter which of the shareholders invest money.

[expatsupreme]

but there are many companies made just for buying house. And I have never heard that such property would be seized somehow, did that happen to anybody?

probably all the falangs are shaking now

[Oscar2]

but there are many companies made just for buying house. And I have never heard that such property would be seized somehow, did that happen to anybody?

probably all the falangs are shaking now

there are not "many companies made just for buying house". that is false information you heard.

indeed property could be seized. no one is shaking. you are just misinformed.

[hawkeye76]

I heard that in chonburi a few years back, they began to enforce the law, regarding you need an active company to own a house in company name, and they nailed 2 or 3 perople on those grounds..

I think police boss needed some additional funding for his beach house since they started to enforce it, but you can be unlucky, and maybe you go after you..

Personally i think just buy the house straight up, on a normal contract in your name, and get a 30 year lease on the land, with option to renew another 30. Safest bet for long term investment.

[sfokevin]

I believe the illegality is when you have anonymous Thais as shareholders who clearly have not provided any funding to the company.

At least that's what they always say when they rattle the cage about investigating these companies.

Perhaps we have an actual lawyer who would care to comment (rather than an armchair version).

Where does one find some Thai nationals that would be able and interested in providing funding 51% of a farang house purchase for the completely legal setup you envision?...

[WinnieTheKhwai]

^ That again.. Shareholders don't need to be investors of capital in the company. Completely different things.

The thing is if it's an actual company that's doing business, or just a clear ploy to own property without doing any trading.

[expatsupreme]

but there are many companies made just for buying house. And I have never heard that such property would be seized somehow, did that happen to anybody?

probably all the falangs are shaking now

there are not "many companies made just for buying house". that is false information you heard.

indeed property could be seized. no one is shaking. you are just misinformed.

Lawyyer in pattaya told me he has thousands of clients like that

[johnmcedinghburg]

Why not purchase a house with lease contract in place?

Lease of land is legal, foreigner can have THE house legal on THE land.

.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Emilp]

If you have a real company, you can do that.

[johnmcedinghburg]

We purchased our home with an lease contract through THE building company (large solid builder) but we Will sell our home as we are going to move back to europe. 2 times 30 years brand new contract in place for an large home on an uppermarket moobaan

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Oscar2]

but there are many companies made just for buying house. And I have never heard that such property would be seized somehow, did that happen to anybody?

probably all the falangs are shaking now

there are not "many companies made just for buying house". that is false information you heard.

indeed property could be seized. no one is shaking. you are just misinformed.

Lawyyer in pattaya told me he has thousands of clients like that

"thousands"? i don't believe it and you shouldn't either. it could be a set-up.

[expatsupreme]

Why not purchase a house with lease contract in place?

Lease of land is legal, foreigner can have THE house legal on THE land.

.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

I have heard that sometimes it can happen that the owner of the land starts messing with you, access to water, road.....

who knows who leases. And after 30 years are gone you have no guarantee that you will be able to prolong the lease again for another 30 years...

[Thailand]

We purchased our home with an lease contract through THE building company (large solid builder) but we Will sell our home as we are going to move back to europe. 2 times 30 years brand new contract in place for an large home on an uppermarket moobaan

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

But of course if you get a Thai buyer they won't be considering a lease?

[ExpatOilWorker]

Buy the land in your kids name (if u have any).

[expatsupreme]

Buy the land in your kids name (if u have any).

not yet, but could make few if needed....

[ExpatOilWorker]

Buy the land in your kids name (if u have any).

not yet, but could make few if needed....

One kid should do it. I am not sure you could have shared ownership between multiple kids.

Down site is, that "you" (the kid) can't sell the house until he/she is 18 (21) years old.

[xylophone]

This is how I have always understood it to be: –

It is illegal to set up a company to purely own the house and land in question. And it is illegal for a foreigner to own land in Thailand, apart from investing many tens of millions of dollars (not sure of the actual amount).

Many of the companies which have been set up in the past with regards to home ownership (and supposedly land ownership) do have Thai shareholders who have to own 51% of the company. The usual ploy is that after a while, these shareholders sign over their shares to the farang (for a payment), thereby on paper allowing him/her to "own" the company and in theory owning the house plus the land.

If the main asset of the company is the house and land, then there is a value on it, and the Thai shareholders would have to stump up with 51% of that value between them in order to own 51% of the company. And that is where the authorities have started to clamp down, seeking out the Thai partners and going through their financial records to see if they actually did put money into the company.

As for leases, then there is only one which is recognised by the courts, and that is a 30 year lease, and any offers of 2 x 30 year leases or 3 x 30 year leases are misleading, because they will not stand scrutiny and are actually not recognised by the courts.

Always willing to learn if this is not correct, so would welcome any other posts on it.

[bluweyze]

I have a Thai company, well 49% of one and it owns land but that is not its main function. Even though it was clearly legal I had to remove myself from the list of directors of the company whilst the land sale took place and return afterwards. I am not pretending this was Thai law but it was needed to achieve a land purchase at the land office I used in Chiang Mai.

I know that a significant amount of properties in Samui were purchased some years ago setting up a company just to own the house ( including some friends of mine) but Thailand has tightened up significantly since. i would not place too much emphasis on anything that happened some years ago and especially not here in Chiang Mai.

[expatsupreme]

This is how I have always understood it to be: –

It is illegal to set up a company to purely own the house and land in question. And it is illegal for a foreigner to own land in Thailand, apart from investing many tens of millions of dollars (not sure of the actual amount).

Many of the companies which have been set up in the past with regards to home ownership (and supposedly land ownership) do have Thai shareholders who have to own 51% of the company. The usual ploy is that after a while, these shareholders sign over their shares to the farang (for a payment), thereby on paper allowing him/her to "own" the company and in theory owning the house plus the land.

If the main asset of the company is the house and land, then there is a value on it, and the Thai shareholders would have to stump up with 51% of that value between them in order to own 51% of the company. And that is where the authorities have started to clamp down, seeking out the Thai partners and going through their financial records to see if they actually did put money into the company.

As for leases, then there is only one which is recognised by the courts, and that is a 30 year lease, and any offers of 2 x 30 year leases or 3 x 30 year leases are misleading, because they will not stand scrutiny and are actually not recognised by the courts.

Always willing to learn if this is not correct, so would welcome any other posts on it.

And imagine how hard is it to sell a house if it has a lease on it? And after 30 years are gone, the house becomes the ownership of the land owner, so he would be mad to give you another lease for 30 years, he rather sells it

[xylophone]

This is how I have always understood it to be: –

It is illegal to set up a company to purely own the house and land in question. And it is illegal for a foreigner to own land in Thailand, apart from investing many tens of millions of dollars (not sure of the actual amount).

Many of the companies which have been set up in the past with regards to home ownership (and supposedly land ownership) do have Thai shareholders who have to own 51% of the company. The usual ploy is that after a while, these shareholders sign over their shares to the farang (for a payment), thereby on paper allowing him/her to "own" the company and in theory owning the house plus the land.

If the main asset of the company is the house and land, then there is a value on it, and the Thai shareholders would have to stump up with 51% of that value between them in order to own 51% of the company. And that is where the authorities have started to clamp down, seeking out the Thai partners and going through their financial records to see if they actually did put money into the company.

As for leases, then there is only one which is recognised by the courts, and that is a 30 year lease, and any offers of 2 x 30 year leases or 3 x 30 year leases are misleading, because they will not stand scrutiny and are actually not recognised by the courts.

Always willing to learn if this is not correct, so would welcome any other posts on it.

And imagine how hard is it to sell a house if it has a lease on it? And after 30 years are gone, the house becomes the ownership of the land owner, so he would be mad to give you another lease for 30 years, he rather sells it

Not too sure about that aspect, however as I understand it the purchaser still owns the house/building but has to re-negotiate the lease on the land.

If the landlord wants to play games in order to acquire the house then they hold the trump cards and can play all sorts of games in order to get it.

[Chicog]

There's a more detailed write-up here:

http://www.samuiforsale.com/real-estate/foreigners-warned-on-land.html