Why are so many foreigners allowed to abuse the system by owning property in proxy? Let's look at the three major ways this is abused and righteously figure out way to make Thailand fair for people who follow the rules.

1. Thai spouse.

I recall a thread a few years ago where the government wanted to confiscate land held in proxy by Thai spouses if the funds used to purchase the land originated from a foreign wife/husband. This seems like a great idea. Why did they stop?

2. Thai company proxy.

I don't know the legal details of it, but the law seems designed to keep a controlling interest in the property among Thai people. Foreigners exploiting loopholes in this should have their land confiscated.

3. 100 year Usufructs.

This is basically a property sale since it's so difficult for the original owner to rescind or do anything with the property. These should be ended.

All the expat retirees who hate anyone who skirts the law should be on board with this. If we put our heads together we should be able to make Thailand safe for truly law abiding denizens, Thai and foreign alike. Everybody wins!

What if you bought the land and houses for your children?

Moved to appropriate section

Buying land via proxy is illegal in Thailand. A 100 year Usufruct is not legal nor binding either. Here is a good document outlining the legal mechanics of foreigners and property. Buyers Guide.pdf

Quote

The Land Code Act prohibits the use of Thai nationals to acquire land as a nominee owner or agent in
place of the foreigner (section 96 Land Code Act). Should the Thai national be deemed 'acting as the
agent on behalf of the foreigner' (e.g. if the Thai national canʼt be seen as the freehold owner) this
structure becomes illegal. For this reason it must be clear that the true owner of the land is merely offering
the use of the land for a period of 30 years.

And another article:

When a nominee land ownership is put in place both parties risk being fined and jailed.

THE LAND CODE ACT prohibits foreigners from land ownership in Thailand and makes it illegal for a Thai national to act as a nominee land owner or owner of the land as an agent for a foreigner (section 96 Land Code Act). You could use the same section to argue that it is forbidden for Thai companies to hold the land on behalf foreign nationals, but property holding companies have a whole set of different legal problems under Thai law.

Thai nominee property ownershop

Thanks to Tywais for this info

The Proxy Law is to prevent individuals or companies owning huge tracts of land with proxy Thai shareholders. i.e. Lawyers.

As a foreigner married to a Thai you can purchase up to one rai of land in your joint names 50-50 not 49-51.

You can buy as much land as you like as long as the Thai shareholders are immediate family. Even common law wife/wives.

Bud right, you are gonna make a lot of enemies if you keep spouting off such vitriol. You have a nasty attitude. Are you Thai by chance?

i like the answer about buying land for your children,

thats what perents do

I think the OP is a guy - who is under the age of 50 and who has been assailed by Category 'O' / O-A retirees here on TVF for his wanting to stay here in Thailand but has to manipulate the system to do so by using tourist visas and extensions for that purpose. Personally (in recent weeks) since the announcement of the tourist visa extension crackdown, I have read some rather tacky and unnecessarily harsh comments coming from those who are SAFE (at least for now) under long term permissions to stay of one kind or another.

It seems the OP is saying - 'Just wait until the shoe is on the other foot -- And personally I just happen to see the justification for his sarcastic approach ...

Branding younger people as not deserving to stay here in Thailand because one happens to be older and is relatively easily granted permission to stay (thus safe) is a bit over the top. Most younger people who are staying here - albeit by using and sometimes abusing tourist visas are not all louts and criminals by any measure - PLEAE NOTE - IT WAS ALLOWED - up until now. And personally I think it is time and prudent for those who qualify for long stay permissions to stay in Thailand primarily because of age to RETHINK and maybe <deleted> ... Harsher laws and enforcement for those of us who enjoy permissions for long stay because of our age may be just down the pike ... who knows for sure considering recent activity by Thai Immigration ...

For those who think you are immune to changes in Thai Immigration law - please take note of the just announced ELITE Visa program... As nonsensical and unworkable as the newly proposed Elite Visa Programs may be - it foretells the mindset of the regime now in power --- BIG MONEY Long Stay Tourists are what is important to them and small money pensioners and retirees - perhaps NOT SO IMPORTANT in the future... and perhaps expendable...

As a foreigner married to a Thai you can purchase up to one rai of land in your joint names 50-50 not 49-51.

You can buy as much land as you like as long as the Thai shareholders are immediate family. Even common law wife/wives.

Do you have a link to support these statements?

As a foreigner married to a Thai you can purchase up to one rai of land in your joint names 50-50 not 49-51.

You can buy as much land as you like as long as the Thai shareholders are immediate family. Even common law wife/wives.

Do you have a link to support these statements?

he is a dreamer or has been given really bad advice by some one

Bud right, you are gonna make a lot of enemies if you keep spouting off such vitriol. You have a nasty attitude. Are you Thai by chance?

Clearly the OP is trolling. But what would prompt you to make such a horrid remark about Thai people in general?

.

The "buy one rai" myth has been debunked numerous times in the "Ask a Lawyer" section.

~

As a foreigner married to a Thai you can purchase up to one rai of land in your joint names 50-50 not 49-51.

You can buy as much land as you like as long as the Thai shareholders are immediate family. Even common law wife/wives.

Do you have a link to support these statements?

The one rai rule has been in existence for a very long time at least ten years and a foreigner can have his name on the Chanote - Title Deed. Anyone can check at their land office or ask a lawyer.

As stated above the proxy rule is to stop foreigners abusing the system. A wife and child are not proxy shareholders in a land owning company it's a family business.

I put land and property in my kid's names because they are going to get it anyway. As long as they have a Thai birth cert. No problem.

I would also say that putting a Chanote in your wife/gf and kids name will also prevent her from selling or borrowing money against the Chanote until the child is 18 without a court order. If the Land Department sees a foreign name on the Chanote there is no way they will allow the sale. Unless that person is over 18.

I am renting a house South of Hua Hin in a very nice neighborhood. Mostly all Euro and Russian people owning houses here. No Thais around. How do they do it? Is it all smoke and mirrors? Or are they just leasing the land for 30 years and owning the house?

EVERY real estate agent I talk to says "No problem for you to buy a house".

I am renting a house South of Hua Hin in a very nice neighborhood. Mostly all Euro and Russian people owning houses here. No Thais around. How do they do it? Is it all smoke and mirrors? Or are they just leasing the land for 30 years and owning the house?

EVERY real estate agent I talk to says "No problem for you to buy a house".

Yep no problem in buying a house the problem is keeping it.

It would be interesting to understand the mindset where a wife and children of Thai nationality are denied the right to own their own home simply because their husband / father is a foreigner. You hear little discussion of the rules being applied to a Thai father with a foreign wife however, maybe that's OK huh?.

Of course it is possible if the foreigner gives up his rights to his money whereupon he can be summarily kicked out and the children be brought up in a broken or worse abusive home with step parent.

Does not seem a very fair system, free of discrimination as required by basic rights enshrined in law, to me as required by several international treaties that Thailand has signed not to say the recent constitution. Does International law trump ill conceived national laws, or the constitution trump national law and practices. For the right lawyer there would be some interesting cases before the various courts. I don't think families and parents should really be under this sort of pressure.

To the 'go home if you don't like it' brigade, perhaps a small candle may be lit and gently illuminate their tiny minds that perhaps being responsible for children and the family unit is a worthwhile social benefit and that maybe going home represents the destruction of a family as the home country may not accept some members of a family either.

Then there will be those who pipe up that foreigners should not have sex with anyone who is not a citizen of the same country since accidents can and will happen, or maybe forced abortion should be introduced to kill the children so conceived as they will become a blot on the purity of the race.

Control on land ownership is OK if we are talking about buying up huge tracts like the generation or two ago Chinese here have but which Thais do not complain about but that is a whole different issue than allowing a family to gave a home and restrictions and laws crushing this basic right are inhumane from my point of view, no matter which country we are talking about. Its ironic that the Chinese Thai run the country and are the ones who mostly seek to benefit from such laws which were only brought in to stop land going bought up by migrants during the Vietnam conflict if my memory serves correctly, the original reason (to prevent rich Cambodians and Vietnamese settling here) as the Thais generally consider them undesirable, has now largely gone, yet the laws remain and the reasoning twisted to suit political and nationalistic aims.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

All the expat retirees who hate anyone who skirts the law should be on board with this. If we put our heads together we should be able to make Thailand safe for truly law abiding denizens, Thai and foreign alike. Everybody wins!

1. Thai spouse. I recall a thread a few years ago where the government wanted to confiscate land held in proxy by Thai spouses if the funds used to purchase the land originated from a foreign wife/husband. This seems like a great idea. Why did they stop?

The D-G of the Lands Dept did some grandstanding on this topic a few years ago but it was angled more at ownership of agricultural land which he claimed was widely held by Thai spouses of foreigners as nominees. An investigation was launched and determined that his allegations regarding widespread foreign ownership of agricultural land were groundless and no further action was taken.

Prior to 1999 the Lands Dept freely permitted Thai men with foreign spouses to buy land but banned Thai women with foreign spouses or even foreign "live-ins" from buying land, even though their was no support for this disgraceful sexual discrimination in the Land Code which simply bans foreign land ownership. Following the 1997 constitution which prohibited sexual and other types of discrimination, the Lands Dept was forced to change its policy and allow land ownership by Thai women with foreign spouses and put them on the same basis as Thai men with foreign spouses. That is why the "declaration of funds" requirement was introduced as way for the Lands Dept to backpedal from its former discriminatory policy and protect its own back, although the declaration clearly can have little legal force. Realistically it is too late to go back on this or to place microscopic conditions on land ownership by Thais with foreign spouses. It would be impossible to go back to just picking on Thai women while allowing the many big shot Thai males with foreign wives to continue owning large tracts of land. The Civil and Commercial Code also creates huge complications for anyone attempting to determine the source of funds within a married couple, since it dictates that all assets acquired after marriage are communal property. Thus how would a court determine that funds acquired by either spouse after marriage were the sole property of the foreign spouse?

Basically this one is a non-starter, even though there may be some more grandstanding of this type in future as a way to score cheap brownie points by bashing foreigners and Thai women married to foreigners.

2. Thai company proxy. I don't know the legal details of it, but the law seems designed to keep a controlling interest in the property among Thai people. Foreigners exploiting loopholes in this should have their land confiscated.

It has been made far more difficult to use this route since the 2006 Interior Ministry letter to Land Offices instructing them to investigate any applications to transfer land to companies that bear the slightest indication of any foreign involvement. So far there has been no suggestion of any efforts to investigate land owned through companies that are effectively controlled by foreigners. It would be a rather complicated project requiring cooperation between the Commerce Ministry's Business Development Dept (BDD) and the Land Dept, neither of which have the resources for it. The BDD only seems interested in lucrative investigative activities, such as pursuing large foreign companies that have alien business licenses to see if they can shake them down for having additional operations that are not covered by their alien business licenses, e.g. operating car parks or staff canteens.

I think foreign developers run a big risk but it is unlikely that anyone will ever go after small scale corporate land ownership. It would require a great deal of resources and effort for very little return. There would be a huge number of cases filed against the government in the Admin Court together with sensational stories in foreign media about foreign pensioners having their Thai retirement homes confiscated after selling up everything at home to move to Thailand. Companies that are co-owned by foreigners with their Thai spouses would run into the problems of determining assets ownership after marriage, as mentioned in 1 above.

This is one basically doable but hugely impractical. Any rational study by the authorities is likely to determine that is good enough that the the loophole has been significantly narrowed since 2006.

3. 100 year Usufructs.

Never heard of a 100 year usufruct and I don't believe the Lands Dept would register a time limited usufruct of more than 30 years because that is consistent with the Land Code restriction on leases. If it were allowed, anyone could get around the 30 year restriction on leases by doing a usufruct instead. On the other hand lifetime usufructs are permitted (I have one.)

This one is basically nonsense.

Yes you can own your house.

The problem is ownership of the land where the house is built,

that is where you have to be very careful.

Estate Agents are notoriously untrustworthy sources of advice around the world.

Don't feed the troll...I mean damn, even his avatar is a troll

This topic is closed.

Matters like this are not suitable for bar stool lawyers

If you have specific questions on property ownership then

please post them in Ask the Lawyer for professional advice

or consult your own lawyer.

Thank you