Thai Nominee Shareholding Crackdown in Pattaya announced by DSI

[Rorri]

KittenKong, on 22 Aug 2014 - 09:51, said:

carstenp, on 22 Aug 2014 - 08:24, said:

I feel sorry for the foreigner using Thai Nominee Shareholding .....

I dont. It's illegal. It's always been illegal. There has never been any suggestion that it is anything other than completely illegal.

Anyone who does this chooses to do so in full knowledge of the fact that it is totally illegal, and so they only have themselves to blame if it goes pear-shaped.

That said, from the report it appears that they are targeting active businesses rather than just house-owning nominee company structures. Though I would not be at all surprised if the latter were not targeted also at some point in the near future.

Please, show me, in law, where it is "illegal" as far as I can see it is, at the most, the use of a legal loophole, that the Thai government has had ample time and opportunity to close, but have chosen not to.

[moto77]

My wife is a Thai national; I am a USA national. We live in each country roughly six months per year. But the difference in the way we are treated by each other's native country is night and day. My wife travels in and out of the USA on her Thai passport never needing a Visa. She can work, own property, own businesses, go to school, whatever. She is protected against overt discrimination and welcomed as a tax-paying, contributing part of society. But no matter how long we are married, nor how long we are in Thailand, I can never do any of those things. We are both college educated experienced professionals; but she is welcomed and wanted in my country, and I never will be in hers. Xenophobic or not, it's just plain dumb.

Ditto, same here. Not reciprocal, not fair.

Nor fair? Since when did all countries have to have the same rules and regulations. Caught for drugs in some countries, death penalty, in others slap on wrist or possibly legal. Not fair.

Or your government could negotiate a treaty with Thailand like the American government did. Americans can own 100% of a business here.

[GAZZPA]

I think that this is getting silly now.

So, Thailand position is:

Wants 100% of foreigner investment money

Wants foreigners to be minority shareholders

Slaps huge import duty on foreign goods into Thailand

Wants reduced export duty into EU and US (Which is still has right now)

Seems very one-sided.

[BlackJack]

I think maybe look at the big picture

ASEAN coming

the hordes of people surrounding Thailand will be like locusts swarming in

devouring all

buying up all

Just think of all the money that wants to leave China and find a home in Thailand

Control food and send to China = business

These huge developments in Pattaya-Jomtien-Bang Saray all needing to be sold and the sticking point is 51% Thai ownership. So of course people need to find creative ways to buy.

Solution = 99 year lease

Let them build as they cannot take it home with them

[moto77]

KittenKong, on 22 Aug 2014 - 09:51, said:

carstenp, on 22 Aug 2014 - 08:24, said:

I feel sorry for the foreigner using Thai Nominee Shareholding .....

I dont. It's illegal. It's always been illegal. There has never been any suggestion that it is anything other than completely illegal.

Anyone who does this chooses to do so in full knowledge of the fact that it is totally illegal, and so they only have themselves to blame if it goes pear-shaped.

That said, from the report it appears that they are targeting active businesses rather than just house-owning nominee company structures. Though I would not be at all surprised if the latter were not targeted also at some point in the near future.

Please, show me, in law, where it is "illegal" as far as I can see it is, at the most, the use of a legal loophole, that the Thai government has had ample time and opportunity to close, but have chosen not to.

I already did Rorri. What are you expecting, a link to the Thai language version?

[action]

Maybe they could crack down on prostitution which is also illegal and try to attract a different kind of business man.

I worked with the owner of a large company who was going to invest in the Eastern Seaboard. After one night at the Holiday Inn in Pattaya he said he could never bring one of his customers here. He was disgusted. He now has a very successful factory somewhere in Malaysia.

I worked for an American who has a factory here and when I asked people why he opened a facility in Thailand, no one knew. This guy is on walking street every night, and every morning tells you how hot his hooker was. He is a total scum bag and everyone knows he invested here for nothing more than the night life.

I'm sure most business owners are seasoned enough to know that "Crack Down" is nothing more than the photo shoot pictured in the article and a couple of token shake downs for the press and a bit of tea money. Next month they'll be "Cracking Down" on who's playing copyrighted music in the bars or selling fake watches on beach road....

[Rorri]

ATF, on 22 Aug 2014 - 10:04, said:ATF, on 22 Aug 2014 - 10:04, said:

atsiii, on 22 Aug 2014 - 09:50, said:atsiii, on 22 Aug 2014 - 09:50, said:

My wife is a Thai national; I am a USA national. We live in each country roughly six months per year. But the difference in the way we are treated by each other's native country is night and day. My wife travels in and out of the USA on her Thai passport never needing a Visa. She can work, own property, own businesses, go to school, whatever. She is protected against overt discrimination and welcomed as a tax-paying, contributing part of society. But no matter how long we are married, nor how long we are in Thailand, I can never do any of those things. We are both college educated experienced professionals; but she is welcomed and wanted in my country, and I never will be in hers. Xenophobic or not, it's just plain dumb.

Well go somewhere else where you feel Americans are appreciated more.

BTW every guy's wife or GF on this forum is college educated with multiple doctorates.

My wife's not.... but I'll proudly walk, side by side, anywhere with her.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Rorri

[Christie Paul]

Assets!

By the left.............queeeeeeek march!

[aripengu]

And the clean up without giving reasonable alternatives continues, I see the Thai economy plummeting in the next years once the consequences of only repressing arise. Too bad the perpetrators cannot be held accountable as they already have granted themselves amnesty.

[rainman333]

this sounds like a major game changer. Hopefully those invested already will be able to exit the investments without loss

[DD13]

To "truly" own something, generally means that you can pick it up and take it with you.........not so land

So scrap the term "Freehold" and replace it with "Leasehold"......then fix a 99 year lease on it....which is an alternative in England.....(renewable)

In that way Thailand need not fear that they are "losing" part of their country......it will always be here.....no doubt latterly in the hands of Thais anyway

A lot of "poor" Thais have become comparatively "well off" through selling some or all of their land.....( I might add at prices comparable to the West)

Which means Thailands government can now forget about "funding" these people...... and concentrate welfare on the "truly needy"

[hobobo]

It looks like Thailand is digging its own grave in the long run....

[KittenKong]

... how do the likes of Tesco, Macro, 7/11, Topps, Home Pro get away with it as they are all foreign owned companies .....

You will find that where these chains are co-ventures (TescoLotus for example) then the Thai majority partner is not just a penniless nominee.

The Thai operations of Makro, 7/11 and Tops (and many popular fast food chains) have no foreign partners at all, though some may pay to licence the brand they use.

[SPALAX]

The Government should think about what it will cost to Thailand if all those investing foreigners and contributers to the well being of many Thai families will leave Thailand...

Having read a lot of posts on this website, as far as I know and as far as I understood taking care of the well being of thai families is a populist policy.

Now farangs are getting what they deserve.

[Rorri]

leesgems, on 22 Aug 2014 - 10:31, said:

atsiii, on 22 Aug 2014 - 09:50, said:

My wife is a Thai national; I am a USA national. We live in each country roughly six months per year. But the difference in the way we are treated by each other's native country is night and day. My wife travels in and out of the USA on her Thai passport never needing a Visa. She can work, own property, own businesses, go to school, whatever. She is protected against overt discrimination and welcomed as a tax-paying, contributing part of society. But no matter how long we are married, nor how long we are in Thailand, I can never do any of those things. We are both college educated experienced professionals; but she is welcomed and wanted in my country, and I never will be in hers. Xenophobic or not, it's just plain dumb.

Ditto, same here. Not reciprocal, not fair.

Since when has Thailand ever pretended to be "fair." The only thing we foreigners can do is write to our respective embassies and/or our nations senators/political leaders, we could also approach nation news media, to highlight to the world the difference between Thailand and our home countries, in the way investors/expats are treated.

[Boatfreak]

First farangs are being blamed of working illegally and trying to avoid paying taxes then you go to a lawyer and ask how to set up a proper business and you are told that you need to have 4 nominees and pay every month for their social security. No matter if they show up or not, since you have no need of those 4 people for a one man business you do as told, as the lawyer says in Thailand this is "illegal legality" .

Now this is also not possible thus back to the illegal working and not being allowed to pay taxes here or go to the neighboring country. No other choice.

[Rorri]

moto77, on 22 Aug 2014 - 10:40, said:moto77, on 22 Aug 2014 - 10:40, said:

Rorri, on 22 Aug 2014 - 10:37, said:Rorri, on 22 Aug 2014 - 10:37, said:

carstenp, on 22 Aug 2014 - 08:24, said:carstenp, on 22 Aug 2014 - 08:24, said:carstenp, on 22 Aug 2014 - 08:24, said:

I feel sorry for the foreigner using Thai Nominee Shareholding to keep control of the land, and house for millions of bt to protect there investment, but they know it was illegal in the beginning

In the end, is all about money and keep them safe in Thailand

Please, show me where, in Thai law, that it was/is illegal. As far as I can determine ALL conditions were met. If they wanted to make it "illegal" Thailand had ample opportunities to close any legal loop holes. As far as I'm concerned it appears Thailand now believes it has everything it needs, from foreign investment, and now wants it all to itself.

Foreign Business Act of 1999 (Thailand)

The Foreign Business Act was a law enacted by the Chuan Leekpai-controlled National Legislative Assembly of Thailand in 1999 that limited foreign ownership of certain Thai industries. Its predecessor was the Alien Business Act of 1972, enacted by a military junta. Industries which must be majority-owned by Thais included the newspaper business, radio stations, television stations, rice farming, animal husbandry, fishing, land trading, mining, wholesaling and retailing, restaurants, and all service businesses. The law criminalized nominees, any Thai who held shares on behalf of a foreigner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Business_Act_of_1999_(Thailand)

True, but in many instances shares are in Thai names, so in fact they hold the shares, in their own name to be held on behalf of someone else it would need to be written as such. Also, you should have posted some more of your reference.. "However, the law did not prohibit foreigners from being the majority in the board of directors and also did not prohibit having different classes of shares with differing voting rights. This loophole allowed thousands of foreign-controlled businesses to operate in Thailand."

Edited August 22, 2014 by Rorri

[Braddockrd]

Hopefully it is true this time!

[n210mp]

I think that this is getting silly now.

So, Thailand position is:

Wants 100% of foreigner investment money

Wants foreigners to be minority shareholders

Slaps huge import duty on foreign goods into Thailand

Wants reduced export duty into EU and US (Which is still has right now)

Seems very one-sided.

Ah but you forget the rack rental value to the Yanks of having big runways at their disposal in the LOS which will be well taken into consideration by the Yanks when it comes to viewing unfair and one sided trading agreements.

The Thais are in a strong position as they have always been when it comes to dealing with superior Alien Nations

Edited August 22, 2014 by n210mp

[TechnikaIII]

This is the first step to reclaiming Pattaya for the Thai's . . .

... and the sooner the better.

[Rorri]

moto77, on 22 Aug 2014 - 10:49, said:

Rorri, on 22 Aug 2014 - 10:47, said:

KittenKong, on 22 Aug 2014 - 09:51, said:KittenKong, on 22 Aug 2014 - 09:51, said:

carstenp, on 22 Aug 2014 - 08:24, said:carstenp, on 22 Aug 2014 - 08:24, said:

I feel sorry for the foreigner using Thai Nominee Shareholding .....

I dont. It's illegal. It's always been illegal. There has never been any suggestion that it is anything other than completely illegal.

Anyone who does this chooses to do so in full knowledge of the fact that it is totally illegal, and so they only have themselves to blame if it goes pear-shaped.

That said, from the report it appears that they are targeting active businesses rather than just house-owning nominee company structures. Though I would not be at all surprised if the latter were not targeted also at some point in the near future.

Please, show me, in law, where it is "illegal" as far as I can see it is, at the most, the use of a legal loophole, that the Thai government has had ample time and opportunity to close, but have chosen not to.

I already did Rorri. What are you expecting, a link to the Thai language version?

With your simple thinking, did you not realise that my post was well before you replied, with misleading info.

[belg]

2014, stop your xenophobic laws and let farang own 100% of their business.... thai hypocrits, you can buy land, houses, business in any western country

those countries should pay thailan back with same stupid medieval laws

[Chicken George]

This particular crackdown is being done to what aim? Prevent profit monies being taken abroad ? If it is then they would be better to in force taxes. If its the problem of investment from abroad being 100% then whats the problem.. I hope this is only aimed at real business not at people who have bought a place to live in a via the company route. But this is Thailand only invest what you can afford to loose. Take the same view as you would at home investing in the stock market. This is a high risk venture here.

[godden]

best hold up on buying that new villa.

[jessc]

If Thailand permitted majority foreign ownership of companies and land, China would own Thailand.

It's not a level playing field because Thailand has a substantially weaker economy compared to many many other countries. It is totally reasonable for a nation in Thailand's position to welcome limited financial investment from abroad, with regulation that keeps them in charge of their own economy. Is it the best possible legal framework? I am sure economists could present many differing arguments. Is it irrational xenophobia aimed at milking money from Europeans? Um, no.

[Rimmer]

Troll post removed

[leesgems]

My wife is a Thai national; I am a USA national. We live in each country roughly six months per year. But the difference in the way we are treated by each other's native country is night and day. My wife travels in and out of the USA on her Thai passport never needing a Visa. She can work, own property, own businesses, go to school, whatever. She is protected against overt discrimination and welcomed as a tax-paying, contributing part of society. But no matter how long we are married, nor how long we are in Thailand, I can never do any of those things. We are both college educated experienced professionals; but she is welcomed and wanted in my country, and I never will be in hers. Xenophobic or not, it's just plain dumb.

Ditto, same here. Not reciprocal, not fair.

Nor fair? Since when did all countries have to have the same rules and regulations. Caught for drugs in some countries, death penalty, in others slap on wrist or possibly legal. Not fair.

Or your government could negotiate a treaty with Thailand like the American government did. Americans can own 100% of a business here.

We were already talking about America. That treaty is not easy to benefit from, huge investment required etc.

[Rorri]

jessc, on 22 Aug 2014 - 11:21, said:

If Thailand permitted majority foreign ownership of companies and land, China would own Thailand.

It's not a level playing field because Thailand has a substantially weaker economy compared to many many other countries. It is totally reasonable for a nation in Thailand's position to welcome limited financial investment from abroad, with regulation that keeps them in charge of their own economy. Is it the best possible legal framework? I am sure economists could present many differing arguments. Is it irrational xenophobia aimed at milking money from Europeans? Um, no.

Many countries "limit" foreign ownership, of some businesses, but the difference here is all the added restrictions Thailand imposes.

[common sence]

This is just more example of shooting oneself in the foot theatrics. In addition in response to a post here, anyone who thinks its hard to start a business in the USA is simply ignorant. Thailand could learn a thing or two about supporting small business, ( the wealth creation, job creation engine of America) granted the Obama administration is NOT small business friendly, we will survive him, the USA is VERY friendly about business start-ups. You don't need licenses for most businesses, the paperwork can be done online in a day! . I have started several myself. C Corps, LLC's and sole proprietorship's. Thailand better get its act together, if they think forefingers have nothing to contribute and continue with these Xenophobic practices, they will loose big-time. I have heard the Philippines has recently removed many barriers to foreign investment? The USA has traditionally welcomed foreigners ...the USA IS foreigners! they are who made America what it is! I am deeply saddened by the ignorance I am seeing lately. I have been in Thailand since 1979, assists in AIDS crisis in the North creating jobs, helped create dozens of good paying jobs here in BKK more recently, I am looking for two more Java programmers as we speak...you want me to pack up and take my companies elsewhere..I wonder if my employees would agree with you. I really wonder how many Thai people really feel anti foreigner, or is it more form the elitist class who don't need to work, don't care about job creation or about middle class Thai opportunities? I am really starting to wonder.

[carstenp]

If Thailand permitted majority foreign ownership of companies and land, China would own Thailand.

It's not a level playing field because Thailand has a substantially weaker economy compared to many many other countries. It is totally reasonable for a nation in Thailand's position to welcome limited financial investment from abroad, with regulation that keeps them in charge of their own economy. Is it the best possible legal framework? I am sure economists could present many differing arguments. Is it irrational xenophobia aimed at milking money from Europeans? Um, no.

I'm agree with you on this one.

So my opinion, will be that it should be able for foreigner to lease some land from the government. I know I'm dreaming, but this will help foreigner to legal have a house here in leased land, so you are able to be in a house even you wife or gf. I know there are different rules to allowed that now, but you still need a thai person to sign.