Need work permit for private stock trading?

[dagling]

Do I need a work permit for a private online stock trading in Thailand?

Edited February 23, 2015 by dagling

[arthurwait]

Legally ...... Yes.

In reality....... No.

[dagling]

Legally ...... Yes.

In reality....... No.

Ha ha ha... Cheers.

[gamini]

Legally ...... Yes.

In reality....... No.

wrong

You do not need a permit, tax is deducted from your trades by your broker. Thousands of expats trade millions shares evryday,

[inbangkok]

He can't get one anyway! Who will he get it from? Go apply for one himself? Good god these work permit threads are getting stupid!

[thaibreaker]

He can't get one anyway! Who will he get it from? Go apply for one himself? Good god these work permit threads are getting stupid!

If he can obtain one or not, has nothing to do with it. Of course he can`t get a WP for this purpose.

The question is if he can work legally that way in Thailand on another visa. As a supposed tourist, we all know there are restrictions.

A legit question, with a stupid answer.

Imo, just go ahead, as I can`t remember reading anyone getting "caught" working online, if done so alone. There have been cases where several people are caught working online together without WP from offices, but otherwise, just stay under the radar by yourself and you will be fine.

Edited February 23, 2015 by thaibreaker

[Maestro]

You do not need a work permit for investing and managing your personal funds.

[dean008]

Of course you do, and don't forget to apply for one to allow you to cook your breakfast, drive your car etc

[timewilltell]

Of course you do, and don't forget to apply for one to allow you to cook your breakfast, drive your car etc

Like many laws in Thailand the teal answer is that nobody knows the answer and in any particular circumstance you will get a decision from the judge based on his own idea as there is no precedent in Thailand except from Supreme Court and I very much doubt there has been a case on this subject matter yet.

Whatever the answer in your case will not affect the next case which may well find the complete opposite on the same facts. I am not sure if Thais are actually incapable if drafting and implementing laws or just that they like the whole grey area thing so they can choose depending on whether they like you a or not or if you pay enough to avoid the problem at the start

[Berkshire]

You do not need a work permit for investing and managing your personal funds.

True. You would think this would be common sense type stuff. Is the OP going to ask whether he needs a work permit to move funds from his savings to checking account?

If you manage your own money, no need for a work permit. If you manage other peoples' money and do so for a fee, different.

[Soutpeel]

He can't get one anyway! Who will he get it from? Go apply for one himself? Good god these work permit threads are getting stupid!

the threads are not stupid only the people commenting

[Soutpeel]

Legally ...... Yes.

In reality....... No.

wrong

You do not need a permit, tax is deducted from your trades by your broker. Thousands of expats trade millions shares evryday,

whether the answer is yes or no, where your tax is deducted has absolutely no bearing on the definition of work in Thailand and where you pay taxes doesn't has absolutely nothing to do with whether you would require a WP or not

Volunteers don't pay tax anywhere but they need a WP in Thailand

[ColdSingha]

You do not need a work permit for investing and managing your personal funds.

concur. i am always open with immigration when they ask me about income. "i have many (paper) investments and also rent out my own properties in the UK."

it's on my extension record and i've been told its no problem 3 times now

[Time Traveller]

The day you need a work permit for (personal) stock trading is the day you will need a work permit for deposting and withdrawing money from a bank.

It ain't ever going to happen. Never, ever.

[asdecas]

The definitive answer is no - if you are trading/investing solely on your own behalf. Otherwise, if you are trading/investing for another/other party/parties - yes, legally you need a WP. As to who might find out - I couldn't say.

[FredNL]

For everything a Thai can do, you need a WP.

Driving a car, riding a motorcycle, making your breakfast/dinner, mowing the lawn, painting your house.....

I know that there are people that got arrested for previous. Some I know personally. A friend of me, living in Pattaya, got arrested 3 times, for making his breakfast in the kitchen of his restaurant when his restaurant was closed, painting his new bought house and the first time he was mowing his own lawn of the house mentioned earlier.

But would you have a Thai taken care of your money / investment ??? It will be a garanteed loss of your investment.

No, as a foreigner trading with/in your own private funds is allowed in Thailand. As a foreign investor, you may buy and sell your investments, there is no law against that.

[rwdrwdrwd]

You do not need a work permit for investing and managing your personal funds.

I share the opinion, but that is what it is. The only true answer that can possibly be given is 'it depends if the DOL consider it to be work'. Unless there is actually a precedent where someone was taken to court for this and found to not be in breach?

There is certainly no written rule that says 'You do not need a work permit for investing and managing your personal funds.' or anything of the sort.

Edited February 24, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[Time Traveller]

You do not need a work permit for investing and managing your personal funds.

How can you possibly give that answer when it is not addressed in legislation.

The only true answer that can possibly be given is 'it depends if the DOL consider it to be work'.

There is certainly no written rule that says 'You do not need a work permit for investing and managing your personal funds.' or anything of the sort.

That's incorrect.

Stock trading/investing your own personal money does not require a work permit. The WP laws were not intended to be interpreted like that. Ask any lawyer, judge, government official, BOI representative.

I have and it's simply not up for "interpretation".

The law views this as simply allocating your own funds. Much like puting your own money into a bank deposit account. Or buying a business. Or purchasing a condominium. You don't need WP for such investments and if you did, then every single foreign investor would need one.

However, if you are trading/investing through a Thai corporate entity then it's possible you will need a WP.

Finally, you seem a little confused about how laws are written. Laws are written in the form "a license is required for ABC activity".....they are never written in the form "you do not need a license for XYZ activity".

Otherwise, we could equally say that since there is no law saying "you don't need a work permit for sitting on your butt" then that implies that sitting on your butt might also require a work permit. That would be a wrong conclusion

Edited February 24, 2015 by Time Traveller

[Soutpeel]

Ask any lawyer, judge, government official, BOI representative.

which is all well and good, but the determination of what is or isn't work in the legal sense falls under the mandate of the DOL

....so all the above are doing is offering an opinion, go back to the same personages and ask them to put something in writing as to whether something is or isnt and think you may find a different response which will be less definitive...

[rwdrwdrwd]

You do not need a work permit for investing and managing your personal funds.

How can you possibly give that answer when it is not addressed in legislation.

The only true answer that can possibly be given is 'it depends if the DOL consider it to be work'.

There is certainly no written rule that says 'You do not need a work permit for investing and managing your personal funds.' or anything of the sort.

That's incorrect.

Stock trading/investing your own personal money does not require a work permit. The WP laws were not intended to be interpreted like that. Ask any lawyer, judge, government official, BOI representative.

I have and it's simply not up for "interpretation".

The law views this as simply allocating your own funds. Much like puting your own money into a bank deposit account. Or buying a business. Or purchasing a condominium. You don't need WP for such investments and if you did, then every single foreign investor would need one.

However, if you are trading/investing through a Thai corporate entity then it's possible you will need a WP.

Finally, you seem a little confused about how laws are written. Laws are written in the form "a license is required for ABC activity".....they are never written in the form "you do not need a license for XYZ activity".

Otherwise, we could equally say that since there is no law saying "you don't need a work permit for sitting on your butt" then that implies that sitting on your butt might also require a work permit. That would be a wrong conclusion

I'm not confused about how laws are written, they contain definitions and build upon those to legislate.

The Thai law indeed has a 'definition' of 'work' - unfortunately the definition itself refers to 'work', and is such entirely useless. It simply says 'working is working', with the proviso that renumeration is unimportant and that it can involve 'use of knowledge' or 'physical activity'.

It can therefore absolutely be interpreted from the letter of the law that sitting on your butt requires a work permit. As indeed can managing your personal stock portfolio. The only accurate guidance that can be taken in regard to what is and is not considered work, in practice, is precedent, which is why I asked for it. That or official statements by the DOL.

This:

The law views this as simply allocating your own funds. Much like puting your own money into a bank deposit account. Or buying a business. Or purchasing a condominium. You don't need WP for such investments and if you did, then every single foreign investor would need one.

Is your opinion on the likely interpretation, it is not how 'the law views this'. Thai law simply states that 'work' requires a work permit, but given that it does not define 'work', it is entirely open to interpretation, with additional insight regarding how the DOL and Judges interpret it only available via precedent / statements to that effect.

I agree that this is the likely interpretation. But do not agree that it's clear and that anybody can be accurately informed to the effect of 'it is legal, so long as it's just your own money' (with the inference that if it is other people's money, it is not) - that, in lieue of precedent or statements is purely opinion.

Edited February 24, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[bazza40]

If you are trading on the Thai Stock Exchange ( SET ) obviously yes.

If you are trading on the Dow, Nasdaq, anywhere outside Thailand - why would it be of any concern to the Thais?

[elviajero]

Legally ...... Yes.

In reality....... No.

OP. authurwat gives you the correct answer.

The law is meant to protect Thai jobs, but the definition of "work" in the labour act is all encompassing and means that even private stock trading requires a work permit. Ridiculous, but true. As long as the authorities don't know you won't have a problem. If they find out it's highly unlikely they'd prosecute or deport, but you need to accept that they could. You will not be granted permission in writing by any Thai authority to carry out your trading. Regardless of the opinions in this thread the law is black and white.

A passive income from stocks and shares wouldn't be an issue, but the second you open your app and start trading thats illegal.

[timewilltell]

Unfortunately there is no correct answer because as I posted earlier the law on this issue, indeed on most issues is entirely open to interpretation as the laws are drafted so poorly. Definitions are few and far between and even where they do exist they are in themselves written so wide open you can take you pick as to what they mean.

Until there is a Dika ruling no one will know the answer and even whether trading on the SET requires a work permit though that is a distinct possibility.

Those who write the law is clear, clearly have no experience of how the law works here. The only thing that is clear is that nothing is clear.

Just do it, stay out of sight and don't upset anyone - it is one of the joys of amazing unpredictable Thailand which makes living here both exciting and a nightmare

[elviajero]

Unfortunately there is no correct answer because as I posted earlier the law on this issue, indeed on most issues is entirely open to interpretation as the laws are drafted so poorly. Definitions are few and far between and even where they do exist they are in themselves written so wide open you can take you pick as to what they mean.

Until there is a Dika ruling no one will know the answer and even whether trading on the SET requires a work permit though that is a distinct possibility.

Those who write the law is clear, clearly have no experience of how the law works here. The only thing that is clear is that nothing is clear.

Just do it, stay out of sight and don't upset anyone - it is one of the joys of amazing unpredictable Thailand which makes living here both exciting and a nightmare

It's the application of the law that's unclear not the law. If you are doing anything that could be deemed as working under the labour acts definition of work, which is pretty much anything, you need a work permit. I'd say trading the SET is a no brainer.

The thing that is unclear is how far the authorities would take an individual case if someone is accused of working. This is where the authorities are applying discretion, and where the lack of clarity stems from. But if you are accused of working without a work permit, and get in to the legal system, you're going to get prosecuted under the crystal clear law.

[paz]

It's the application of the law that's unclear not the law. If you are doing anything that could be deemed as working under the labour acts definition of work, which is pretty much anything, you need a work permit. I'd say trading the SET is a no brainer.

The thing that is unclear is how far the authorities would take an individual case if someone is accused of working. This is where the authorities are applying discretion, and where the lack of clarity stems from. But if you are accused of working without a work permit, and get in to the legal system, you're going to get prosecuted under the crystal clear law.

Once again you're talking as if you are a lawyer, or judge (which you are not), or as if you are seeing these cases every day (which I doubt).

Bring some proof to support what you're saying. News. Photos. Names. Stories. Anything but your opinions on what is clear, unclear and what Thai authority would and should do.

[elviajero]

It's the application of the law that's unclear not the law. If you are doing anything that could be deemed as working under the labour acts definition of work, which is pretty much anything, you need a work permit. I'd say trading the SET is a no brainer.

The thing that is unclear is how far the authorities would take an individual case if someone is accused of working. This is where the authorities are applying discretion, and where the lack of clarity stems from. But if you are accused of working without a work permit, and get in to the legal system, you're going to get prosecuted under the crystal clear law.

Once again you're talking as if you are a lawyer, or judge (which you are not), or as if you are seeing these cases every day (which I doubt).

Bring some proof to support what you're saying. News. Photos. Names. Stories. Anything but your opinions on what is clear, unclear and what Thai authority would and should do.

Once again. The burden of proof is with you.

And I don't need to prove my opinions. They are opinions.

​It is my opinion that if the authorities decide to run you through the legal system you're done for.

[paz]

Once again. The burden of proof is with you.

And I don't need to prove my opinions. They are opinions.

​It is my opinion that if the authorities decide to run you through the legal system you're done for.

Good that you finally said the key word; 'opinions'. You will find find that in civil discussions, these have to be supported with facts, of which you brought none so far.

[timewilltell]

Every country's law is a matter of interpretation. In the UK it is not uncommon for a judge to consider the arguments in the commons and particularly the House of Lords to assist in arriving at a better interpretation of a new untested law. The wording of the law is also very carefully drafted and terms carefully defined yet there is still a good deal of interpretation as to meaning required. Since there is the principle of precedent in The Westminster system, subsequent cases will have previous case law submitted to support a claim where the interpretation of the law has already been made by a higher court.

In Thailand the principle of precedent is much less used and the laws are much more sloppy on their drafting and definitions resulting in a serious lack of clarity for all as to the merits and likely outcome of a case. If you ask a dozen lawyers you will likely get a dozen different answers, I'm the end the judge will make up his own mind and quite often the judgements in similar case may well be quite contradictory on certain points.

So coming back to the OP, it all depends on the officiousness of the officer or encouragement to cause a problem because you upset someone in a position to cause you a problem. The merits of the case or otherwise often take a back seat to these factors.

[elviajero]

Once again. The burden of proof is with you.

And I don't need to prove my opinions. They are opinions.

​It is my opinion that if the authorities decide to run you through the legal system you're done for.

Good that you finally said the key word; 'opinions'. You will find find that in civil discussions, these have to be supported with facts, of which you brought none so far.

My opinions do not need to be supported by facts. An opinion is a view or judgement formed about something.

As you have nothing constructive to say this civil discussion is over.

[paz]

As you have nothing constructive to say this civil discussion is over.

Hmm.. it takes a mod to close a thread