Usufruct never tested?

[ice1318]

Is it really the case that the effectiveness of a usufruct has never been tested in a Thai court?

I suppose it is probably right as, had it been successfully tested, the result would have heralded and trumpeted

across the media.

But what about outside the courthouse? Given that this device has been partially or wholeheartedly recommended

to farangs for many a long year I would guess there must be many thousands in existence. Surely not all of the

relationships have proven successful.

Has no one ever benefited? Whether that means being allowed to stay put or negotiating some monies from a sale.

Has anyone been brave enough to face down the brooding packs of ex wife / gf families post break up.

[BangkokRulez]

Usufructs are a proven tool to protect foreign property investments. You just have to be aware that

1. Section 1469 CCC is applicable on it, so it can be terminated by your Thai wife during marriage or within one year from the day of dissolution of marriage.

2. a Usufruct granted for free by the Thai owner is a very strong indication that the Thai already holds the ownership on your behalf and, therefore, Usufruct and ownership are subject to confiscation, if the foreigner laws are applied in a future crackdown.

3. it is not always easy to convince the Land Office to register it.

[sfokevin]

One should also not that death (by any means) also terminates the usufructs...

[bangkoklawyer24]

One should also not that death (by any means) also terminates the usufructs...

Correct, neither the lease nor the usufruct survives the lessee or the beneficiary.

[ballbreaker]

I had a usufruct on property and house when my wife died. The property was transferred to the person stipulated in wife's will and they were informed by land office they might be new owner but a usufructed existed that gave me total use of that property until my death or both parties agreeded to cancel usufruct.

The will was processed through Thai court before I, as executor, instructed land office to change ownership based on the the will and court order.

[sfokevin]

Curious... Can an usufruct be made out to benefit two people... Say two foreigners (husband & wife) and if one spouse dies the other can carry on the usufruct until he/ she dies...

I know that a 30 year lease is possible but a dual usufruct would be nicer setup...

[topt]

OP if you haven't seen it there was a "lively" discussion on Usufructs here including comments from a Thai based practicing lawyer -

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/803157-usefrukt/

[georgemandm]

One should also not that death (by any means) also terminates the usufructs...

You are so wrong it is still in place if you die

[stgrhe]

Usufruct is law and a law doesn't need to be verified by a court of law. Thai Civil And Commercial Code Part III, Title VII - USUFRUCT, Sections 1417 - 1428.

[greenchair]

I think there was a case recently.it was about a 30 + 30 year lease. The judge ruled that you could not do a double lease and if you have bought a property using this system. It is automatically illegal and the property can rightfully go back to the person that holds ownership papers. Because the buyer and seller were only supposed to lease. Not buy or sell. I think it is going to the supreme Court.

[nithisa78]

Thailand[edit]

In Thailand the Commercial and Civil Code was based on European civil code, also recognized the notion of usufruct at clauses 1417 to 1428. The usufruct can be done for lifetime or a maximum of 30 years according to the law. It needs to be registered at the local land department to have full effect on third parties, on title deed Nor Sor Sam or higher.

[Delight]

One should also not that death (by any means) also terminates the usufructs...

You are so wrong it is still in place if you die

Interesting statement

Can you elaborate?

[slipperx]

For the record I am involved in many cases criminal and civil against the ex-wife (now in prison) and two money lenders and their joint agent. In brief I had a lease on my house, was not legally married but living as a family with our three children. The lease was cancelled by a simple forged signature to enable the money lenders agent to cancel the lease at the land office and immediately after the money lender bought the house at a knock down price. The money lender gave evidence he knew I was the husband and knew it was the family home and knew my lease had been cancelled by the agent. The court said the ex-wife was entitled to sell the house and that I had no authority to sue the money lender. The civil case came after the criminal case where the ex-wife was imprisoned after pleading guilty to stealing the chanote and forging the document used to cancel the lease by the money lenders agent. She was imprisoned for 6 months for the forgery with other people, and 6 months for the theft of the chanote. Subject to parole I guess 6 months in total. The criminal case against the money lender and his agent is ongoing and had to be restarted with a delay of one year as the court stopped the first case for sentencing. I have no idea why that process exists but there must be some reason in law I suppose. It costs a packet to re-sue and all the attendant court visits because of the new case and no costs are payable generally in the Thai system.

I have a semi-judicial background from the UK and can tell you there is no understanding of the basic principles of law here - no understanding of the foundations much as the kids are taught subjects at school. No understanding of the substance. Added to which the laws are simplistic and full of loopholes which are exploited by lawyers, many of whom are totally corrupt and also have no understanding of their role in society. Unfortunately it is very hard to know if the lawyer you choose will even plead the case to your benefit because there is widespread racism (I don't like that work but do not know what else to use to replace it). I can tell you I have heard many times one lawyer ask both lawyer and interpreter 'Why are you helping a foreigner sue Thai people"

This is the mindset and from my experience of 5 years and 11 cases in the system.

You might also be interested to learn that my businesses were also stolen through a forged signature and that the outcome of those cases was that I had no authority to sue as I was no longer a registered director or shareholder. The court acknowledged I had been fraudulently removed and ordered me restored as Director and my shares returned. But the substance of the case was dismissed against the people who had conspired to defraud me and taken all the company assets. So in effect if you have a company you must sue for restoration as Director or shareholder first and until then those who have stolen your company are free to dispose and mortgage your assets. Either way leads to a very difficult case as you have to prove the bank or the buyer knew that the asset was stolen in order to succeed with restoration it seems - at least so far as I am along the way with those cases.

If anyone thinks Thai law has any resemblance to the law from the Western countries then I think you are grossly misunderstanding the facts. Thai law has been butchered and adapted to suit the rich and powerful most aptly shown by the criminal defamation laws. If you have a really crap corrupt lawyer you can;t even tell other people about it. It is scandalous really but then hidden from the average Thai because of all the censorship.

[White Tiger]

_{OP - yes usufructs have been tested in the Thai courts and found to be satisfactory. The cases are cited in this document from Isaan Lawyers - see the section 'Myths and facts about usufruct agreements'.}

_{http://www.isaanlawyers.com/Usufruct%20agreements%20in%20Thailand.pdf}

[donx]

For the record I am involved in many cases criminal and civil against the ex-wife (now in prison) and two money lenders and their joint agent. In brief I had a lease on my house, was not legally married but living as a family with our three children. The lease was cancelled by a simple forged signature to enable the money lenders agent to cancel the lease at the land office and immediately after the money lender bought the house at a knock down price. The money lender gave evidence he knew I was the husband and knew it was the family home and knew my lease had been cancelled by the agent. The court said the ex-wife was entitled to sell the house and that I had no authority to sue the money lender. The civil case came after the criminal case where the ex-wife was imprisoned after pleading guilty to stealing the chanote and forging the document used to cancel the lease by the money lenders agent. She was imprisoned for 6 months for the forgery with other people, and 6 months for the theft of the chanote. Subject to parole I guess 6 months in total. The criminal case against the money lender and his agent is ongoing and had to be restarted with a delay of one year as the court stopped the first case for sentencing. I have no idea why that process exists but there must be some reason in law I suppose. It costs a packet to re-sue and all the attendant court visits because of the new case and no costs are payable generally in the Thai system.

I have a semi-judicial background from the UK and can tell you there is no understanding of the basic principles of law here - no understanding of the foundations much as the kids are taught subjects at school. No understanding of the substance. Added to which the laws are simplistic and full of loopholes which are exploited by lawyers, many of whom are totally corrupt and also have no understanding of their role in society. Unfortunately it is very hard to know if the lawyer you choose will even plead the case to your benefit because there is widespread racism (I don't like that work but do not know what else to use to replace it). I can tell you I have heard many times one lawyer ask both lawyer and interpreter 'Why are you helping a foreigner sue Thai people"

This is the mindset and from my experience of 5 years and 11 cases in the system.

You might also be interested to learn that my businesses were also stolen through a forged signature and that the outcome of those cases was that I had no authority to sue as I was no longer a registered director or shareholder. The court acknowledged I had been fraudulently removed and ordered me restored as Director and my shares returned. But the substance of the case was dismissed against the people who had conspired to defraud me and taken all the company assets. So in effect if you have a company you must sue for restoration as Director or shareholder first and until then those who have stolen your company are free to dispose and mortgage your assets. Either way leads to a very difficult case as you have to prove the bank or the buyer knew that the asset was stolen in order to succeed with restoration it seems - at least so far as I am along the way with those cases.

If anyone thinks Thai law has any resemblance to the law from the Western countries then I think you are grossly misunderstanding the facts. Thai law has been butchered and adapted to suit the rich and powerful most aptly shown by the criminal defamation laws. If you have a really crap corrupt lawyer you can;t even tell other people about it. It is scandalous really but then hidden from the average Thai because of all the censorship.

Both an enlightening and sobering post. I'm sorry to hear about your experiences.

[Bulldozer Dawn]

For the record I am involved in many cases criminal and civil against the ex-wife (now in prison) and two money lenders and their joint agent. In brief I had a lease on my house, was not legally married but living as a family with our three children. The lease was cancelled by a simple forged signature to enable the money lenders agent to cancel the lease at the land office and immediately after the money lender bought the house at a knock down price. The money lender gave evidence he knew I was the husband and knew it was the family home and knew my lease had been cancelled by the agent. The court said the ex-wife was entitled to sell the house and that I had no authority to sue the money lender. The civil case came after the criminal case where the ex-wife was imprisoned after pleading guilty to stealing the chanote and forging the document used to cancel the lease by the money lenders agent. She was imprisoned for 6 months for the forgery with other people, and 6 months for the theft of the chanote. Subject to parole I guess 6 months in total. The criminal case against the money lender and his agent is ongoing and had to be restarted with a delay of one year as the court stopped the first case for sentencing. I have no idea why that process exists but there must be some reason in law I suppose. It costs a packet to re-sue and all the attendant court visits because of the new case and no costs are payable generally in the Thai system.

I have a semi-judicial background from the UK and can tell you there is no understanding of the basic principles of law here - no understanding of the foundations much as the kids are taught subjects at school. No understanding of the substance. Added to which the laws are simplistic and full of loopholes which are exploited by lawyers, many of whom are totally corrupt and also have no understanding of their role in society. Unfortunately it is very hard to know if the lawyer you choose will even plead the case to your benefit because there is widespread racism (I don't like that work but do not know what else to use to replace it). I can tell you I have heard many times one lawyer ask both lawyer and interpreter 'Why are you helping a foreigner sue Thai people"

This is the mindset and from my experience of 5 years and 11 cases in the system.

You might also be interested to learn that my businesses were also stolen through a forged signature and that the outcome of those cases was that I had no authority to sue as I was no longer a registered director or shareholder. The court acknowledged I had been fraudulently removed and ordered me restored as Director and my shares returned. But the substance of the case was dismissed against the people who had conspired to defraud me and taken all the company assets. So in effect if you have a company you must sue for restoration as Director or shareholder first and until then those who have stolen your company are free to dispose and mortgage your assets. Either way leads to a very difficult case as you have to prove the bank or the buyer knew that the asset was stolen in order to succeed with restoration it seems - at least so far as I am along the way with those cases.

If anyone thinks Thai law has any resemblance to the law from the Western countries then I think you are grossly misunderstanding the facts. Thai law has been butchered and adapted to suit the rich and powerful most aptly shown by the criminal defamation laws. If you have a really crap corrupt lawyer you can;t even tell other people about it. It is scandalous really but then hidden from the average Thai because of all the censorship.

Hmm... tempted to apply a BS filter to your story.

You were not legally married so stop refering to her as your wife. Lets refer to her as woman X.

You say woman X was convicted of stealing the Chanote. But, as a farang you cannot have your name on a chanote. And so the chanote would have been in the name of woman X with your lease (was it 30 years?) registered on the back of that document. How could woman X be convicted of stealing her own chanote?

I am not a semi-judge (what ever the hell that is) as you claim to be so I would be happy if you could clarify the above issue for me.

I would have just followed the money and brought a civil claim against the new owner of the house for damages arising out of fraud. As part of the proceedings a lien would be put over the chanote preventing the crooked buyer from reselling it. Simple.

Furthermore, the onus of proof in the civil jurisidiction is the balance of probability (think 51 %) whereas in the criminal jurisdiction the onus of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (think 99%).

What was to be gained from bringing crimal proceedings against woman X other than giving the mother of your children a criminal record?

I am not a semi-judge, just a boy from the suburbs with no more art than being that entails. So I would be happy for you to enlighten me further.

[georgemandm]

One should also not that death (by any means) also terminates the usufructs...

You are so wrong it is still in place if you die

Interesting statement

Can you elaborate?

Read about it on google it will tell you all about it

[smotherb]

For the record I am involved in many cases criminal and civil against the ex-wife (now in prison) and two money lenders and their joint agent. In brief I had a lease on my house, was not legally married but living as a family with our three children. The lease was cancelled by a simple forged signature to enable the money lenders agent to cancel the lease at the land office and immediately after the money lender bought the house at a knock down price. The money lender gave evidence he knew I was the husband and knew it was the family home and knew my lease had been cancelled by the agent. The court said the ex-wife was entitled to sell the house and that I had no authority to sue the money lender. The civil case came after the criminal case where the ex-wife was imprisoned after pleading guilty to stealing the chanote and forging the document used to cancel the lease by the money lenders agent. She was imprisoned for 6 months for the forgery with other people, and 6 months for the theft of the chanote. Subject to parole I guess 6 months in total. The criminal case against the money lender and his agent is ongoing and had to be restarted with a delay of one year as the court stopped the first case for sentencing. I have no idea why that process exists but there must be some reason in law I suppose. It costs a packet to re-sue and all the attendant court visits because of the new case and no costs are payable generally in the Thai system.

I have a semi-judicial background from the UK and can tell you there is no understanding of the basic principles of law here - no understanding of the foundations much as the kids are taught subjects at school. No understanding of the substance. Added to which the laws are simplistic and full of loopholes which are exploited by lawyers, many of whom are totally corrupt and also have no understanding of their role in society. Unfortunately it is very hard to know if the lawyer you choose will even plead the case to your benefit because there is widespread racism (I don't like that work but do not know what else to use to replace it). I can tell you I have heard many times one lawyer ask both lawyer and interpreter 'Why are you helping a foreigner sue Thai people"

This is the mindset and from my experience of 5 years and 11 cases in the system.

You might also be interested to learn that my businesses were also stolen through a forged signature and that the outcome of those cases was that I had no authority to sue as I was no longer a registered director or shareholder. The court acknowledged I had been fraudulently removed and ordered me restored as Director and my shares returned. But the substance of the case was dismissed against the people who had conspired to defraud me and taken all the company assets. So in effect if you have a company you must sue for restoration as Director or shareholder first and until then those who have stolen your company are free to dispose and mortgage your assets. Either way leads to a very difficult case as you have to prove the bank or the buyer knew that the asset was stolen in order to succeed with restoration it seems - at least so far as I am along the way with those cases.

If anyone thinks Thai law has any resemblance to the law from the Western countries then I think you are grossly misunderstanding the facts. Thai law has been butchered and adapted to suit the rich and powerful most aptly shown by the criminal defamation laws. If you have a really crap corrupt lawyer you can;t even tell other people about it. It is scandalous really but then hidden from the average Thai because of all the censorship.

Hmm... tempted to apply a BS filter to your story.

You were not legally married so stop refering to her as your wife. Lets refer to her as woman X.

You say woman X was convicted of stealing the Chanote. But, as a farang you cannot have your name on a chanote. And so the chanote would have been in the name of woman X with your lease (was it 30 years?) registered on the back of that document. How could woman X be convicted of stealing her own chanote?

I am not a semi-judge (what ever the hell that is) as you claim to be so I would be happy if you could clarify the above issue for me.

I would have just followed the money and brought a civil claim against the new owner of the house for damages arising out of fraud. As part of the proceedings a lien would be put over the chanote preventing the crooked buyer from reselling it. Simple.

Furthermore, the onus of proof in the civil jurisidiction is the balance of probability (think 51 %) whereas in the criminal jurisdiction the onus of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (think 99%).

What was to be gained from bringing crimal proceedings against woman X other than giving the mother of your children a criminal record?

I am not a semi-judge, just a boy from the suburbs with no more art than being that entails. So I would be happy for you to enlighten me further.

I too have questions--forged signatures x 2 ? However, I may be able to answer yours. Now, it could be a semi-judge is someone who drives a semi-tractor trailer truck past the judiciary buildings everyday, but I believe the OP meant he had legal- or court-related experience.

[Alwyn]

One should also not that death (by any means) also terminates the usufructs...

You are so wrong it is still in place if you die

Sorry George, he is correct. Here is Usufruct described for Thailand.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Alwyn

[dunque]

Thailand[edit]

In Thailand the Commercial and Civil Code was based on European civil code, also recognized the notion of usufruct at clauses 1417 to 1428. The usufruct can be done for lifetime or a maximum of 30 years according to the law. It needs to be registered at the local land department to have full effect on third parties, on title deed Nor Sor Sam or higher.

You should read your link which, if it is to be believed, suggests that you are saying that Thailand's Commercial and Civil code is based on a European Civil Code which is non-existent at present.

[MAJIC]

One should also not that death (by any means) also terminates the usufructs...

Correct, neither the lease nor the usufruct survives the lessee or the beneficiary.

In short then, another drawn out Scam,with no legal substance to back it up?

So does that mean it probably,eventually goes back to a Thai? as the "Farang" can't own the land the house stands on! so the Beneficiary of the Usufruct must be Thai?

Edited May 6, 2015 by MAJIC

[Crossy]

One should also not that death (by any means) also terminates the usufructs...

You are so wrong it is still in place if you die

Sorry George, he is correct. Here is Usufruct described for Thailand.

Alwyn, do you have a source for your quote, I always understood that an Usufruct lasted for the life of the beneficiary without the 30 year limit imposed on leases (which is why many have them rather than a lease).

[Bulldozer Dawn]

One should also not that death (by any means) also terminates the usufructs...

You are so wrong it is still in place if you die

Sorry George, he is correct. Here is Usufruct described for Thailand.

Alwyn, do you have a source for your quote, I always understood that an Usufruct lasted for the life of the beneficiary without the 30 year limit imposed on leases (which is why many have them rather than a lease).

Perhaps an irrelevant issue. Is there anyone in Thailand under the age of 55 who is the beneficiary of usufruct?

[slipperx]

For the record I am involved in many cases criminal and civil against the ex-wife (now in prison) and two money lenders and their joint agent. In brief I had a lease on my house, was not legally married but living as a family with our three children. The lease was cancelled by a simple forged signature to enable the money lenders agent to cancel the lease at the land office and immediately after the money lender bought the house at a knock down price. The money lender gave evidence he knew I was the husband and knew it was the family home and knew my lease had been cancelled by the agent. The court said the ex-wife was entitled to sell the house and that I had no authority to sue the money lender. The civil case came after the criminal case where the ex-wife was imprisoned after pleading guilty to stealing the chanote and forging the document used to cancel the lease by the money lenders agent. She was imprisoned for 6 months for the forgery with other people, and 6 months for the theft of the chanote. Subject to parole I guess 6 months in total. The criminal case against the money lender and his agent is ongoing and had to be restarted with a delay of one year as the court stopped the first case for sentencing. I have no idea why that process exists but there must be some reason in law I suppose. It costs a packet to re-sue and all the attendant court visits because of the new case and no costs are payable generally in the Thai system.

I have a semi-judicial background from the UK and can tell you there is no understanding of the basic principles of law here - no understanding of the foundations much as the kids are taught subjects at school. No understanding of the substance. Added to which the laws are simplistic and full of loopholes which are exploited by lawyers, many of whom are totally corrupt and also have no understanding of their role in society. Unfortunately it is very hard to know if the lawyer you choose will even plead the case to your benefit because there is widespread racism (I don't like that work but do not know what else to use to replace it). I can tell you I have heard many times one lawyer ask both lawyer and interpreter 'Why are you helping a foreigner sue Thai people"

This is the mindset and from my experience of 5 years and 11 cases in the system.

You might also be interested to learn that my businesses were also stolen through a forged signature and that the outcome of those cases was that I had no authority to sue as I was no longer a registered director or shareholder. The court acknowledged I had been fraudulently removed and ordered me restored as Director and my shares returned. But the substance of the case was dismissed against the people who had conspired to defraud me and taken all the company assets. So in effect if you have a company you must sue for restoration as Director or shareholder first and until then those who have stolen your company are free to dispose and mortgage your assets. Either way leads to a very difficult case as you have to prove the bank or the buyer knew that the asset was stolen in order to succeed with restoration it seems - at least so far as I am along the way with those cases.

If anyone thinks Thai law has any resemblance to the law from the Western countries then I think you are grossly misunderstanding the facts. Thai law has been butchered and adapted to suit the rich and powerful most aptly shown by the criminal defamation laws. If you have a really crap corrupt lawyer you can;t even tell other people about it. It is scandalous really but then hidden from the average Thai because of all the censorship.

Hmm... tempted to apply a BS filter to your story.

You were not legally married so stop refering to her as your wife. Lets refer to her as woman X.

You say woman X was convicted of stealing the Chanote. But, as a farang you cannot have your name on a chanote. And so the chanote would have been in the name of woman X with your lease (was it 30 years?) registered on the back of that document. How could woman X be convicted of stealing her own chanote?

I am not a semi-judge (what ever the hell that is) as you claim to be so I would be happy if you could clarify the above issue for me.

I would have just followed the money and brought a civil claim against the new owner of the house for damages arising out of fraud. As part of the proceedings a lien would be put over the chanote preventing the crooked buyer from reselling it. Simple.

Furthermore, the onus of proof in the civil jurisidiction is the balance of probability (think 51 %) whereas in the criminal jurisdiction the onus of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (think 99%).

What was to be gained from bringing crimal proceedings against woman X other than giving the mother of your children a criminal record?

I am not a semi-judge, just a boy from the suburbs with no more art than being that entails. So I would be happy for you to enlighten me further.

I will be happy to send you the details of the cases and you can research yourself.

Unfortunately your response is rather typical of posters on here who will believe little of what counters their rosy view of Thailand. I am just telling you the facts with a little of my opinion thrown in. The facts are true. You know I was not legally married because I told you. I refer to her as my ex-wife because in Thailand if you live with a woman and have a family together then that is how the relationship will be referred to. Yes she was convicted of stealing the house papers which did have my name on the back - as the leaseholder - because I was holding the Chanote. The inner reasons of Thai law I cannot help with overly because often there is simply no logic as you or I would understand it. The Thai mentality works differently to ours.

I said I had a semi-judicial background - I did not say I was a semi judge. In fact I worked in Arbitration under UK law - if that helps you.

I sued both the ex-wife and the money lender and the agent because they all worked together as far as it was possible for me to see given the facts at my disposal. You are correct the balance of proof is higher in a Criminal case than a Civil case. In Thai law you will not succeed in a claim against the new owner unless you can show that the new owner was or should have been aware that there was some illegality - Thai law will not help you against a buyer in good faith - the good faith bit is the decision of the judge so even a buyer at a knock down price will not necessarily be found to have been buying in bad faith - it is quite different from UK law in the law itself and in the thought processes that the judges here employ.

I could not sue the money lender and the agent (who are also involved in other fraudulent purchases) without suing the woman - and in any case a person who betrays their family as she did should not be completely excused. There is more to this story but I wanted to keep it simple and to the facts. Check out #TySaysNo in a Google search and you will find out a little more - I have no doubt you will disagree with my methods but then you are not in the same position as me!

[slipperx]

Perhaps what readers should take away from this - and perhaps more directly relevant to the OP - is that all the forms that foreigners use to try to have a modicum of control over their assets - such as Usufructs, Leases or holding in a business are fine so far as they go until you have a problem.

When the problem arises the courts seem to find a path through the law to find against the foreigner. The lawyers will all tell you how these methods of 'control' - for they are never ownership in reality - are sound and in accordance with Thai law and people are comforted by this. Many have no problem because their partners, wives or whatever do not cause a problem in the first place so they live with their comfort zone never tested.

For the record my signature was forged many more than 3 times but relating to 3 basic issues - two businesses and the lease. Lawyers notorised the business forgeries because the Company Registration office demand it, strangely the land office do not require notorisation.

What came out of the court evidence is that, the one lawyer who already gave evidence was happy to tell the court that on the day he signed off many applications to change Directors and Shareholders (he was working along with an Accountant), and none of them were signed by the company officers so far as he could remember.

That just goes to show a complete ignorance of the basic principles of law and role of the lawyer in society. I am pretty sure he is not the only lawyer walking around who really has no clue as to the meaning of professional ethics. In fact I have slew of stories on a similar vein but will not bore you all with them. Much as kids learn with no explanation nor understanding of the underlying theory of much here, I guess lawyers learn in much the same way. Which really is a serious problem.

The real issue is the belief foreigners put into these 'comfort' documents and investment decisions based on them. As I say many have no problem but like many business contracts have no problem, they are not there for the cases where there is no problem, the contracts are drawn up to ensure that there is a record of agreement that a court will uphold should there be a problem. In my case I have found out that my belief in the importance of these documents is very misplaced.

Edited May 7, 2015 by slipperx

[Bulldozer Dawn]

For the record I am involved in many cases criminal and civil against the ex-wife (now in prison) and two money lenders and their joint agent. In brief I had a lease on my house, was not legally married but living as a family with our three children. The lease was cancelled by a simple forged signature to enable the money lenders agent to cancel the lease at the land office and immediately after the money lender bought the house at a knock down price. The money lender gave evidence he knew I was the husband and knew it was the family home and knew my lease had been cancelled by the agent. The court said the ex-wife was entitled to sell the house and that I had no authority to sue the money lender. The civil case came after the criminal case where the ex-wife was imprisoned after pleading guilty to stealing the chanote and forging the document used to cancel the lease by the money lenders agent. She was imprisoned for 6 months for the forgery with other people, and 6 months for the theft of the chanote. Subject to parole I guess 6 months in total. The criminal case against the money lender and his agent is ongoing and had to be restarted with a delay of one year as the court stopped the first case for sentencing. I have no idea why that process exists but there must be some reason in law I suppose. It costs a packet to re-sue and all the attendant court visits because of the new case and no costs are payable generally in the Thai system.

I have a semi-judicial background from the UK and can tell you there is no understanding of the basic principles of law here - no understanding of the foundations much as the kids are taught subjects at school. No understanding of the substance. Added to which the laws are simplistic and full of loopholes which are exploited by lawyers, many of whom are totally corrupt and also have no understanding of their role in society. Unfortunately it is very hard to know if the lawyer you choose will even plead the case to your benefit because there is widespread racism (I don't like that work but do not know what else to use to replace it). I can tell you I have heard many times one lawyer ask both lawyer and interpreter 'Why are you helping a foreigner sue Thai people"

This is the mindset and from my experience of 5 years and 11 cases in the system.

You might also be interested to learn that my businesses were also stolen through a forged signature and that the outcome of those cases was that I had no authority to sue as I was no longer a registered director or shareholder. The court acknowledged I had been fraudulently removed and ordered me restored as Director and my shares returned. But the substance of the case was dismissed against the people who had conspired to defraud me and taken all the company assets. So in effect if you have a company you must sue for restoration as Director or shareholder first and until then those who have stolen your company are free to dispose and mortgage your assets. Either way leads to a very difficult case as you have to prove the bank or the buyer knew that the asset was stolen in order to succeed with restoration it seems - at least so far as I am along the way with those cases.

If anyone thinks Thai law has any resemblance to the law from the Western countries then I think you are grossly misunderstanding the facts. Thai law has been butchered and adapted to suit the rich and powerful most aptly shown by the criminal defamation laws. If you have a really crap corrupt lawyer you can;t even tell other people about it. It is scandalous really but then hidden from the average Thai because of all the censorship.

Hmm... tempted to apply a BS filter to your story.

You were not legally married so stop refering to her as your wife. Lets refer to her as woman X.

You say woman X was convicted of stealing the Chanote. But, as a farang you cannot have your name on a chanote. And so the chanote would have been in the name of woman X with your lease (was it 30 years?) registered on the back of that document. How could woman X be convicted of stealing her own chanote?

I am not a semi-judge (what ever the hell that is) as you claim to be so I would be happy if you could clarify the above issue for me.

I would have just followed the money and brought a civil claim against the new owner of the house for damages arising out of fraud. As part of the proceedings a lien would be put over the chanote preventing the crooked buyer from reselling it. Simple.

Furthermore, the onus of proof in the civil jurisidiction is the balance of probability (think 51 %) whereas in the criminal jurisdiction the onus of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (think 99%).

What was to be gained from bringing crimal proceedings against woman X other than giving the mother of your children a criminal record?

I am not a semi-judge, just a boy from the suburbs with no more art than being that entails. So I would be happy for you to enlighten me further.

I will be happy to send you the details of the cases and you can research yourself.

Unfortunately your response is rather typical of posters on here who will believe little of what counters their rosy view of Thailand. I am just telling you the facts with a little of my opinion thrown in. The facts are true. You know I was not legally married because I told you. I refer to her as my ex-wife because in Thailand if you live with a woman and have a family together then that is how the relationship will be referred to. Yes she was convicted of stealing the house papers which did have my name on the back - as the leaseholder - because I was holding the Chanote. The inner reasons of Thai law I cannot help with overly because often there is simply no logic as you or I would understand it. The Thai mentality works differently to ours.

I said I had a semi-judicial background - I did not say I was a semi judge. In fact I worked in Arbitration under UK law - if that helps you.

I sued both the ex-wife and the money lender and the agent because they all worked together as far as it was possible for me to see given the facts at my disposal. You are correct the balance of proof is higher in a Criminal case than a Civil case. In Thai law you will not succeed in a claim against the new owner unless you can show that the new owner was or should have been aware that there was some illegality - Thai law will not help you against a buyer in good faith - the good faith bit is the decision of the judge so even a buyer at a knock down price will not necessarily be found to have been buying in bad faith - it is quite different from UK law in the law itself and in the thought processes that the judges here employ.

I could not sue the money lender and the agent (who are also involved in other fraudulent purchases) without suing the woman - and in any case a person who betrays their family as she did should not be completely excused. There is more to this story but I wanted to keep it simple and to the facts. Check out #TySaysNo in a Google search and you will find out a little more - I have no doubt you will disagree with my methods but then you are not in the same position as me!

Why would you refer to youself as semi-judicial when you worked as an arbitrator. That position does not even require a degree let alone a degree in law?

I would love to hear woman Xs side of the story.

[sfokevin]

Perhaps an irrelevant issue. Is there anyone in Thailand under the age of 55 who is the beneficiary of usufruct?

Yes

Edited May 7, 2015 by sfokevin

[slipperx]

For the record I am involved in many cases criminal and civil against the ex-wife (now in prison) and two money lenders and their joint agent. In brief I had a lease on my house, was not legally married but living as a family with our three children. The lease was cancelled by a simple forged signature to enable the money lenders agent to cancel the lease at the land office and immediately after the money lender bought the house at a knock down price. The money lender gave evidence he knew I was the husband and knew it was the family home and knew my lease had been cancelled by the agent. The court said the ex-wife was entitled to sell the house and that I had no authority to sue the money lender. The civil case came after the criminal case where the ex-wife was imprisoned after pleading guilty to stealing the chanote and forging the document used to cancel the lease by the money lenders agent. She was imprisoned for 6 months for the forgery with other people, and 6 months for the theft of the chanote. Subject to parole I guess 6 months in total. The criminal case against the money lender and his agent is ongoing and had to be restarted with a delay of one year as the court stopped the first case for sentencing. I have no idea why that process exists but there must be some reason in law I suppose. It costs a packet to re-sue and all the attendant court visits because of the new case and no costs are payable generally in the Thai system.

I have a semi-judicial background from the UK and can tell you there is no understanding of the basic principles of law here - no understanding of the foundations much as the kids are taught subjects at school. No understanding of the substance. Added to which the laws are simplistic and full of loopholes which are exploited by lawyers, many of whom are totally corrupt and also have no understanding of their role in society. Unfortunately it is very hard to know if the lawyer you choose will even plead the case to your benefit because there is widespread racism (I don't like that work but do not know what else to use to replace it). I can tell you I have heard many times one lawyer ask both lawyer and interpreter 'Why are you helping a foreigner sue Thai people"

This is the mindset and from my experience of 5 years and 11 cases in the system.

You might also be interested to learn that my businesses were also stolen through a forged signature and that the outcome of those cases was that I had no authority to sue as I was no longer a registered director or shareholder. The court acknowledged I had been fraudulently removed and ordered me restored as Director and my shares returned. But the substance of the case was dismissed against the people who had conspired to defraud me and taken all the company assets. So in effect if you have a company you must sue for restoration as Director or shareholder first and until then those who have stolen your company are free to dispose and mortgage your assets. Either way leads to a very difficult case as you have to prove the bank or the buyer knew that the asset was stolen in order to succeed with restoration it seems - at least so far as I am along the way with those cases.

If anyone thinks Thai law has any resemblance to the law from the Western countries then I think you are grossly misunderstanding the facts. Thai law has been butchered and adapted to suit the rich and powerful most aptly shown by the criminal defamation laws. If you have a really crap corrupt lawyer you can;t even tell other people about it. It is scandalous really but then hidden from the average Thai because of all the censorship.

Hmm... tempted to apply a BS filter to your story.

You were not legally married so stop refering to her as your wife. Lets refer to her as woman X.

You say woman X was convicted of stealing the Chanote. But, as a farang you cannot have your name on a chanote. And so the chanote would have been in the name of woman X with your lease (was it 30 years?) registered on the back of that document. How could woman X be convicted of stealing her own chanote?

I am not a semi-judge (what ever the hell that is) as you claim to be so I would be happy if you could clarify the above issue for me.

I would have just followed the money and brought a civil claim against the new owner of the house for damages arising out of fraud. As part of the proceedings a lien would be put over the chanote preventing the crooked buyer from reselling it. Simple.

Furthermore, the onus of proof in the civil jurisidiction is the balance of probability (think 51 %) whereas in the criminal jurisdiction the onus of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (think 99%).

What was to be gained from bringing crimal proceedings against woman X other than giving the mother of your children a criminal record?

I am not a semi-judge, just a boy from the suburbs with no more art than being that entails. So I would be happy for you to enlighten me further.

I will be happy to send you the details of the cases and you can research yourself.

Unfortunately your response is rather typical of posters on here who will believe little of what counters their rosy view of Thailand. I am just telling you the facts with a little of my opinion thrown in. The facts are true. You know I was not legally married because I told you. I refer to her as my ex-wife because in Thailand if you live with a woman and have a family together then that is how the relationship will be referred to. Yes she was convicted of stealing the house papers which did have my name on the back - as the leaseholder - because I was holding the Chanote. The inner reasons of Thai law I cannot help with overly because often there is simply no logic as you or I would understand it. The Thai mentality works differently to ours.

I said I had a semi-judicial background - I did not say I was a semi judge. In fact I worked in Arbitration under UK law - if that helps you.

I sued both the ex-wife and the money lender and the agent because they all worked together as far as it was possible for me to see given the facts at my disposal. You are correct the balance of proof is higher in a Criminal case than a Civil case. In Thai law you will not succeed in a claim against the new owner unless you can show that the new owner was or should have been aware that there was some illegality - Thai law will not help you against a buyer in good faith - the good faith bit is the decision of the judge so even a buyer at a knock down price will not necessarily be found to have been buying in bad faith - it is quite different from UK law in the law itself and in the thought processes that the judges here employ.

I could not sue the money lender and the agent (who are also involved in other fraudulent purchases) without suing the woman - and in any case a person who betrays their family as she did should not be completely excused. There is more to this story but I wanted to keep it simple and to the facts. Check out #TySaysNo in a Google search and you will find out a little more - I have no doubt you will disagree with my methods but then you are not in the same position as me!

Why would you refer to youself as semi-judicial when you worked as an arbitrator. That position does not even require a degree let alone a degree in law?

I would love to hear woman Xs side of the story.

Well I didn't post to enter into a slanging match - merely to inform. You can do what you wish with the information. You don't need a degree in law to be a solicitor nor to be a magistrate either. Anyway I don't want to argue semantics. I have a Diploma in Arbitration and a degree (but not in law). Arbitrators are specialists involved in a given field used to adjudicate civil disputes instead of the court system where the judges are not specialists in any particular professional field (save law of course), though there are exceptions. They do however have to be trained (hence the diploma) and usually be a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (of which I was a Fellow) and follow the rules of evidence and judicial procedure. Being just a boy from the suburbs, I don't supposed you are really interested anyway so I will leave it at that.

[aboctok]

For the record I am involved in many cases criminal and civil against the ex-wife (now in prison) and two money lenders and their joint agent. In brief I had a lease on my house, was not legally married but living as a family with our three children. The lease was cancelled by a simple forged signature to enable the money lenders agent to cancel the lease at the land office and immediately after the money lender bought the house at a knock down price. The money lender gave evidence he knew I was the husband and knew it was the family home and knew my lease had been cancelled by the agent. The court said the ex-wife was entitled to sell the house and that I had no authority to sue the money lender. The civil case came after the criminal case where the ex-wife was imprisoned after pleading guilty to stealing the chanote and forging the document used to cancel the lease by the money lenders agent. She was imprisoned for 6 months for the forgery with other people, and 6 months for the theft of the chanote. Subject to parole I guess 6 months in total. The criminal case against the money lender and his agent is ongoing and had to be restarted with a delay of one year as the court stopped the first case for sentencing. I have no idea why that process exists but there must be some reason in law I suppose. It costs a packet to re-sue and all the attendant court visits because of the new case and no costs are payable generally in the Thai system.

I have a semi-judicial background from the UK and can tell you there is no understanding of the basic principles of law here - no understanding of the foundations much as the kids are taught subjects at school. No understanding of the substance. Added to which the laws are simplistic and full of loopholes which are exploited by lawyers, many of whom are totally corrupt and also have no understanding of their role in society. Unfortunately it is very hard to know if the lawyer you choose will even plead the case to your benefit because there is widespread racism (I don't like that work but do not know what else to use to replace it). I can tell you I have heard many times one lawyer ask both lawyer and interpreter 'Why are you helping a foreigner sue Thai people"

This is the mindset and from my experience of 5 years and 11 cases in the system.

You might also be interested to learn that my businesses were also stolen through a forged signature and that the outcome of those cases was that I had no authority to sue as I was no longer a registered director or shareholder. The court acknowledged I had been fraudulently removed and ordered me restored as Director and my shares returned. But the substance of the case was dismissed against the people who had conspired to defraud me and taken all the company assets. So in effect if you have a company you must sue for restoration as Director or shareholder first and until then those who have stolen your company are free to dispose and mortgage your assets. Either way leads to a very difficult case as you have to prove the bank or the buyer knew that the asset was stolen in order to succeed with restoration it seems - at least so far as I am along the way with those cases.

If anyone thinks Thai law has any resemblance to the law from the Western countries then I think you are grossly misunderstanding the facts. Thai law has been butchered and adapted to suit the rich and powerful most aptly shown by the criminal defamation laws. If you have a really crap corrupt lawyer you can;t even tell other people about it. It is scandalous really but then hidden from the average Thai because of all the censorship.

Not to be picky, but how can someone have a "semi-judicial" background? Do you mean quasi-legal?

...

...

Of course, in light of the interest already expressed regarding this admittedly parenthetical issue, I happily withdraw the question.

Edited May 11, 2015 by aboctok

[White Tiger]

Perhaps an irrelevant issue. Is there anyone in Thailand under the age of 55 who is the beneficiary of usufruct?

Yes

Yes. Me too.