Loan-shark victims likely to lose their land

[snoop1130]

Loan-shark victims likely to lose their land

By Sittichai Sikhawat 
The Nation

 

Surifath ‘Bang Fath’ Bannopwongsakul

 

The Bangkok Bank is preparing to confiscate land plots that a loan shark – now also the alleged mastermind of a village massacre -– allegedly took from his clients through illegitimate means.

 

Eight alleged victims of loan shark Surifath ‘Bang Fath’ Bannopwongsakul attended a meeting with relevant authorities in Krabi province on Tuesday to ask for help. 

 

“We are trying to help, but it remains unclear how much we can do,” Sanan Thongnuakhao, the justice chief in Krabi, said. 

 

He said some loan-shark victims had lost court battles in similar cases before.

 

The Bangkok Bank’s Krabi branch is now going ahead with the forfeiture process because Surifath has failed to repay loans that he has secured with the loan plots as collateral. 

 

Those land plots are registered in the name of Surifath, and a court has already ruled in favour of the bank because he has defaulted. 

 

The problem for Surifath’s victims is that although they transferred ownership of their land to him when they borrowed money, they have since repaid him. They were unaware that Surifath has used their land plots as collateral with the bank. This means that, even though they have fully repaid their debts to Surifath, they will not be able to get their land back. 

 

Surifath has become a notorious figure nationwide after being identified as the alleged mastermind behind the massacre of a village head and his family members last month.

 

The village head had an ugly conflict with Surifath because he, too, was an alleged victim of the loan shark.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30324563

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-8-22

[Thaiwrath]

He can only be described as a complete and utter <deleted>. 

[oldlakey]

Perhaps the system needs a little bit of tinkering around the edges

[YetAnother]

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Sanan Thongnuakhao, the justice chief in Krabi, said. 

what is a 'justice chief' ?

[worgeordie]

Why did the loan shark victims,not get loans on their lands from the banks,

would have been a little less risky,and lower interest rate payments,the loan

shark managed too,so why not them.

regards worgeordie

[blackcab]

1 minute ago, worgeordie said:

Why did the loan shark victims,not get loans on their lands from the banks,

would have been a little less risky,and lower interest rate payments,the loan

shark managed too,so why not them.

regards worgeordie

 

Possibly because he had a visible means of income and therefore a way to repay the loan.

 

They probably didn't.

[oldlakey]

2 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Why did the loan shark victims,not get loans on their lands from the banks,

would have been a little less risky,and lower interest rate payments,the loan

shark managed too,so why not them.

regards worgeordie

Leave it out, whats wrong with making life harder than it already is

[oldlakey]

2 minutes ago, blackcab said:

 

Possibly because he had a visible means of income and therefore a way to repay the loan.

 

They probably didn't.

Visible means of income I wonder where that came from 555555555555

[greenchair]

10 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

Perhaps the system needs a little bit of tinkering around the edges

Yes, this same thing happened to my father in law. 

Apparently, you borrow money on your land. 

Even though the deed is in your name, a second section shows the lender as the guarantee holder of the land. So essentially the lender is the owner until he is paid back. 

During this time the lender can use the land as collateral for other loans or even sell and transfer the title to another person , who then becomes the deed holder in the first instance. Then the new deed holder resells. All without the knowledge of the original deed holder. (That happened to my father in law by a large Pai boon company ). Everybody wins,the final land owner gets property usually at bargain prices  (in this case the bank ). The lender gets the original loaned money back plus the sale amount. 

After the original deed holder pays back the money, often times the lender will refuse to go to the district office for many years to sign the pawned land back. At this time, the owner finds out the land now belongs to someone else and must go to court to retrieve it.

They always lose as it is all done legally by the swinderling lender and buyer who bought the land fair and square.

The lender and the futyre buyer go around whole villagers asking very poor people if they want to borrow money with low interest. Then throw them out of their homes. As happened to my 90 year old father.

It's a scam that preys on the weak , the elderly, the poor and the uneducated. 

 

[oldlakey]

6 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Yes, this same thing happened to my father in law. 

Apparently, you borrow money on your land. 

Even though the deed is in your name, a second section shows the lender as the guarantee holder of the land. So essentially the lender is the owner until he is paid back. 

During this time the lender can use the land as collateral for other loans or even sell and transfer the title to another person , who then becomes the deed holder in the first instance. Then the new deed holder resells. All without the knowledge of the original deed holder. (That happened to my father in law by a large Pai boon company ). Everybody wins,the final land owner gets property usually at bargain prices  (in this case the bank ). The lender gets the original loaned money back plus the sale amount. 

After the original deed holder pays back the money, often times the lender will refuse to go to the district office for many years to sign the pawned land back. At this time, the owner finds out the land now belongs to someone else and must go to court to retrieve it.

They always lose as it is all done legally by the swinderling lender and buyer who bought the land fair and square.

The lender and the futyre buyer go around whole villagers asking very poor people if they want to borrow money with low interest. Then throw them out of their homes. As happened to my 90 year old father.

It's a scam that preys on the weak , the elderly, the poor and the uneducated. 

 

I need to update my comment @ Post 3 to Drastic changes needed, like YESTERDAY

[biggles45]

In a country where people kill for "loss of face" so often, why is this vermin still alive? 

[greenchair]

8 minutes ago, biggles45 said:

In a country where people kill for "loss of face" so often, why is this vermin still alive? 

He is not the only one utilising this very legal scam. If he had not killed the 8 family members that were trying to get their land back, funnily enough he would have won in the courts. In regards to ownership of the land through his dodgy deals, the law was on his side. His stupid hot head hopefully will get him the death penalty. 

However, his scam technic will continue by dozens of loan sharks to poor land owners. It is the  misuse of the law itself, that caused this tragedy. 

[greenchair]

My father in law borrowed 65,000 on his 1.5 million baht land. 

He lost in the court. He was kicked out of his home at 90 years old, and the court ordered the new deed holder to pay him 15,000 baht in court costs. He died in a tin shack because they pulled down his beautiful 6 bedroom thai style house. The land stands empty 15 years later. It is now worth more than 10 million. My mother in law 92 lives in a tiny tin shack next to it. 

 

[Dave67]

“We are trying to help, but it remains unclear how much we can do,” Sanan Thongnuakhao, the justice chief in Krabi, said.

 

 

Seize his assets you fool, have you learned nothing from the Junta

[blackcab]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Yes, this same thing happened to my father in law. 

Apparently, you borrow money on your land. 

Even though the deed is in your name, a second section shows the lender as the guarantee holder of the land. So essentially the lender is the owner until he is paid back. 

During this time the lender can use the land as collateral for other loans or even sell and transfer the title to another person , who then becomes the deed holder in the first instance. Then the new deed holder resells. All without the knowledge of the original deed holder. (That happened to my father in law by a large Pai boon company ). Everybody wins,the final land owner gets property usually at bargain prices  (in this case the bank ). The lender gets the original loaned money back plus the sale amount. 

After the original deed holder pays back the money, often times the lender will refuse to go to the district office for many years to sign the pawned land back. At this time, the owner finds out the land now belongs to someone else and must go to court to retrieve it.

They always lose as it is all done legally by the swinderling lender and buyer who bought the land fair and square.

The lender and the futyre buyer go around whole villagers asking very poor people if they want to borrow money with low interest. Then throw them out of their homes. As happened to my 90 year old father.

It's a scam that preys on the weak , the elderly, the poor and the uneducated. 

 

 

This type of transaction is called a sale with the right of redemption. The main problem is that most Thai people are unaware of what this type of deal actually means.

 

Essentially, you sell your property to a third party in return for a loan, however you have a specified period of time where you have the absolute right to pay back the loan plus the intetest to immediately regain possession of the property.

 

If the property is transferred to a third party before it is redeemed then the original seller has the right to redeem the property from the new owner (Section 498 CCC).

 

If the person holding the unredeemed property will not appear at the land office, the redeemer has the right to deposit the full amount of repayment at the land office, without notice to the person holding the loan (Section 492  CCC).

 

Upon deposit of the full amount (within the redemption period) the land office will immediately transfer the title deed back to the redeemer.

 

The redeemer may need to report their title deed as lost and then obtain a duplicate from the land office.

 

The problem with this type of deal is that, as you stated, the person buying the property can use it to get a loan unless there is a contract between both parties forbidding this (Section 493 CCC).

 

If there is no contract, and the buyer uses the property as security to get a loan, things get more complicated. This is especially true if the original sale price was low and the secondary loan amount was high.

 

The main issue is that even if the buyer has a contract and breaks it then the seller has to take them to Court to claim damages...

 

In this case from post 1 the lenders repaid their debt in cash to the person who loaned them the money, and they didn't do it at the land office. Then the person they gave the cash to kept the money.

 

The main points are that any dealings involving money and title deeds should be conducted at the land office, and you need to be able to trust the person you make this type of deal with.

[greenchair]

3 minutes ago, blackcab said:

 

This type of transaction is called a sale with the right of redemption. The main problem is that most Thai people are unaware of what this type of deal actually means.

 

Essentially, you sell your property to a third party in return for a loan, however you have a specified period of time where you have the absolute right to pay back the loan plus the intetest to immediately regain possession of the property.

 

If the property is transferred to a third party before it is redeemed then the original seller has the right to redeem the property from the new owner (Section 498 CCC).

 

If the person holding the unredeemed propety will not appear at the land office, the redeemer has the right to deposit the full amount of repayment at the land office, without notice to the person holding the loan (Section 492  CCC).

 

Upon deposit of the full amount (within the redemption period) the land office will immediately transfer the title deed back to the redeemer.

 

The redeemer may need to report their title deed as lost and then obtain a duplicate from the land office.

 

The problem with this type of deal is that, as you stated, the person buying the property can use it to get a loan unless there is a contract between both parties forbidding this (Section 493 CCC).

 

The main issue is that if the buyer breaks this contract then the seller has to take them to Court to claim damages...

 

In this case the lenders repaid their debt in cash to the person who loaned them the money, and they didn't do it at the land office. Then the person they gave the cash to kept the money.

 

The main point is that any dealings involving money and title deeds should be conducted at the land office.

Oh thank you. I am not a lawyer, but that really helps me understand what happens. Unfortunately, the poor land owners do not understand that they must pay the money at the land office. They pay the money back on time installments, which I think they would not be able to do at the land office. The lump sum payment is too much. It's still a scam and anyway by the time the person realise they must pay a lump sum at land office, the redemption period is finished. Oh my god, they need to change that law immediately. Thank you for your post. I have realised that if I am 1 day late on the last payment of my land, the bank would be the legal owner. 

[greenchair]

13 minutes ago, blackcab said:

 

This type of transaction is called a sale with the right of redemption. The main problem is that most Thai people are unaware of what this type of deal actually means.

 

Essentially, you sell your property to a third party in return for a loan, however you have a specified period of time where you have the absolute right to pay back the loan plus the intetest to immediately regain possession of the property.

 

If the property is transferred to a third party before it is redeemed then the original seller has the right to redeem the property from the new owner (Section 498 CCC).

 

If the person holding the unredeemed property will not appear at the land office, the redeemer has the right to deposit the full amount of repayment at the land office, without notice to the person holding the loan (Section 492  CCC).

 

Upon deposit of the full amount (within the redemption period) the land office will immediately transfer the title deed back to the redeemer.

 

The redeemer may need to report their title deed as lost and then obtain a duplicate from the land office.

 

The problem with this type of deal is that, as you stated, the person buying the property can use it to get a loan unless there is a contract between both parties forbidding this (Section 493 CCC).

 

If there is no contract, and the buyer uses the property as security to get a loan, things get more complicated. This is especially true if the original sale price was low and the secondary loan amount was high.

 

The main issue is that even if the buyer has a contract and breaks it then the seller has to take them to Court to claim damages...

 

In this case from post 1 the lenders repaid their debt in cash to the person who loaned them the money, and they didn't do it at the land office. Then the person they gave the cash to kept the money.

 

The main points are that any dealings involving money and title deeds should be conducted at the land office, and you need to be able to trust the person you make this type of deal with.

So now I am worried. I was about 2 weeks late on my mortgage payment a couple of times. 

The kasikorn bank is the third party. Though all other payments have been made including both late ones. 

One day the evaluater from kasikorn bank turns up. He says he will make a routine evaluation of our property for bank purposes and it would be good because we would get a free evaluation . After that we never heard from him. But called and he said it was valued at 2.8 million but if we wanted it in writing, we would have to contact the bank. The bank manager didn't know what we were talking about. 

Since then we have continued payments on time for 3 years. 

Could they have resold our house? ?? Because we did not stick to the exact agreement by being late twice? ???

[blackcab]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

So now I am worried. I was about 2 weeks late on my mortgage payment a couple of times. 

The kasikorn bank is the third party. Though all other payments have been made including both late ones. 

One day the evaluater from kasikorn bank turns up. He says he will make a routine evaluation of our property for bank purposes and it would be good because we would get a free evaluation . After that we never heard from him. But called and he said it was valued at 2.8 million but if we wanted it in writing, we would have to contact the bank. The bank manager didn't know what we were talking about. 

Since then we have continued payments on time for 3 years. 

Could they have resold our house? ?? Because we did not stick to the exact agreement by being late twice? ???

 

Stop worrying. You are fine.

 

You have a mortgage, which is completely different to a sale with the right of redemption.

 

The critical difference is that when you get a mortgage you still own your property. What you have done is to agree that an encumbrance can be placed upon it in return for a loan. Obviously if you repeatedly fail to pay your mortgage the bank will seieze the property, however they need the permission  of the Court to do so.

 

A sale with the right of redemption is very different. It is a sale, plain and simple. When the borrower gets the money they have already sold their property. They just have the right to buy it back.

[greenchair]

So on my land deed, I am the owner, and seller .but the bank is the buyer with the right of redemption to me ccc 491is that right. 

And my agreement with the bank is a 10 year loan, so if I am 1 day late the right of redemption is gone. Is that right. CCC 494

[greenchair]

4 minutes ago, blackcab said:

 

Stop worrying. You are fine.

 

You have a mortgage, which is completely different to a sale with the right of redemption.

 

The critical difference is that when you get a mortgage you still own your property. What you have done is to agree that an encumbrance can be placed upon it in return for a loan. Obviously if you repeatedly fail to pay your mortgage the bank will seieze the property, however they need the permission  of the Court to do so.

 

A sale with the right of redemption is very different. It is a sale, plain and simple. When the borrower gets the money they have already sold their property. They just have the right to buy it back.

Oh thank you. 

I am sure many people don't understand that they are actually selling their land for 50000 baht that is worth 1 million so to speak. 

I have learned a lot today. 

But my mortgage payments are always within the month but just 1 or 2 weeks late. 

How many times If I did that could they claim. I am in the last year of payment, but I struggle some weeks. 

[blackcab]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Oh thank you. 

I am sure many people don't understand that they are actually selling their land for 50000 baht that is worth 1 million so to speak. 

I have learned a lot today. 

But my mortgage payments are always within the month but just 1 or 2 weeks late. 

How many times If I did that could they claim. I am in the last year of payment, but I struggle some weeks. 

 

It's not really about how often you are late. It's about how far behind you get. If you are never more than 1 month behind nobody is going to take your land, even if you do that 3 times a year.

 

The bank may charge penalties and intetest, but that's it.

[greenchair]

10 minutes ago, blackcab said:

 

It's not really about how often you are late. It's about how far behind you get. If you are never more than 1 month behind nobody is going to take your land, even if you do that 3 times a year.

 

The bank may charge penalties and intetest, but that's it.

Omg, thank you from my heart. It's such a relief. But I don't understand why the evaluator came, but did not go to any of the other houses. 

[blackcab]

46 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Omg, thank you from my heart. It's such a relief. But I don't understand why the evaluator came, but did not go to any of the other houses. 

 

They might want to offer you a new loan.

[greenchair]

1 minute ago, blackcab said:

 

They might want to offer you a new loan.

Well, I won't do that. I'll be enjoying not paying rent for the first time in almost 40 years. Lol