Thread: 3+3 lease

up to you

Originally Posted by the dogcatcher

This subject has come up on a number of occations on TD.
Still don't have a definate answer.
Can anyone nail it down, properly with some proper Thai legalese.
I see what you're saying D.Randy.... but my understanding is that there is no true basis in Thai law that supports what you are saying.
Therefore I'm going with Jimmy Collender's coments.
That's more along the lines of the 30+30 deal which I still don't thimk is legal.

Longest lease in Thailand is 30 years, any option for an extra 30 is not enforceable.

Anyone talking a 30 lease should do so by yearly rent, not pay up front 30 years. That way if the land owner wants you gone, you won't lose all your money in one hit. Jim

Which raises the most obvious question "why sign a 30 year lease for (residential) at all?" stick to year on year - for business lease the question is whether drandy's lease is enforceable if so then it sounds like the OP is good to go

Actually, holding a 30 year lease is quite common if the Ferang has it in the Company name as is required by law. 30-30 &30 are doable with the right paperwork and Thai seller. Land is rented, house is owned outright by the ferang.

Point to remember. In this man's case he wants to rent a shop it appears so dealing directly with the land/property owners is best done face to face with proper legal paper and or attorney in place. 99 has intimated that he's not dealing with a Thai owner/renter and that his business plans are more than a mom and pop store. He's looking for a stipulated amount of time where he can reliably rent without difficulties from the owners.

Originally Posted by ltnt

Actually, holding a 30 year lease is quite common if the Ferang has it in the Company name as is required by law. 30-30 &30 are doable with the right paperwork and Thai seller. Land is rented, house is owned outright by the ferang.

Point to remember. In this man's case he wants to rent a shop it appears so dealing directly with the land/property owners is best done face to face with proper legal paper and or attorney in place. 99 has intimated that he's not dealing with a Thai owner/renter and that his business plans are more than a mom and pop store. He's looking for a stipulated amount of time where he can reliably rent without difficulties from the owners.

No such thing as the right paper work, only thing that counts is the lease under the civil code, any other bits of paper are just that, bits of paper.

All these home owning schemes can see the alleged home owner out when ever Government wants. Nominee companies are illegal, DSI has begun checking 27,000 foreign companies, those found to be fronts for home ownership may be deported, house and land confiscated. Jim

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I wonder if they will ever do the latter. It has been talked about for years on TVs property thread. Has any shell company for home ownership ever been annulled, land taken, deportation? I do agree it's a risk and one I'd just avoid with many other possibilities, besides if Thais really don't want foreigners here other than fortnight vacationers then why tempt fate..

Ombudsman drew up new laws last year, before parliament now. Jail time for farang a Thais involved, DSI was to investigate farang nominee companies under new powers last year. They are even talking 20% of the confiscate land when sold as a reward to informants.

Been a long time coming, but I think the crack down has started. Jim

Originally Posted by jamescollister

checking 27,000 foreign companies,

Yea, yea, yea...same old stuff. No bite in the bark. 20 years and no problems for ferangs with 30-30 and 30. Mostly 'Hotels are the target anyway." BTW, paper does matter.

Originally Posted by ltnt

Originally Posted by jamescollister

checking 27,000 foreign companies,

Yea, yea, yea...same old stuff. No bite in the bark. 20 years and no problems for ferangs with 30-30 and 30. Mostly 'Hotels are the target anyway." BTW, paper does matter.

Don't know, DSI are big police and they were only tasked with the enforcement , end of last year.
Some posters on Samui have been interviewed by local cops, who will have sent the reports off to the DSI.

Think it will gather speed if the money starts to roll in from confiscated property.


As to the extra bits of paper, where would to take them to get them enforced, not the courts they deal with the civil law and 30 years is the max under the civil code. Can post the act if you want. Jim

Whilst I actually think they get what they deserve, such a move could kill off the retiree and longstay tourist market, so let's see, but I doubt it. Maybe the move just gives cops and bureaucrats another avenue to shake down the farang money tree? "want to keep your house/business? Here is the price without an invoice or receipt of course

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Whilst I actually think they get what they deserve, such a move could kill off the retiree and longstay tourist market, so let's see, but I doubt it. Maybe the move just gives cops and bureaucrats another avenue to shake down the farang money tree? "want to keep your house/business? Here is the price without an invoice or receipt of course

Think that's why the enforcement was hand over to the DSI, sort of like the Thai FBI. Everyone else was taking back handers or turning a blind eye.

Times are a changing, computers are being linked and too much land has come under alien control. In the Ombudsman's report, he said, if we don't act there will be nothing left for the children of Thailand.

As to retirees and long stayers, they will be fine if they play by the legal rules. I live here, in a house, over 100 rai of land and a LTD Partnership company. All legal, wife and kids own it all. I may own the toilet seat. jim

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Personally, although I could buy, I prefer to rent. Better value and lots to choose from

I always get a laugh out of this line. How many years have you been paying rent?

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Well Jim, that's all well and good (thanks for the Ombudsman's report - missed that), I assume that you haven't placed all eggs in one basket? For the majority of posters though, to own a place in Thailand would likely indeed mean moving all or most of their cash here to make the purchase. Not smart - but people continue to do it - and use the Co method. Let's wish them well. Personally, although I could buy, I prefer to rent. Better value and lots to choose from

Thailand is my home, no difference if I was in the west, wife 2 kids they would get it all if things went bad.
If you are here to make a life and living, different story from being here to retire. Rent is best if you haven't got family to leave it to.
Sometimes think farangs think they are just too smart and don't believe the laws will ever be enforced, but Governments like control and more and more laws will get enforced over time. Jim

Originally Posted by ltnt

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Personally, although I could buy, I prefer to rent. Better value and lots to choose from

I always get a laugh out of this line. How many years have you been paying rent?

A long time. My view is it's better for me to invest in propety in my home country where I know the laws (real laws), which I have done, than to roll the dice in a country like this for the very reasons outlined above by you too actually. That's just me and others feel it's better to buy. Depends on ones view and situation. I agree that other than fear of divorce farang married to Thai and who wantto remain here all their lived probably should buy rather than rent (via wife)

Little story, posted on TV already.

Had a farang round, for a few or more beers. He had build a new big farang house on his wife's land, 10 rai, farm land. Telling me all about how smart he was in getting this big house cheap.

BIL , who's wife was expecting was staying with us [ family ] BIL is what you may call the county clerk. Ask him about the farangs kouse and title. Answer no problem, no one cares.

I say what if I care and complain to you and want it knocked down. BIL thinks for a moment and says, 4 week for the demolition order and it's gone.

Didn't complain of cause, guy died shortly after, cancer of the liver.

Nearest town from me Buntarik, Tesco's came, 30 shops and houses bulldozer down.

When the authorities want to act they can act fast. Jim

Yes and it's not just farangs, Thais do it to other Thais too. A 7/11 near my place was built from scratch on a busy corner market Soi. Someone complained about the way it was built ( don't know concern ) anyway the owner was forced to tear it down to foundation get proper approval which he did and built it exactly as before which he did

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Yes and it's not just farangs, Thais do it to other Thais too. A 7/11 near my place was built from scratch on a busy corner market Soi. Someone complained about the way it was built ( don't know concern ) anyway the owner was forced to tear it down to foundation get proper approval which he did and built it exactly as before which he did

Those shops and houses in Buntharik were all Thai. Some well connected locally, big Government and big business can have the laws enforced fast when they want to.
If you are out side the rules, not much you can do.
Play by the rules and be safe, as said have too much to lose by playing games with the law.
I am a quest in this country and they can say go home at anytime. Jim

^How many "guests," in Thailand have actually been asked to "go Home?" As for the government taking away you're property, the case is only for those who break the property laws not by whim or fancy as you suggest.

If you believe such then you need to leave now before the big brother sits on you. Crazy stipulations.

Originally Posted by ltnt

^How many "guests," in Thailand have actually been asked to "go Home?" As for the government taking away you're property, the case is only for those who break the property laws not by whim or fancy as you suggest.

If you believe such then you need to leave now before the big brother sits on you. Crazy stipulations.

I'm totally legal, don't skirt laws or play legal games.
Immigration law is plan, anyone convict of even a minor crime should be deported. Not enforced often, but can be enforced at any time.
Not worth the trouble, stay legal stay safe. Jim

^
agree with that

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Which raises the most obvious question "why sign a 30 year lease for (residential) at all?" stick to year on year

because you can get tossed out after your year is up, or the cost raised each year

with a 30 year lease, you should be safe for the period

Originally Posted by ltnt

As for the government taking away you're property, the case is only for those who break the property laws not by whim or fancy as you suggest

if they change the law wrt shell companies, those formed before the law is passed (if it is) should not be affected

^Agree, they're not likely to kill the golden goose just yet.

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by ltnt

As for the government taking away you're property, the case is only for those who break the property laws not by whim or fancy as you suggest

if they change the law wrt shell companies, those formed before the law is passed (if it is) should not be affected

Problem with that is that nominee companies have never been legal, the laws were just not enforced by the land department and the business department or the labor department for that matter [ run a company, need a W/P ]

The new laws are just increasing the penalties, Jim