Feeling down

And yes, I would much prefer my method. That way the land is actually purchased legally, plus I have a legally binding 99 year lease to it. That I can actually present to a judge, whereas with your method I have sweet fuck all to go in with, because it's an illegal purchase of land according to current law.

How is it an illegal purchase? True foreigners aren't allowed to buy land. But a corporation is a legal person distinct from its owners (something you clearly don't comprehend based on what you are saying), and it's the one owning the land, which it can because a Thai owns 51% of the shares of the corporation. It's also totally legal to be a minority foreign shareholder with voting rights while the majority shareholder doesn't have voting rights unless Thailand specifically amends the law to close this loophole. It's done all the time in many jurisdictions.

Also don't forget to hold regular shareholder meetings, board of director meetings, and pass resolutions. Because that's what a real company does as opposed to a shell company which is somebody's alter ego and thus has no legal personality of its own.

If it's done by a reputable lawyer, then it's just as legal as tax avoidance strategies US corporations use to minimize their tax payments. They're also loopholes, but perfectly legal. The government is of course free to close them. Then you'd have to come up with an alternative strategy, such as give the Thai shareholder voting rights too. You'd really have to make sure to use someone trustworthy in such a circumstance, but it's still a better option than using a spouse due to the arm's length nature of a properly managed corporation.

In the end though, you're right that a court in Thailand could easily set aside the entire structure because there is no respect for the rule of law in Thailand like there would be in a place like HK. Everyone in HK is equal before the court regardless of race or nationality and the judge interprets the law based on previous case law, but I get the feeling it doesn't work that way in Thailand.
 


Well, whatever dude. The law clearly states foriegners aren't allowed to own land.

If you want to risk it by going that shady corporate route, go for it. If it ever comes down to it, any prosecutor worth their salt will be able to prove that land is owned by a foreigner, hence will be confiscated. I'm not saying the govt is going to crack down on this, but it is a possibility, and enough of a one that I'm not dropping say $200k into land here.

And yes, I would much prefer my method. That way the land is actually purchased legally, plus I have a legally binding 99 year lease to it. That I can actually present to a judge, whereas with your method I have sweet fuck all to go in with, because it's an illegal purchase of land according to current law.

Up to you though.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEoTQB7h3NQ[/ame]
 
Acidie, I thoughyou wrote that Kiopa_Matt's dog mauled a child and he is now being held in custody, awaiting for trial and long term in Thai prison, where he would be buttfucked with penises, arms, legs and telegraph poles? So that we don't expect any writing from him soon?

Yet he is writing, so he seems to be free and even unaware of the danger he is exposed to!
 
Acidie, I thoughyou wrote that Kiopa_Matt's dog mauled a child and he is now being held in custody, awaiting for trial and long term in Thai prison, where he would be buttfucked with penises, arms, legs and telegraph poles? So that we don't expect any writing from him soon?

Yet he is writing, so he seems to be free and even unaware of the danger he is exposed to!

And people think TH is backward, they even have the internet in prison now.

Although I assume it's usage is conditional on sexual favors.

Edit: So that's what Kiopa_Matt means by "Thai Wife"
 
How is it an illegal purchase? True foreigners aren't allowed to buy land. But a corporation is a legal person distinct from its owners (something you clearly don't comprehend based on what you are saying), and it's the one owning the land, which it can because a Thai owns 51% of the shares of the corporation. It's also totally legal to be a minority foreign shareholder with voting rights while the majority shareholder doesn't have voting rights unless Thailand specifically amends the law to close this loophole. It's done all the time in many jurisdictions.

It's legal according to the local amphur, because the paper work meets the regulations, hence the purchase goes through. It's illegal according to federal law, because if you dig a bit, you'll quite easily find out a foreigner technically owns that land.

Right now, the Thai govt doesn't give a shit, because they're busy with tons of other things. That doesn't mean they won't always not give a shit though.

Whatever though, I'm out. This argument is getting pretty stupid. If wanted, you're more than welcome to throw say $200k into some land here via a corporation with voting structure that favors you. I'm personally not willing to take that risk, but to each their own.
 
It's legal according to the local amphur, because the paper work meets the regulations, hence the purchase goes through. It's illegal according to federal law

1. Thailand isn't a federation genius. It's a monarchy. This puts everything you're saying into doubt.

2. You're obviously missing the point that a corporation is a separate legal person from the individual owners. It technically is NOT the foreigner owning the land. It's the corporation owning the land, and it has its own distinct legal personality.

3. I'm not willing to take the risk personally because Thailand doesn't have a good history regarding the rule of law. Therefore it's always going to be whatever the strongman says regardless of your structure.

4. Having a spouse owning your land carries its own risks.
 
Kiopa_Matt has shit for brains. Didn't he say in another thread that he only finished his grade 9 education? That explains a lot.

Also it's hilarious that nobody seems to respect Kiopa_Matt. Nobody in this thread. None of the Thais I bet. Not even his family and his untrained dogs respect Kiopa_Matt!
 
1. Thailand isn't a federation genius. It's a monarchy. This puts everything you're saying into doubt.

It's a constitutional monarchy. The monarchy doesn't really have any power though. It's kinda like how Canada still has Queen Elizabeth as head of state. It's true on paper, but not in reality. Apart from pardoning a bunch of people every year, the King has no real say in politics or rule of law, as he's above that, which is what makes him a unifying voice within the country.


2. You're obviously missing the point that a corporation is a separate legal person from the individual owners. It technically is NOT the foreigner owning the land. It's the corporation owning the land, and it has its own distinct legal personality.

Feel free to test that premise out in a Thai courtroom, and I bet you lose. Not saying it will ever happen, but it could. Won't happen for the next several years for sure, as the govt is a little busy right now.


3. I'm not willing to take the risk personally because Thailand doesn't have a good history regarding the rule of law.

No shit, hence my hesitations. Changes of governments and coups happen here so regularly, people don't even take notice.


4. Having a spouse owning your land carries its own risks.

Aye, I'm just saying that's what the majority of foreigners here do. Land goes into the wife's name, and she signs over a 99 year lease to the husband. Maybe they're all retarded too, and WF knows better. Hell, we cure diabetes, take over stock markets, and buy up 3rd world land in these parts!
 
It's a constitutional monarchy. The monarchy doesn't really have any power though. It's kinda like how Canada still has Queen Elizabeth as head of state. It's true on paper, but not in reality. Apart from pardoning a bunch of people every year, the King has no real say in politics or rule of law, as he's above that, which is what makes him a unifying voice within the country.

No shit sherlock. But Thailand still isn't a federation. It's a unitary state setup as a constitutional monarchy.


Feel free to test that premise out in a Thai courtroom, and I bet you lose. Not saying it will ever happen, but it could. Won't happen for the next several years for sure, as the govt is a little busy right now.

Thailand's judiciary is a joke so it's not really worth testing out. You can't compare it to a properly functioning judiciary.

No shit, hence my hesitations. Changes of governments and coups happen here so regularly, people don't even take notice.

Hence my claim that the legal system SUCKS in Thailand.
 
Ok, so it seems like we agree, but we're just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I mean, we agree, but we're bitching at each other saying the other is wrong. This is definitely WF!
 
Ok, so it seems like we agree, but we're just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I mean, we agree, but we're bitching at each other saying the other is wrong. This is definitely WF!

Well the reason we're arguing is you think the legal theory isn't sound. I think it is. It is something that I think a lawyer can review and state that it would work until that loophole is closed. What I think isn't sound is the legal system in Thailand, and thus we both come to the same conclusion that you need to be wary when buying land and/or property in Thailand.

Also Thailand doesn't have federal laws. It's semantics I know, but Thailand has national laws in lieu of federal laws since it's a unitary state and not a federation.
 
Well the reason we're arguing is you think the legal theory isn't sound. I think it is.

You just said above you wouldn't be willing to test the premise in a Thai courtroom, so quite obviously, you don't believe the legal theory is sound.

And it's not. Corporation or not, any prosecutor worth their salt could prove in court that a foreigner holds controlling interest over that land, making the ownership illegal. Hell, it would even make the corporation itself illegal. And yes, I know a corporation is a separate entity, but have fun explaining that position to a Thai judge.
 
You just said above you wouldn't be willing to test the premise in a Thai courtroom, so quite obviously, you don't believe the legal theory is sound.

Oh boy are you thick. No I do believe the legal theory is sound. How about you improve your reading comprehension a bit? I clearly stated that the legal theory is sound, but the legal system in Thailand is not sound because it's based on the rule of man and NOT the rule of law. In other words, I do not believe the Thai courts would give the same kind of fair interpretation that a Hong Kong, Canadian, or British court would give. There would be a bias in the ruling that I wouldn't be facing in a court that isn't a kangaroo court.
 
hehe, so what the fuck are we arguing about again? :)

The argument is whether or not it's a good idea to buy land in Thailand via a corporation with a shady voting structure that technically makes the corporation illegal. You say it's a good thing, but only as long as somewhere like Canada, UK, or HK apply the law? You're ok to buy land in Thailand via a corporation, as long as the Thai govt doesn't apply the law is your argument.

Did I get that right?
 
I realise you guys have done this already but surely it's a much better idea to use a corporate structure (i.e. what actual money & MNCs use for inward investment) vs buying in a Thai wifes name who's likely to poison you or have her real hubby kill you for your precious £20(0)k..
 
as long as the Thai govt doesn't apply the law is your argument.

The Thai government wouldn't be applying the law correctly. And how do you know if that corporation is really illegal or not? Again we'd need a Thai lawyer to give an interpretation, and since Thai law firms do offer these structures it sounds to me like this is a legal work around.

How thick is that skull of yours? The Thai government is arbitrary with the law. I feel like I am talking to a wall. This would be a reasonable and legitimate structure in a place like Hong Kong which has a solid legal system.
 
Back on the original premise, I find that alternating between computer-based and physical tasks helps me get a whole lot more done. Like I might take a half hour break to walk to the mailbox, sweep the kitchen or clean off my night stand and it gets me back mentally focused on my work for another couple of hours.
 
Like I might take a half hour break to walk to the mailbox, sweep the kitchen or clean off my night stand and it gets me back mentally focused on my work for another couple of hours.

But my maid does these things. If I did that, there'd be less stuff for her to do.

I usually like to take a break to pace around the room for a bit though if I am brain storming. I guess that's similar to what you're doing.