Foreigners can no longer buy houses in Thailand via company.

Post by **hogus** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:56 pm

Burger wrote:
Presumably my Thai-shareholders canâ€™t dispose such a sum; therefore I can circumvent this again by giving them a loan.
Why do you have shareholders on your company who can not afford the shares ? Your lawyer done a bad job IMO. (Remember the part everyone says about seeing a 'proper' lawyer).

Oh, no worries, my lawyer has done a good job...my company construction is different.
I just wanted to know, because you said before :

Burger wrote: The foreigner in the company can loan the company the deficit

Post by **Burger** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:08 pm

hogus wrote:

Why do you have shareholders on your company who can not afford the shares ? Your lawyer done a bad job IMO.
Oh, no worries, my lawyer has done a good job...my company construction is different.

Different to having shareholders who can prove they have the finds to purchase the shares ? And you think that he has done a 'good job' ? Jesus.

I just wanted to know, because you said before :
The foreigner in the company can loan the company the deficit

THE DEFICIT TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY, not deficit to purchase the shares, ITS EFFIN DIFFERENT.
Read it properly and stop wasting people's time Hogus.

Cheers,

Burger

Post by **johnrxx99** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:57 pm

Burger - I really don't like saying this but you talk in an untruthful way. Why? What do you do for a living?

Are you a politician or a property developer because you write in a way that clearly sets out to mislead people. You are cleaver and cunning - you could be either.

I am writing to people who are reading this and other threads wondering if Burger, and the others who support his view, are telling the truth.

They are not in my view.

Look, Thailand is Thailand. Croyden or Rome it is not. Have you been to India, Malaya, China etc. If you have you should know better. If you haven't, what the hell do you think you're doing. Caveat emptor sucker!

As I see it the position is:-

1. If you wish to emigrate to Thailand and buy a home, you can spend UK 50-100K + to live in a splendid property with what looks like the proper paperwork. If younhave no wish ever to move how ever old you are, or you can write off a large part of the money you've paid, no sweat. Whilst not legal (unless you deposit 40m baht) the chances are no one will come along and kick you out, Thailand being its lovely self. HOWEVER, they could.

2. If you buy a property by taking a number of 30 year leases you get effectively what you can buy in the UK in terms of legal occupation. However, there is no provision for statutory renewal and thus the value of the land element will reduce over the years. The value of the physical building may belong to you depending how the deal has been structured. It is unclear how the split of value between building and land would be arbitrated but that would not be too difficult although expensive in professional costs. Of course you could always demolish the building at the last resort. Clearly the land owner would pay you something, not too dissimilar to the the position in the UK before statutory rights were introduced.

3. If you are buying a business which includes land, the situation is no different than an ordinary residential purchaser it would seem. Burger uses the conflicting language in land and commercial legislation but I can tell you Thailand has probably only 1% of the number of statutes in the UK so it's not that difficult to work out the real situation.

4. A condo can be legally owned subject to the 49% rule.

Conclusion: you are mad if you are moving to live perminently in Thailand and think you are buying a plot of land with a house on. It is more complicated than what you are used to. A freehold does not exist for a farang, UNLESS YOU DEPOSIT 40m BHAT.

If you want an investment, as well as a home, which has a reasonable chance of being valued and sold at any stage, buy a condo or 2/3 x 30 year leases or bring 40m bhat into the country.

Now that may be a good idea if you can find a reliable IFA in Thailand but personally I like to manage my own pension fund in UK stocks. The internet has given my generation the opportunity to live anywhere on earth - who needs to own property for gods sake when you can trade stocks by a beach in the tropics. Anyway, I digress.

I think that sums it up apart from one VIP.

If I were an administrator of this site I would put together a "sticky" and pin it up front, a bit like the National newspapers. Allowing this discussion to continue feels to me as though the site wishes the misinformation being spread by Burger and others to continue.

OK, some of you may have a vested interest cos you don't want to see your wealth reduced, who does, but the answer is to face it up and don't let others fall into the same trap.

Running a public board carries responsibilties.

Post by **Burger** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:19 am

johnrxx99 wrote:

Burger - I really don't like saying this but you talk in an untruthful way. Why? What do you do for a living?
Are you a politician or a property developer because you write in a way that clearly sets out to mislead people. You are cleaver and cunning - you could be either.

I have made it clear on here previously that I am in the property business yes.
Can you give me an example of where you feel I have spoken in an untruthful way please ?

Burger

Post by **tuktukmike** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:21 am

You know i cant agree with your assumption on this.

When you get a visit in your 5 mill house and they ask for your shareholders details i see the walls come tumbling down.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the future, the Business Development Department plans to examine existing registered companies with foreign shareholders to determine whether they breach the new rules or not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets all face reality here for just one moment, just how many people have any idea as to who are their shareholders, it has and still is the case that lawyers put anyone they could find on your company and 100% not high paid executives, Fact.

Of course i bow down to burger as he seems the only person to have these high flyers on his alleged company,

I would bet 99% + dont have a clue and have never once met them.

Mike.

Aha, at last we have it, so would you like to let us all know to what extent you are involved in property.

Me thinks you must be a cunninglinguist or masterdebater.

(loves ya really burger xxx)

Post by **johnrxx99** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:28 am

Burger - I don't have to. The readers will do that for me.

Anyway, it is not you I'm waiting to hear from.

Post by **Burger** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:32 am

johnrxx99 wrote:

Burger - I don't have to. The readers will do that for me.
Anyway, it is not you I'm waiting to hear from.

Well I would like to address it for you but if you can not give me an example I can not take your claim seriously.

Just for the record, being in the property business does not preclude you from being honest etc. If you go back through the posts I have criticised developers, builders, estate agents on here before, ie: not just painting a rosy picture.
Also I practice what I preach and have several properties in the company set-up, just like others do, ie put my own money where my mouth is.

Cheers,

Burger

Post by **tuktukmike** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:39 am

You know burger, it would have been much better if you had been honest from the start.

Of course i know and some others knew, thats what has made this whole issue so sad.

Others could have been mistaken for thinking you were unbiased.

Mike.

Post by **johnrxx99** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:40 am

Oh, and by the way Burger.

Now you have declared you are a property developer you have admitted that you have a vested interest in this discussion.

By so doing, you are claiming to be a professional involved in a trade and therefore in possession of special knowledge in comparison to a normal punter.

Therefore, should a normal punter read what you say and be so reassured that they enter into a deal to buy in Thailand, you are liable for part the losses of said punters should a loss in value occur following the recent clarification by the Thai government. The developer they bought from would be liable for the remiander.

I should add, I don't know if you are British but if you are you should be ashamed. Ripping off your fellow countryman in such a way is detestiable.

If you post again on this site I am considering applying to close it down.

MODERATORS TAKE NOTE.

Post by **Burger** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:41 am

tuktukmike wrote:

When you get a visit in your 5 mill house and they ask for your shareholders details i see the walls come tumbling down.

Have you STILL not read the government regulation on the other thread regarding shareholders, they tell you exactly what information they are looking for. It's in black and white.

In the future, the Business Development Department plans to examine existing registered companies with foreign shareholders to determine whether they breach the new rules or not.

And the new rule is that you have to provide bank statements for each Thai shareholder. As I've said several times THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING YOUR SOLICITOR DOES ALREADY WHEN SETTING YOUR COMPANY UP CORRECTLY. Where's the issue in that Mike ?

Lets all face reality here for just one moment, just how many people have any idea as to who are their shareholders, it has and still is the case that lawyers put anyone they could find on your company and 100% not high paid executives, Fact.

Incorrect, they use proffesional high paid people if you used a decent solicitor to set the company up. If you went to a small-time 'shopping mall' solicitor to save money then you should know what you are letting yourself in for.

Mike for someone who has been so vocal on the shareholder issue you lost all credibility with me tonight with your very naive comments on company structures.
You did not know the difference between 'share capital' and 'loans for company investment' after company set-up.
So basic Michael.

Burger

Post by **Burger** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:44 am

tuktukmike wrote:

You know burger, it would have been much better if you had been honest from the start.
Of course i know and some others knew, thats what has made this whole issue so sad.

Mike your assumption that someone involved in a certain business can not act properly says more about you than me.
So everything you say and promote about tuk tuk's is biased hey ?
Shame on you

I understand you have received a big bloody nose this week when all your previous claims turned to dust, it is so obvious that you are now lashing out. Deal with it mate and move on like a man.

Burger

Post by **johnrxx99** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:46 am

Burger - did you go to University for three years and practice for 2 to be qualified?

MODERATORS ARE YOU ON HOLIDAY?

Post by **Burger** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:47 am

johnrxx99 wrote:

Oh, and by the way Burger.
Now you have declared you are a property developer you have admitted that you have a vested interest in this discussion.
By so doing, you are claiming to be a professional involved in a trade and therefore in possession of special knowledge in comparison to a normal punter.
Therefore, should a normal punter read what you say and be so reassured that they enter into a deal to buy in Thailand, you are liable for part the losses of said punters should a loss in value occur following the recent clarification by the Thai government. The developer they bought from would be liable for the remiander.
I should add, I don't know if you are British but if you are you should be ashamed. Ripping off your fellow countryman in such a way is detestiable.
If you post again on this site I am considering applying to close it down.
MODERATORS TAKE NOTE.

Ha Ha, John you are laughable.
You really think that a person involved in a business can not be impartial ? Says more about you than me.

Ripping off your fellow countryman in such a way is detestiable

Can you give me an example please or is this ANOTHER wild claim you can not back up ?

Burger

Post by **tuktukmike** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:48 am

Burger after tonights revelation i dont anymore feel the need to reply as the members will make their own mind up.

None of my claims turned to dust, only acording to burgers world.

As for the tuk-tuks let me remind you of the most important factor.

You own 100% of my tuk tuks xx.

Mike.

Post by **Burger** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:59 am

tuktukmike wrote:

Burger after tonights revelation i dont anymore feel the need to reply as the members will make their own mind up.

Mike, you know full well people know Im in the property business, if only you read posts properly and can remember things you would know.

None of my claims turned to dust, only acording to burgers world.

Only the one where you hung your hat on the governments 'crackdown' on foreign companies and their shareholders only to read the actual government's new regulation and find it nothing new. Dust as I said.

No comment on your amazing lack of knowledge about share capital and laons for investment ?? The very core of your argument over the months, now you reveal you do not know the difference.
Revelations indeed Mike

Burger