#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bangkok Post - Breaking news
Bangkok (dpa) - Thailand's booming property sector has been thrown into confusion by a new regulation issued this month that requires all partly foreign-owned companies to prove the source of their funding before purchasing land, industry sources said Tuesday. The new Interior Ministry regulation that went into effect on May 25 has already started to slow sales of housing estates in Thailand's popular seaside resorts, such as Pattaya, Phuket, Hua Hin and Samui Island, which have been specifically targeting well-to-do foreigners as vacation getaways or retirement homes. "The property boom ended on May 25," said Ronachai Krisadaolarn, managing director of Bangkok International Associates, a Bangkok-based legal consultancy firm that caters to foreign clients. Thailand has strict laws prohibiting foreigners from directly purchasing property themselves although loopholes in the law allow them to own land and their houses through long leases or a "nominee company," providing the company is majority Thai-owned. It is common practice for such "shell companies" to include Thai nationals who have been paid to act as nominees to facilitate the deal and who have invested nothing in the purchase. The new regulation, signed by Suraart Thoingniramol, deputy permanent secretary of the Interior Ministry, is designed to halt the use of such companies for property purchases in the future. "If it appears that an alien holds shares or is a director or it is reasonable to believe that a Thai holds shares as a representative of an alien, the officers shall investigate the income of Thais holding shares, delving into the number of years [they have spent] in the current profession and monthly salary," reads a translation of the law. "The provision of necessary evidence is required." The new regulation is actually an enforcement of Thailand's existing laws, legal experts said. "It's not a radical change. It's a radical implementation," Ronachai said. The regulation has already started to stall home sales to foreigners, sources said. "There's a lot of confusion," said Simon Landy, managing director of the Primo Co, a property-development firm. "Some land offices don't know what to do with it, and many have simply stopped transferring land."
Quote |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As a sauna lover, I have visited saunas many many times for 15 years. When I lived in Bangkok I visited saunas about 2 - 3 times a week. When I return to Bangkok to visit my family I also visit saunas almost everyday. I can assure you that there exist some people ( both Asians including Thais and farangs) who look for love and relationship at saunas. I guess you just have to wait for your destiny.....
Quote |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I was told a very interesting statistic yesterday. In the UK where anyone from any nation (including Thais) can buy and do, only 1/2% of all property is owned by foreigners. As we all know we can't carry it out of the country so why don't the politicians understand it would really help this country's economy if they were to open up ownership to all. It is a political hot potato I also know but let's face it, when the Chinese came in and could not buy property they married Thai women and put it in their childrens' names anyway. We live in a Chinese colony. More is the shame as I like dark skinned lads.
Yes, properties in Bangkok and in resorts may be bought but no one is going to buy Somchai from Nakorn Nowhere's paddy fields. Let's get real here and grow the economy.
Quote |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Well...I can't quite agree Ninja.
I met my bf/husband in the sleasiest darkroom in Amsterdam. (Adonis, I guess you'd like to know the name. That was in 1992. And we have been together ever since. I'm here since 1994. So one can be lucky to find a good husband even in the sleasiest darkroom.
Quote |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Usually, the logic behind rules barring foriegners from owning land is that since foreigners are richer than Thais, allowing them to bid for land would cause a rise in land prices. Thai voters as a result would not abe able to afford their dream house and might get angry with the govenrment.
Another fear is that of big foriegn conglomerates buying up all the rice paddy fields, evicting the farmers and turning the acreages into mechanised farms. I'm not saying I agree with this logic, but do see it from a political angle.
Quote |
|