Integrity Legal

While surfing the internet recently this blogger came upon a very interesting posting on the ILW website which discussed the issue of naturalization in the United States and how the naturalization process operates when a prospective United States Citizen who may seek naturalization remains outside of the United States while working for an American company with offices abroad.  To quote directly from an article written by Attorney Cyrus D. Mehta on the website ILW.com:

It is not uncommon for a permanent resident to receive a plum posting for an American corporation overseas or for its subsidiary. This is a frequent occurrence these days in a globalized world, and especially when jobs have become more scarce in the US since the economic downturn. While such an assignment may provide a great boost to the permanent resident’s career, he or she may still wish to preserve the ability to naturalize, but the overseas posting presents a challenge since it may be difficult to maintain continuous residence. One of the key requirements for applying for US citizenship under INA § 316(a) is the need to be physically present for half the time in the US during the qualifying period, which may either be five or three years (if one is married to a US citizen) and to have also resided continuously during this period. The challenges of maintaining residence while on an overseas assignment were addressed in a prior blog, Naturalizing In A Flat World, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/07/naturalizing-in-flat-world.html.

Those reading this blog are well advised to click on the hyperlinks above to read the above cited article in its entirety as the article is very insightful.

Those who are unfamiliar with the overall immigration process should note that visas such as the CR-1 visa and the IR-1 visa (utilized by the immigrant spouses of American Citizens) can place the visa holder on something of a “path to Citizenship”. That being stated, the CR-1 visa only provides the visa holder with conditional lawful permanent residence upon entry as such visas are issued to couples who have been married for less than 2 years at the time of admission to the USA. Meanwhile, the IR-1 visa provides unconditional lawful permanent residence upon admission to the USA and is issued to spouses of American Citizens who have been married for 2 years or more. After remaining in permanent resident status in the USA for 3 years, and maintaining the requisite physical presence required under relevant US law, a permanent resident, married to an American, can file for naturalization to United States Citizenship.

This issue also relates to the K-1 visa (a non-immigrant US fiance visa) because those who enter the United States in K-1 status, get married, and apply for adjustment of status may begin accruing time toward eventual naturalization as soon as the adjustment of status petition is approved. Once an adjustment is approved for a K-1 visa holder, then that individual essentially becomes a CR-1 visa holder with Lawful Permanent Residence. Therefore, the K-1 holder, now permanent resident, must still apply for a lift of conditions before being granted unconditional lawful permanent residence which must precede an eventual naturalization application.

As noted in the article cited above, there may be some US permanent residents who can accrue time toward naturalization while not actually physically in the United States if such an endeavor fits within some of the exceptions present within the statutory framework of relevant US Immigration law. American companies with offices abroad may fit the statutory exception scheme for naturalization notwithstanding foreign residence. However, the unique facts in any case require that those truly interested in this issue must either conduct their own thorough research or retain the assistance of an American attorney as this issue can be highly complex.

Many American companies operating out of the Kingdom of Thailand opt to conduct their affairs pursuant to the privileges accorded to Americans and American companies under the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. So-called “Treaty of Amity Companies” may allow for an American individual or company to own virtually 100% of a Thai enterprise conducting business in Thailand. Amity certification allows American businesses to operate with “National Treatment” and thereby circumvent some of the restrictions placed upon foreign business enterprises pursuant to other relevant Thai law. That said, Amity Treaty certification may not, in and of itself, mean that one working for such a company can accrue time toward naturalization while abroad as such issues are likely best analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

For related information please see: Thai Company or US Company Registration.

Tags: American Amity Treaty, American Amity Treaty Thailand, Amity Treaty Company, CR-1 Visa, Cyrus D. Mehta, ILW.com, INA § 316(a), IR-1 Visa, K-1 Visa, Naturalization, US Fiance Visa, US-Thai Treaty of Amity
Posted in Amity Treaty | No Comments »

The administration of this blog recently noticed an article from the Reuters news agency in which the Chief Executive Officer of General Electric was commenting upon the economic situation in China and how this impacts the relationship between the United States of America and Peoples’ Republic of China in both the economic and political spheres. To quote directly from the Reuters News Service:

(Reuters) – For Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric (GE.N), the 130 year-old American industrial behemoth, the financial crisis marked the end of the age of America’s economic dominance.

This blogger has noticed that there seems to be a level of pessimism regarding the American economy. Although it is currently going through economic turbulence, and has been for a while, the US economy, in this blogger’s opinion; remains one of best countries in the world for trade and economic activity. Those doing business in the USA may enjoy the benefits that come from the American financial, economic, and physical infrastructure. Hopefully, the optimism for which America has, in the past, been noted for will return once the economy returns to an “even keel”. Reuters continues:

But Mr. Immelt said the future will be different. For the next 25 years, he said, the American consumer “is not going to be the engine of global growth. It is going to be the billion people joining the middle class in Asia, it is going to be what the resource-rich countries do with their newfound wealth of high oil prices. That’s the game.”

A lot of that game will be played in China. At a moment when it is compulsory on the American right to pay homage to the exceptionalism of the United States, Mr. Immelt, a lifelong Republican, is matter-of-fact about China’s inevitable rise.

The interesting piece of information that this blogger noted in the aforementioned article was the fact that the G.E. CEO took notice of the fact that the middle class is growing rapidly in Asia. The thought of an Asian middle class numbering 1 billion or more is truly staggering when one takes into account the economic impact of such growth. As Asians in general become more affluent the side effects will likely be increased trade and economic activity as these newly minted members of the middle class use their new found wealth to make purchases of property, goods, and services (in Asia, the EU, UK, and the United States). The most poignant line of this Reuters article, in this blogger’s opinion was:

“It is going to be the biggest economy in the world,” Mr. Immelt said of China. “The only question is when.”

There is little doubt that China has an incredible capacity for growth and those looking international investment or business opportunities are well advised to research the Chinese market. That said, China does not represent the only country in Asia which has economic opportunities that are becoming more readily available to investors and entrepreneurs due to globalization. The Kingdom of Thailand, a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), has investment opportunities in the form of Thai Property, Thai Real Estate, and Thai businesses. Furthermore, for Americans conducting business in Thailand can prove profitable especially since the US-Thai Treaty of Amity allows Americans to own virtually 100% of a Thai Company with Amity Treaty certification (sometimes referred to as an Amity Company).

Meanwhile, the landlocked country of Laos recently opened a Lao Securities Exchange in an effort to raise capital through equity investment. The Kingdom of Cambodia recently announced that a Cambodian Stock Exchange is to be unveiled in mid-2011 while recent reports have noted that Burmese officials hope to be in the process of creating a Myanmar Stock Exchange as well. Such developments remain to be fully realized, but such examples clearly indicate that Mainland China is not the only “game in town” when it comes to investment opportunities and economic growth in Asia.

For related information please see: US Company Registration.

Tags: American Amity Treaty, American Amity Treaty Thailand, Amity Company, Amity Treaty Company, Burma Stock Exchange, Cambodia Business, Cambodia Securities Exchange, Cambodia Stock Exchange, China Business, China Economic Growth, G.E. CEO, General Electric, Jeff Immelt, Lao Securities Exchange, Lao Stock Exchange, Laos Business, Myanmar Securities Exchange, Myanmar Stock Exchange, Thai Company, Thailand Business, Thailand company, US Amity Treaty Thailand, US-Thai Treaty of Amity
Posted in Amity Treaty, Cambodia Business, China Business, Laos Business, Myanmar (Burma) Business, News, Opinion, Thailand Business, Thailand company, Thailand Property, Thailand Real Estate, US Business, US Company Registration | 1 Comment »

It recently came to the administration’s attention that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States is reportedly investigating possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). To quote directly from a recent blog entry written by Ashby Jones on the Wall Street Journal‘s website wsj.com:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether banks and private-equity firms violated bribery laws in their dealings with sovereign-wealth funds, according to people familiar with the matter. Click here for Dionne Searcey and Randall Smith’s article in today’s WSJ; click here for the NYT story; here for the Bloomberg story.

According to the WSJ, the SEC has sent letters of inquiry to banks such as Citigroup as well as private-equity firms including Blackstone Group, the people said. Though the letters didn’t contain specific allegations of bribery, they requested that firms retain documents and asked about the firms’ dealings with sovereign-wealth funds, the people said.

Those who are unfamiliar with the FCPA should note that the provisions of the law deal primarily with matters pertaining to bribery and corruption of foreign officials. Some Americans are under the mistaken impression that companies and individuals operating outside of the United States’ physical boundaries are entitled to engage in activity which amounts to bribery. In fact, this is simply not the case as the United States has a great deal of legislation in place as an attempt to discourage and punish such activity. When the legislation was passed it would appear that the intention was to criminalize activity by those physically abroad (or companies doing business abroad). However, the circumstances in the above cited matters would seem to suggest that those under investigation were operating (at least partially) within the geographical boundaries of the United States. To quote the aforementioned blog posting on wsj.com further:

The letters appear to be tied to a broad Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation of the banking industry, said attorneys who are familiar with past FCPA investigations of other industries. Foreign employees who work on sovereign-wealth funds would be considered government officials and covered by the FCPA, legal experts said.

As of yet, it would appear as though no one noted above has been formally charged in any matter pertaining to the FCPA. Furthermore, it should be noted that until such time as a party has made a pleading or been convicted of a violation of the FCPA they are, in the eyes of the law, innocent.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is an important piece of legislation for Americans and American companies. Pursuant to the provisions of the FCPA, American individuals and corporate entities are precluded from engaging in acts of bribery or, as the title of the act itself suggests, corrupt practices. That said, application of the FCPA must take into consideration the factual circumstances in a given case. Therefore, those conducting business abroad may find that the opinion of American legal experts experienced at handling legal and business matters in jurisdictions outside of the USA can be beneficial by providing unique insight and perspective into the customs and procedures of governmental organizations and officers abroad while maintaining an American attorney’s understanding of the FCPA.

For example, the Kingdom of Thailand has a very different legal system compared to that of the United States. Meanwhile, the business community in Thailand is also dissimilar from that of the USA. An upshot of these facts is that American Citizens and US Companies attempting to conduct business in Thailand may have little idea of how to effectively operate while still complying with laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  The same can be said for many of the nations of Asia as the legal systems, cultural traditions, customs, and trade practices of some countries can prove bewildering to those who are accustomed to conducting business in a more “Western” context. The fact is: the FCPA is a serious piece of legislation with which American companies and individuals must maintain compliance. In some cases, retaining the services of legal counsel to assist in understanding the FCPA and methods of maintaining compliance can prove highly beneficial for both natural and corporate persons.

One can hope that the aforementioned inquiries prove fruitless due to the fact that no violations occurred. Bearing that in mind, if violations of the FCPA occurred, then it would seem highly likely that an organization such as the SEC would be able to uncover them.

For related information please see: Amity Treaty Company or American LLC.

Tags: American Business, American Business Asia, American Business Thailand, banking FCPA Compliance, Blackstone Group, Citigroup, FCPA, FCPA Compliance, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance, Private Equity FCPA, Private Equity Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Sovereign Wealth Funds, US Business, US Business Asia, US Business Thailand, US Company Thailand
Posted in Amity Treaty, Thailand Business, Thailand company, US Business, US Citizenship, US Company Registration, US LLC | No Comments »

Those who track this blog may have noticed that there has been an increase in political activities which have disrupted the otherwise calm political and economic environment in the Kingdom of Thailand. There are many who feel that these disruptions are only temporary and will not prove detrimental over the long term. In the short term, individuals and businesses in Thailand are analyzing some new risks which have manifested themselves over the past 9-12 months. To quote directly from Westlawbusiness.com:

Several companies have recently disclosed risks arising from the political turmoil in Thailand. For example, Priceline.com, an online hotel auctioneer, recently disclosed that “civil unrest in Thailand, a key market for our Agoda business and the Asian business of Booking.com. This may result in “significant year-over-year declines in booking volumes in this market….Thailand has experienced disruptive civil unrest in prior years as well and continued or future civil or political unrest could further disrupt Agoda’s Thailand-based business and operations.”

Communication cable manufacturer General Cable is also reporting that it is subject to business risk arising from unrest in Thailand. The copper, aluminum, and fiber optic wire and cable products provider recently disclosed that its “business is subject to the economic, political and other risks of maintaining facilities and selling products in foreign countries. . . Thailand recently experienced significant political and militant unrest in certain provinces. The country’s elected government was overthrown in September 2006, with an elected government only recently restored.” [emphasis in original]

Political turmoil can have substantial unforeseen consequences for some businesses and business models operating throughout Asia. This is why retaining the assistance of local legal counsel can be advantageous for multinational corporations as professionals with on-the-ground knowledge of local business customs and practices can guide clients away from unforeseen legal, and in some cases; business, risks.

There are many, this author included, who feel that the current political turbulence in Thailand is simply a “bump in the road” eventually leading to overall tranquility and economic prosperity in the Kingdom of Thailand as well as the South East Asia region. Bearing that in mind, those wishing to establish a business or corporate presence in Thailand are well advised to conduct research and due diligence before making irrevocable business decisions as  maintaining a corporate presence in Bangkok, or the emerging markets in Cambodia, Laos, Burma (Myanmar), Malaysia, and Vietnam can be fraught with unforeseen legal and business issues which may not arise in jurisdictions such as the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, or Canada.

Many wishing to do business in Thailand opt to do so under a Thai Limited Company as this type of juristic person provides a measure of limited liability. Limited Liability is often one of the first methods employed by those wishing to hedge against unforeseen future business risks. American businesses may also enjoy many benefits pursuant to the language of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. Regardless of the type of corporate structure, any foreigner wishing to work in the Kingdom of Thailand must obtain a Thai work permit prior to taking up employment pursuant to Thai labor law.

For related information please see: Bangkok Lawyer or Amity Treaty Company.

Tags: Amity Treaty Company, Asian Business, Bangkok Business, Bangkok Lawyer, Bangkok Riots, Cambodia Business, Malaysia Business, Myanmar Business, Southeast Asian Business, Thai Business, Thai Company Incorporation, Thai Company Setup, Thai Limited Company, Thailand Business, Thailand Business Risks, Thailand Company Formation, Thailand company registration, Thailand Political Turbulence, Upheaval in Thailand, US-Thai Treaty of Amity, Vietnam Business
Posted in Amity Treaty, Ecommerce, Thailand Business, Thailand company, Thailand Work Permit, US Business | No Comments »

The New York Times website reported the following:

BANGKOK — Viktor Bout, a Russian businessman who is expected to face gun-running charges in the United States following his extradition from Thailand, expressed confidence on Friday that he would ultimately be exonerated.

Those who are unfamiliar with this case may remember an American film which is supposedly based upon Mr. Bout’s life. The aforementioned article went further to note that:

Mr. Bout, who inspired the movie “Lord of War,” starring Nicolas Cage, is suspected of running a large-scale trafficking organization that provided weapons to governments, rebels and insurgents across the globe.

As a general rule, international extraditions in cases which are covered heavily by the media can be exceptionally tense especially where two different countries wish to see differing outcomes. In this case, the extradition request could be viewed as highly complex, both from a legal as well as political standpoint, and this proceeding would seem to represent an important achievement for American officials as the article went on to observe:

The court decision on Friday… was a victory for the Obama administration, which summoned the Thai ambassador in Washington to the State Department this week to “emphasize that this is of the highest priority to the United States,” a spokesman said. “There have been a lot of conversations of senior administration officials with their Thai counterparts about this,” said one American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity after staying up until 2 a.m. awaiting the news from Bangkok. American officials had feared that Russian pressure would prevail and Mr. Bout might be flying home. “This really was a welcome surprise,” the official said of the court’s decision.  Russia, which had been seeking to prevent Mr. Bout from being placed in the American legal system, reacted angrily. “We regret what, in my view, is an illegal political decision taken by the appellate court in Thailand,” Sergey V. Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said Friday, according to the Interfax news agency. “Based on the information we have at our disposal, the decision was made under very strong outside pressure. This is lamentable.”

The United States of America and the Kingdom of Thailand share a long and amicable relationship as the two countries have a history of friendly bilateral political and economic relations. One of the foremost examples of this relationship is the US-Thai Amity Treaty. That said, the recent decision would seem to have be made on legal grounds and not based upon political considerations. However, not everyone was happy to hear the Thai court’s decision:

After the ruling, Mr. Bout embraced his wife and daughter, who wept. He said nothing to reporters in the courtroom as he was led out in leg irons. The court ordered his extradition within three months… Mr. Bout’s lawyers had argued that the extradition request was part of a pattern of the United States’ reaching beyond its borders to punish its enemies. Chamroen Panompakakorn, Mr. Bout’s principal lawyer, alluded to the rendition of terrorist suspects by the American government and argued that the overall credibility of the United States government had been tarnished after the failed search for unconventional weapons in Iraq.

Regardless of one’s opinion about the decision itself, this case may represent a major milestone in international jurisprudence as the Kingdom of Thailand, the United States of America, and many other jurisdictions around the world continue to work together to bring international and multi-jurisdictional criminal suspects before lawful tribunals in both the USA and abroad. Extradition represents one area of international criminal law where cross border cooperation by authorities is leading to apprehension of suspected criminals all over the globe. In another posting on this blog, the issue of Royal Thai Immigration‘s decision to connect to American warrant databases was discussed. In an increasingly “globalized” world, it is becoming evermore difficult for international criminal suspects to evade government authorities. Meanwhile, American authorities’ efforts to apprehend those with an American criminal warrant, fugitive warrant, bench warrant, or arrest warrant continue unabated. Those who find that they have an outstanding American warrant are well advised to seek the assistance of competent counsel in the form of a licensed American attorney in order to deal with the matter in accordance with all applicable laws.

For further related information please see: Warrant For My Arrest.

Tags: American Attorney, Amity Treaty, arrest warrant, Criminal Law, Criminal Matters, Criminal Procedure, criminal warrant, Extradition, Extradition Treaty, Fugitive Warrant, US -Thailand Extradition Treaty, US Extradition, US warrant, US-Thai Amity Treaty, Warrant for Arrest, warrant for my arrest
Posted in Amity Treaty, Extradition, General Legal Information, News, US Warrants | No Comments »

In a recent posting on ThaiVisa.com, this issue of Thailand’s economic situation was discussed. In recent months, Thailand has been the victim of political turmoil, but many are hopeful that the future will bring tranquility and economic progress. To quote the aforementioned posting:

Bank of Thailand (BOT) Deputy Governor Bandid Nijathaworn yesterday listed the five factors as the global economic momentum, tourism recovery, drought conditions, trends in the policy interest rate and access to funding by small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs). He said businesses, especially SMEs, must monitor these indicators closely, so they can adjust quickly to any situation. Bandid made his remarks at a seminar entitled “Thai SMEs in the Era of a Free Asian Economy”, hosted by Bangkok Bank. He said the first factor was whether the global economy would enjoy a healthy recovery.

The US economy has yet to pick up fully, while some European countries are experiencing public debt problems. However, many Asian countries are seeing strong economic growth, so if the US and European economies do not pick up more in the second half, Thai exports will have to focus more on Asian markets.
The second factor is the tourism industry. It recovered in six months after the 2003 Sars epidemic, five months after the 2004 tsunami and seven months after the 200809 [sic] political turmoil. It is expected to take six months to recover from the latest round of political turmoil, but that will also depend on the global economy and government measures to entice tourists back to Thailand. The third factor is the draught, and it remains to be seen how that will play out. The fourth one is the policy interest rate, which has been kept at a low 1.25 per cent in a bid to boost economic recovery. Many times, the BOT has indicated that if the domestic economy recovers and the global economic crisis abates, it may consider increasing the rate at an appropriate time.

The fifth factor that could affect second half economic growth is SMEs’ loan accessibility. SMEs have yet to enjoy full access to loans, which means they still suffer a high cost burden. Bandid said many commercial banks had stepped in to help SMEs gain easier access to loans. He believes the country’s economy will grow 45 per cent this year. Bandid said while Thailand’s economy showed positive growth in the first quarter, the economy was affected in the second quarter by the political turmoil. Tourism suffered severely from the chaos, but other key sectors were also hurt, such as agriculture, exports and real estate.

Many agree that it will be interesting to watch Thailand’s recovery as many are of the opinion that Thailand is set for further economic growth. Many Expatriates feel that although tourism figures are lower than desired the country’s many natural attractions will act as a catalyst for new growth in tourism. Furthermore, Thailand boasts of better infrastructure relative to many of the other jurisdictions in the region. Also, Thailand’s position as a key actor in the Association of SouthEast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will likely result in a better overall position for the Thai economy moving forward, when compared with other countries in the region.

Finally, Thailand’s positive relationships with countries such as the United States and Japan, as embodied in the US-Thai Amity Treaty and the Japanese-Thai Free Trade Agreement, respectively, are indicative of Thailand’s ability to effectively negotiate longstanding mutually beneficial trade arrangements. Some believe that Thailand’s economic situation remains poised for growth notwithstanding recent disturbances.

For information about business travel to Thailand please see: Thailand business visa.

Tags: Amity Treaty, Thai Business News, Thailand Business News, Thailand Business Visa, US-Thai Treaty of Amity
Posted in Amity Treaty, General Legal Information, News, Thailand Business | No Comments »

For regular readers of this blog, it is probably no surprise that some of the most recent USCIS Service Center processing time estimates are being put up as a courtesy to readers and the immigrant community at large. However, we have begun adding other visa category processing time estimates as there may be those in Thailand interested in either the L1 visa for intracompany transferees or the E2 visa for those trading in the United States under the US-Thai Treaty of Amity.

The following are the processing time estimates from the California Service Center as of January 31, 2010:

The following are the processing time estimates for the Vermont Service Center as of January 31, 2010:

Please note that these estimates are for USCIS processing only and do not include processing time for an application at the National Visa Center or at the US Embassy or US Consulate that will ultimately adjudicate a foreign national’s visa application. Please be advised that recent changes implemented by NVC may have a dramatic impact upon the overal K3 Visa process, but these policies should not effect the processing of a K1 visa.

For information about assisting a loved one with US visa obtainment please see: Thai Girlfriend Visa.

Tags: Amity Treaty, CR1 Visa, E2 Visa, E2 Visa Thailand, I-129f, I-130, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Thailand, L1 Visa, L1 Visa Thailand, Thai Girlfriend Visa, Treaty of Amity, US-Thai Treaty of Amity
Posted in Amity Treaty, CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, National Visa Center, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 9 Comments »

The Treaty of Amity between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Thailand (US-Thai Treaty of Amity) allows American Citizens to own virtually one hundred percent of a Thai company. This can prove highly beneficial to American expatriates in Thailand who wish to conduct business. That being said, there are restrictions to the types of activity that an Amity Treaty Company can undertake. Most notable amongst the restricted activities are: land ownership, internal communications, internal transportation, fiduciary functions, and the liberal professions.

Under Thai law, there is a de facto prohibition placed upon foreigners when it comes to land ownership. This means that foreign nationals are not permitted to take freehold title to Thai property without first obtaining permission from the Thai Minister of the Interior. This prohibition is not all-encompassing as foreign nationals are permitted to take freehold title to Thai condominiums. However, the condominium complex must comport to the relevant provisions of the Thai Condominium Act. Most notable among the requirements in the Thai Condominium Act is the provision that a Thai condo complex must be primarily owned by Thai nationals, meaning that 51% of the Condo units must be owned by Thais while 49% percent of the units may be owned by foreigners.

In many cases, a condominium complex is owned by a company in Thailand. Some opt to own a condo in this way in order to make selling the condominium easier, while others initially purchase the condo indirectly through a corporate entity. In either case, the practice is technically legal. Although, use of so-called “nominee shareholders,” is illegal in Thailand and Thai authorities are increasingly on the lookout for corporate structures utilizing nominees. That being said, the definition of “nominee” is somewhat vague.

This leads us back to the issue of Amity Treaty Companies. Amity Companies are specifically precluded from ownership of Thai real estate pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty of Amity, while the Thai Condominium Act allows foreigners to own a Condominium outright. This begs the question: can an Amity Treaty Company own a Thai Condo in the same manner as a foreign natural person could? This author has not adequately settled this question in his own mind and welcomes any comments regarding this issue. The provisions of the Treaty of Amity preclude land ownership and although many believe that Condo ownership is simply ownership of a unit, the Chanote does pass title to an interest in the underlying land, so there would seem to be a compelling argument that a condo owner is something of a landowner and, if so, this practice would likely be precluded under the provisions of the Amity Treaty.

Tags: Amity Treaty, Amity Treaty Company, nominee, nominee shareholder, nominees, Thai Company, Thai Condo, Thai Condominium, Thai Real Estate, Thailand Condo, Thailand Condominium, Thailand Real Estate, Thailand Treaty of Amity, US-Thai Treaty of Amity
Posted in Amity Treaty, Thailand Business, Thailand company, Thailand Condo, Thailand Property, Thailand Real Estate | No Comments »

In recent weeks there has been some speculation about new regulations with regard to Thai work permits. In February of 2010, the Ministry of Labour regulations regarding work permits are to be updated. These updated rules will likely result in more stringent measures with regard to foreign labor in Thailand. Recently, there has been some talk about liberalizing certain sections of the Foreign Business Act (FBA). This Act restricts the type of activities that foreign nationals are allowed to engage in while present in the Kingdom of Thailand.

Under the provisions of the FBA, there are three lists of restricted activities. List 1 is the most restricted and is unlikely to be liberalized anytime in the near future. List 2 is also unlikely to be opened up to foreign participation anytime soon, but this is more likely to happen when compared to list 1. Finally, list 3 lists those activities that are the most likely to be opened up to foreign competition. There have been those in the current government floating the idea of liberalizing list 3, but the upshot of this would be more stringent enforcement of current work permit rules.

This leads us to the point of this post: what will happen to those certified under the US-Thai Amity Treaty? Under the provisions of this Treaty, American Citizens are accorded certain privileges when it comes to operating a business in the Kingdom of Thailand. In most cases, changes to the Foreign Business Act have little impact upon those operating under the Treaty as Treaty companies are accorded “national treatment.” This means that once a company has an Amity Treaty Certificate they are viewed, in the eyes of Thai law, as a Thai company. However, work permit regulations are applied to Thai companies in the same way that they would be applied to foreign companies. Therefore, those operating under a Treaty Certificate must still adhere to relevant Ministry of Labour regulations. Consequently, although the work permit regulations will not effect an Amity Treaty Company per se, they have a collateral impact upon any foreigners working in said company as the provisions of the Treaty only apply to the juristic entity and not to any of the foreign nationals working for that entity.

At this time, the US-Thai Treaty of Amity is still the law of the land in both the Kingdom of Thailand and the United States of America. There are certain benefits enjoyed by nationals of both countries as Americans are entitled to Treaty of Amity protection when conducting most types of business in Thailand while Thais are granted Treaty Trader visas should they meet the requisite qualifications pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Treaty.

Tags: Amity Treaty, Thai Company, Thai work permits, Thailand company, Thailand Work Permit, US-Thai Amity Treaty, US-Thai Treaty of Amity
Posted in Amity Treaty, Thailand Business, Thailand company, Upcoming Legislation | No Comments »

Many people in Thailand, both foreign and Thai, choose to incorporate Thai businesses. Thailand is one of Southeast Asia’s major trading locales and as a result many individuals and business concerns need a corporate presence in the Kingdom of Thailand. In many cases, companies are incorporated with substantially similar articles of incorporation. That being said, some companies opt to incorporate with unique provisions regarding different types of shareholder rights in the corporate charter. These different types of rights can have a major impact upon the running of the business because these rights can have a collateral impact upon employee compensation, shareholder vote tabulation, and banking issues. Therefore, an understanding of share classification can be helpful to those who are thinking of incorporating a Thai company.

In the articles of association (also known as articles of incorporation) of a Thai limited company, one could denote the rights associated with different share classifications. Therefore, some shares could simply hold an equity interest in the company while not having any voting rights at shareholder meetings. Other types of shares could hold little or no equity in the company, but maintain voting rights regarding the Directors of the company. If a company owns Thai property, there could be specific shares that have certain rights in relation to the Thai property concerned. For example, a Thai company that owns Thai real estate could place special rights in the hands of certain shareholders with regard to said real estate. If a Thai company owns a Thai Condo, then share classification could be used to delineate the rights of individuals with regard to the Condo premises.

For those who are interested in Thai limited companies certified under the US-Thai Amity Treaty, these same principals could apply to an Amity Company. One shareholder could retain a sizable equity holding while another holds certain voting rights. The same could be said about a Thai limited company that has obtained a Foreign Business License. A company such as this could incorporate special shareholder rights in the provisions of the articles of association or incorporation.

These issues bleed into the realm of Thai Immigration because the shareholder in a Thai company could apply for a Thai business visa. The basis for such an application could be an impending shareholder’s meeting that the foreign national must attend. The approval of such an application would depend upon the Thai Embassy or Consulate concerned. If present in the Kingdom on another type of visa, an O visa, for example, it may be possible for the shareholder to attend a meeting in order to vote his or her shares.

Tags: Amity Treaty, Amity Treaty Company, Corporate Law, Limited Company Thailand, Shareholder Classification, Thai Company, Thai Limited Company, Thailand company, Thailand limited company, Treaty of Amity Company, US-Thai Amity Treaty, Voting Rights
Posted in Amity Treaty, Thailand Business, Thailand company, Thailand Condo, Thailand Embassy, Thailand Property, Thailand Real Estate, Thailand Visa | 22 Comments »