Chapter 12: Penalties

What this means for foreigners

Supreme Court decisions on this section

1. Supreme Court Decision No. 344/2511

   Facts: An alien bought two plots and had the defendant take the transfer for him because his Thai son, the intended transferee, was a minor in Bangkok; he then sued for transfer of one plot to the son.

   Held: The plenary court held that the object of the sale was expressly prohibited because it contravened Land Code sections 86 and 113, so it was void under CCC section 113; the defendant held for the plaintiff and could not claim ownership, but the plaintiff could not force a transfer to his son, and the result had to follow section 96. Dismissal affirmed.

   Why it matters: An alien cannot use the courts to move nominee land into a Thai child's name.

   วัตถุประสงค์ของสัญญาซื้อขายที่พิพาทเป็นการต้องห้ามขัดแจ้งโดยกฎหมาย เพราะขัดกับประมวลกฎหมายที่ดินมาตรา 86 และ 113

2. Supreme Court Decision No. 1810/2511

   Facts: An alien bought two plots at an auction and had a Thai person registered as owner, who later refused to let him sell; the alien counterclaimed for a declaration of ownership or repayment of 30,000 baht.

   Held: Following the plenary decision 344/2511, the sale contract had an object expressly prohibited by Land Code sections 86 and 113 and was void; the alien could obtain neither a declaration of ownership, nor an order to sell under the power of attorney, nor repayment, and the result had to follow section 96. All counterclaims dismissed.

   Why it matters: A nominee arrangement can leave the foreign buyer with no money claim either.

   วัตถุที่ประสงค์แห่งสัญญาซื้อขายที่พิพาทเป็นการต้องห้ามชัดแจ้งโดยกฎหมายเพราะขัดกับประมวลกฎหมายที่ดิน มาตรา 86,113

3. Supreme Court Decision No. 6136/2537

   Facts: The defendant's alien husband bought land and a house in a Thai man's name; the nominee later transferred it to the plaintiff, who sued to evict the widow.

   Held: The sale to the alien and the nominee's holding for him had an object expressly prohibited by Land Code sections 86 and 113 and were void under former CCC section 113 (now section 150); the nominee had no right to sell and the plaintiff transferee had no better right, so she had no standing to evict. Appeal judgment varied, trial dismissal restored.

   Why it matters: A buyer from a nominee may acquire nothing, which cuts both ways for the foreign family.

   ซึ่งมีวัตถุประสงค์ต้องห้ามชัดแจ้งตามมาตรา 86 และมาตรา 113 แห่งประมวลกฎหมายที่ดินจึงตกเป็นโมฆะ

4. Supreme Court Decision No. 62/2524

   Facts: An alien father and his partners divided partnership property so that two titled plots with buildings in Bangkok went to him, with his children and the defendant registered as holding title for him.

   Held: The division agreement in favour of the alien had an object contrary to the Land Code, and the certificate appointing agents to hold title for an alien had an object contrary to Land Code section 113, so both were void and could not be enforced. Judgment reversed, claim dismissed.

   Why it matters: A written nominee acknowledgment is itself void and gives the foreigner nothing to enforce.

   เป็นการตั้งตัวแทนให้ถือกรรมสิทธิ์แทนบุคคลต่างด้าวอันมีวัตถุประสงค์ขัดต่อประมวลกฎหมายที่ดิน พ.ศ. 2497 มาตรา 113

5. Supreme Court Decision No. 1492/2528

   Facts: In a sequel to 62/2524, the alien sued the nominees for an auction of the property; the parties settled in court, the land passing to two Thai parties with the rent paid to the alien for life.

   Held: A court compromise need only fall within or relate to the issues and not breach the law; the transfer to the Thai parties was the alien's disposal of the land under Land Code section 94, not a new nominee holding, so it did not contravene sections 86 and 113 and the consent judgment was valid. Judgment affirmed.

   Why it matters: A negotiated exit that hands title to Thai owners can be approved by the court as a section 94 disposal.

   การจำหน่ายกรรมสิทธิ์ให้แก่จำเลยที่ 2 และที่ 3 จึงหาได้ฝ่าฝืนหรือขัดต่อประมวลกฎหมายที่ดิน มาตรา 86 และมาตรา 113 ไม่

Related sections

• Section 86, Land Code: Acquisition rule that the nominee arrangement circumvents.
• Section 94, Land Code: Disposal by the alien; a compromise transferring title to Thai parties was a section 94 disposal (1492/2528).
• Section 150, Civil and Commercial Code: Void juristic act with a prohibited object (former section 113).

Questions about this section

What is the penalty for holding land as a nominee for a foreigner?

Section 113 provides a fine not exceeding 20,000 baht, imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, for any person who acquires land as agent of an alien or of a juristic person under section 97 or 98. The penalty falls on the agent who takes title, not on the alien.

Is a nominee agreement enforceable if my Thai partner refuses to transfer the land?

No. The Supreme Court has held that a purchase in a Thai person's name for an alien has an object expressly prohibited by Land Code sections 86 and 113 and is void (344/2511, 1810/2511, 6136/2537). The foreigner cannot force a transfer, and the land falls to be disposed of under sections 94 or 96.

Who is punished under section 113, the foreigner or the Thai?

Section 113 punishes the person who acquires land as the alien's agent, which in practice means the Thai who takes title on the foreigner's behalf. The section itself does not impose a penalty on the alien. The civil consequence for the foreigner comes from sections 86 and 94: the arrangement is void and the land must be disposed of.