Legal Risk Prevention for Foreign Investors in Real Estate(Embezzlement by Nominees)外國投資者房地產投資的法律風險防範（借名登記人侵占資金）
The Right to File Criminal Charges Against Nominees
Land Purchase by Foreigners is Not Absolutely Prohibited
Safeguarding Purchase Funds and Asset Recovery
對借名登記人提起刑事指控的權利
外國人購買土地並非絕對被禁止
保障購房資金與資產追回
For foreign investors, transferring large sums of money to a Thai nominee to purchase land on their behalf poses a significant risk of embezzlement. Supreme Court Judgment No. 2744/2562 addresses this specific scenario. A French national entered into a land purchase agreement and, upon legal advice, appointed a Thai national as a nominee to hold the title deed, lease it back to the foreigner, and sign a fictitious loan agreement. The foreign investor transferred 8 million Baht to the Thai nominee's bank account to finalize the land payment, but the nominee embezzled the funds, failed to pay the seller, and absconded.
對於外國投資者而言，將巨額資金轉交給泰國借名登記人代為購買土地，面臨著極大的資金被侵占風險。最高法院第 2744/2562 號判決專門針對此類情況作出了裁決。一名法國公民簽訂了土地購買協議，並採納法律建議，指定一名泰國公民作為借名登記人持有地契、將土地返租給外國人，並簽署虛假的貸款協議。該外國投資者將 800 萬泰銖轉入泰國借名登記人的銀行帳戶以結清土地款項，但該借名登記人卻將資金侵占，未向賣方付款並潛逃。
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the foreign investor, distinguishing this case from disputes where foreigners illegally operate restricted businesses. The Court clarified that under Sections 86 and 94 of the Land Code, foreign land ownership is not absolutely prohibited from the outset; a foreigner may theoretically obtain permission from the Minister of Interior, or otherwise be legally ordered to dispose of the land within a set period. Therefore, the foreigner's initial contract to purchase land does not have an explicitly illegal objective that voids all rights. Because the foreigner entrusted the funds to the Thai nominee specifically as an agent to pay the seller, the nominee's dishonest misappropriation constituted the criminal offense of embezzlement. The Court recognized the foreign investor as a "de jure injured person" with the legal right to file criminal charges, ultimately sentencing the Thai nominee to imprisonment and ordering the restitution of the 8 million Baht.
最高法院作出了有利於外國投資者的裁決，將此案與外國人非法經營受限業務的糾紛區分開來。法院澄清，根據《土地法》第 86 條和第 94 條，外國人擁有土地從一開始並非被絕對禁止；理論上外國人可以獲得內政部長的批准，或者依法被命令在規定期限內處分土地。因此，外國人購買土地的初始合約並不具有導致所有權利無效的絕對非法目的。由於外國人將資金委託給泰國借名登記人，專門作為向賣方付款的代理人，借名登記人不誠實的挪用行為構成了侵占的刑事犯罪。法院承認該外國投資者為「法定受害人」，擁有提起刑事指控的合法權利，最終判處該泰國借名登記人監禁，並責令退還 800 萬泰銖。
While this judgment confirms that foreign investors can criminally prosecute embezzling nominees to recover funds, relying on such structures remains highly insecure. To prevent severe financial exposure, foreign investors must adopt the following strategies:
儘管該判決確認外國投資者可以對侵占資金的借名登記人進行刑事起訴以追回資金，但依賴此類結構仍然極不安全。為了防止嚴重的財務風險，外國投資者必須採取以下策略：
Direct Payments to Sellers: Never transfer property purchase funds to an agent's or nominee's personal bank account. Always execute payments directly to the property seller via cashier's cheque or bank transfer, ensuring the transaction is transparent and clearly documented.
直接向賣方付款： 切勿將購房資金轉入代理人或借名登記人的個人銀行帳戶。務必透過銀行本票或銀行轉帳直接向房地產賣方付款，確保交易透明且有明確的記錄。
Understand the Limits of Criminal Recourse: Do not view this ruling as a green light for nominee structures. While you may win a criminal embezzlement case to claim your money back if the nominee steals cash, you still cannot legally enforce the civil right to own the actual land under a nominee agreement, as the Land Code prohibits it.
了解刑事追索權的局限性： 不要將此裁決視為認可代名結構的認可。如果借名登記人竊取現金，您雖然可以贏得刑事侵占案件以要求退款，但根據土地法的禁止性規定，您仍然無法在代名協議下合法執行擁有實際土地的民事權利。
Utilize Authorized Investment Channels: Instead of risking capital through untrustworthy individuals, structure the investment legally. For corporate operations, apply for Board of Investment (BOI) promotions, which grant foreign-owned companies the legal right to own land for approved business activities securely and transparently.
利用授權的投資渠道：與其透過不可靠的個人承擔資本風險，不如合法構建投資。對於企業運營，應申請投資促進委員會(BOI)的政策，該政策賦予外資公司為獲批的商業活動安全且透明地擁有土地的合法權利。
コメント