Jockey

I visited HH Hospital last week and remember thinking the place looked unusually quiet and a lot less busy than normal.

Thank you to everyone for all the help and advice. I decided to go to the Bluport immigration today and I can now confirm that I only need 800k for two months before the application date. The rule is either proof of regular income of at least 65k a month or have 800k or more in your Thai bank account 2 months before the application. You also need 800k or more for 3 months after the application, and at least 400k for the other 7 months. I was given written confirmation of this rule.

 https://www.immigration.go.th/en/?p=14714

On the filing date, the applicant must have account deposited (saving / fixed account) in a bank in Thailand of no less than
Baht 800,000 for the past three months. For the first year only, the applicant must have proof of a
deposit account in which said amount of funds has been maintained for no less than 60 days prior to
the filing date; So not good news. It has to be in the bank for 3 months not 2.

Thanks, that is good news if true, but someone has just informed me... The 800K needs to be in the bank for 3 months for renewal, only 2 months for initial application, unless things have changed.

https://immigrationbangkok.com/thai-retirement-visa-2/

I have a VISA question / problem. I made a mistake and didn't realize I need to renew my 12 month retirement VISA on Sept 27th. I thought I had until December. I have let my bank account fall below 800,000 baht, so even if I send money from the UK into my Thai bank to top up my account to get it above 800k, I will not have the stipulated 3 months 800k needed. I receive a UK company pension and in the past I could have taken my pension payment slips to the British Embassy and they would have given me a letter to give to the Thai Immigration to account for the shortfall, but apparently I can't do that anymore. Can anyone give me advice on how I can proceed?

Thank you so much for your replies. I use Transferwise and this is what it looks like on my bank statement: 

So you don't think this will be accepted because it doesn't state "International Transfer"? How about I also show them my UK Bank account statement which looks like this:

I can also take along the receipt of each transfer from Transferwise. So for each transaction I would have proof of the money going out of my UK bank account, receipt from Transferwise of the transfer from UK into the Bangkok Bank, and my Bangkok Bank bankbook statement, together with a letter from my bank.

My Immigration office is Hua Hin and I can show proof of a pension, but my pension only covers about 80% of the payment. If I can do this it will save me a load of money!

Hopefully this is a straight forward question, but somehow I feel some of you will have different opinions because I can't seem to get a straight forward answer when I speak to my friends about it and my local Thai immigration folks don't seem to understand the question I'm asking them! I will try to keep this as simple as possible. 2,000 UK pounds, is currently worth just over 75,000 Thai baht. If I send 2k UK pounds every month from my UK bank into my Thai bank, and can show immigration my bank book having made these transfers on the same day each month for 12 straight months, will that be sufficient to satisfy the rules to qualify for a non immigration O retirement visa without having to have 800k baht or 400k baht in my account? I suppose the question relates to the rule that the foreigner must have evidence of having income of no less than THB 65,000 or 800k baht or 400k baht in his Thai bank account. What constitutes "evidence"? Will the Bank Book showing the regular money transfers be enough evidence?

The Guidelines for this matter are as follows:

(1) Must have been granted a non-immigrant visa (Non-Im)

(2) Must be 50 years of age or over

(3)  Must have evidence of having income of no less than THB 65,000 or;

(4) At least 2 months prior to filing date, and at least 3 months after being granted permission, the alien must have fund deposited in a bank in Thailand of no less than THB 800,000. The alien can withdraw the fund 3 months after being granted permission and the remaining balance must be no less than THB 400,00 or;

(5) Must have and annual earning and fund deposited with a commercial bank in Thailand totaling of no less than THB 800,000 until the filing date. The said fund must remain in the account prior to and after the permission is granted and the alien can make a withdrawal under the same conditions as stated in (4).

I fear the date has been chosen so that an unpopular verdict will will have the least impact with Farangs who will be otherwise distracted concentrating on their Christmas festivities.

Of the four Farangs its obvious three of them are innocent. Both Thai guys are pointing only to the one Farang so let the other three go.

Why not join the Chiang Mai Hash House Harriers? http://www.chiangmaihhh.com/ You don't need to be fit. Many just walk.

Did the police manage to find out who mugged the British womanthe night before the murders? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11111774/Thai-motorbike-gang-mugged-British-women-night-before-backpacker-couple-were-murdered-on-Koh-Tao-island.html

What seems to becoming clear (to me anyway), is that the Thai police are not used to having to present cases to the court to the standards expected in western countries. If this case did not have such a wide international interest, then I suspect the word of the police would be enough to convict the accused.

The likely reason the police case is so unprofessional is because this is the normal standard for them. Pinning crimes on poor immigrants by tampering with evidence in order to protect rich criminals would normally be a very easy thing to do, but in this case the spotlight is on both them and the Thai justice system. The police have demonstrated their surprise that the defense lawyers are actually questioning their integrity and have angrily confronted the defense team outside the court, actually lecturing to the defense team that their lawyers should be helping the police with the case, not helping the accused. The police are not happy and seem very uncomfortable with this chain of events.

Hopefully this case might be a springboard for the Thai justice system to improve and bring its forensic standards into the 21st century.

Police in Thailand asked their witness to lie and say he seen the whole crime. And the 75 YO security guard whent to court and told the judge what the police wanted him to do. now he is missing...... So thats what we are dealing with...No evidence need be present. Theycan manufactur their own well enough. This was attempted murder that carries a 20 year sentance in Thailand

Are you sure about this statement you have made? Who is this 75 year old security guard that is missing?

I have not had an opinion till now on this case. Now I do and hope these judges have common sense.

I have no idea as I said in my last post how a condom is part of the evidence and if a proper DNA test was done I am 99% certain

it will come up without and DNA of the Myanmar suspects.

I have been a journalist for more than 30 years. covering many rape/murder scenes. Never in my reporting history has a condom been used by someone who is

raping and murdering someone. That type of mind set does not say " OH I am going to have sex with this person I will murder later so I should where a condom" or the other mind set is

" I Had better wear a condom so I don't leave my DNA"

Unless it is a boyfriend/girlfriend. husband/wife situation I don't think the mastermind of this murder will use a condom .

This whole case smells I hope these guy guilty or not have good lawyers

Also, if you were using a condom would you just throw it away on the beach to leave as evidence? What if that part of the beach is regularly used by young party goers for sex? The Thai police have said the Burmese guys sneaked up on David & Hannah having sex. They do not look very strong and I find it very difficult to believe they fought off both of them, just happened to find a garden hoe then take time to put a condom on before the rape? Hopefully this part of the evidence will be scutinised during the defence.

Hopefully some things will fall into place when Montriwat Tuwichian is questioned by the defence about his 15th September early morning jog in his pants.

Meanwhile, investigators detained Montriwat Tuwichian, 45, a younger brother of Mr Woraphan, after confirming Mr Montriwat is the Asian-looking suspect caught insecurity camera images a few hours before the two Britons were found dead on the beach on the morning of Sept 15.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/search/simple.do;jsessionid=77520D0824208C96EC15C72B6700A0C8?searchString=koh+tao&pageNumber=1&articleTypes=+news+opinion+advice&pageLength=5&destinationSectionId=219&sectionId=69&publicationName=mirror&sortString=publishdate&sortOrder=desc

Unfortunately I don't think its possible for the defence to question Montriwat as Montriwat is not on trial. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am.

So many things are wrong with this case. It would be helpful if someone took the time to list each event pertaining to the case in chronological order. For instance, Is it true one of the first headlines pertaining to this case was that the police wish to arrest the headman's son, then the policeman leading the case was taken off it, a new guy took over and immediately proclaimed the headman's son innocent happily taking smiling pictures with him for the media? The new policeman on the case said forensic DNA evidence proved the headman's son was innocent. How could this be? Apparently there is no DNA testing available on Kho Tao so the evidence has to go to Bangkok where it takes about 48 hours to process. Then the (alleged) doctored CCTV puts the headman's son in Bangkok the day after the murders, but there are many who saw him on KT on day of murder. All very suspicious behavior.

1. The crime scene is totally contaminated with hundreds turning up for a media circus on the beach.

2. Headlines that the headman's son is wanted for the murder, the chief of police investigation is taken off the case then immediately the new chief on the case proclaims the headman's son innocent.

3. The police keep making contradictory statements to the media.

4. Headlines that a Scotsman flees the Island after allegedly being threatened and hounded by a "mafia" gang who threaten to pin the case on him and hang him in the woods.

5. A man claims he is allegedly beaten up and tortured by police trying to frame him for the murders.

6. Two Burmese young men make confessions then immediately allege they were beaten up and tortured to extract the confessions.

7. Confusion over ownership of mobile phones makes the evidence look weak.

8. The Prime Minister congratulates the police on a job well done!

9. The police claim the evidence is perfect.

10. The courts keep telling the police the evidence is not good enough to be presented in court and ask them to go back and improve their case.

11. Claims from Britain they have DNA evidence that contradicts the police DNA results.

12. The defense asks the court to re-examine the DNA but it has all gone missing or has been used up. Effectively, there is no DNA evidence for presentation to the court. Only the police word that it was "perfect"

13. The head of police threaten the defense team outside the court telling them they should be supporting the police not the accused!

Am I missing anything important?

I prefer this version of what happened on 7/7

< Snipped: extraordinarily long youtube video >

Do you have an Executive Summary?

Verint Systems is the security firm that is responsible for the CCTV surveillance cameras, in the London Underground rail network, and it is an Israeli company, with approximately 1000 employees. This documentary explores why no CCTV footage of the four Muslims boarding the tube-trains has been released by Verint; who claim that their cameras were not working. Why? Because the four Muslims were not on the tube-trains that blew up. Regarding the 7/7/2005 terrorist attacks in London, the documentary looks at the facts and at what we were told, and compare them. Then, using Ockham's Razor and common-sense, let us see what conclusions can be drawn, so we can all understand what most likely really did happen that day.

I prefer this version of what happened on 7/7

You are more than welcome to join the Hua Hin Hash House Harriers http://www.h2h3-cah3.com/

Dear Thailand,

Remember last week you questioned why the US put Thailand alongside countries experiencing the most significant human rights setback?

This is why.

Oh please!!!

Those kids went there with full knowledge they would be breaking the current laws. Whether they agree with them or not they earned whatever punishment is meeted out to them. They could have found another way to show their displeasure with the junta without breaking any laws. And NO! I am not a junta lover or hater.

You are right - they are kids. They have already been punished enough. They should be allowed home now.

I just hope common sense prevails and they drop the case, give the kids a severe taking to and let them go home!

If they keep these kids in custody, its all going to blow up in the governments face in respect of poor perception abroad and a stronger will of the Thai people to get back to a democratically elected government.

Better for everyone to free them all now or as soon as is administratively possible to save face all round.

A thirty year lease is not a good idea, the owner of the land can borrow from a bank useing the land as surety, don't pay the loan the bank takes the land back and guess what ? You have no lease haul ass.

As explained to me by my lawyer.

I don't think your lawyer explained fully perhaps, but if you have a legitimate 30 year lease, the lease must be registered at the land office and the chanote is updated to show the land is leased, therefore the bank should not be lending based on the surety of the land, unless the bank is prepared to become landlord of the lease in the event of non payment of the loan.

I have lived here 12 years. In that time I bought a house by creating a Thai company. I bought for about 5 million baht and sold for 9 million a couple of years later. I was lucky I sold during a property "frenzy". I have similarly bought land and sold at profit / loss using the same type of company structure. I also know many people who have bought AND sold using the same method. The great thing about selling a house that is owned by a company is that you only need to sell / transfer the shares of the company which negates the need to visit the land office.

That said, buying land using a shell company is a risk which I think many are willing to take. Many others, (obviously some of the posters on here), think that the risk is not worth taking. In my years living here I have read many articles on this forum and through other media with shock headlines "LAND OFFICE TO CLAMP DOWN ON LAND OWNERSHIP OF THAI COMPANIES" but the big clamp down never seems to materialize. That is not to say there won't be a massive purge of this type of ownership in the future, but many who have "the company" ownership feel that should the massive purge start happening, they will have time to change the ownership structure of the land by selling it to a trustworthy Thai who then leases the land back to them.

Interestingly, I know of a person who owns a legal office who has assisted foreigners setting up thousands of companies with his and his co-workers owning at least 51% of these companies. The foreigners owning the remaining 49% or less. The foreigner thinks he has control of the company because an "imaginary" meeting takes place where it is recorded that the "shareholders" have "voted" to give the foreigner 51% or more of the voting rights within the company. Now the foreigner feels secure he has control of the company and his shares can be passed on to his heirs.

Imagine what might happen when that said foreigner dies. Even if the heirs manage to have the shares of the company transferred into their names, I am not sure the voting rights of the deceased foreigner will also be automatically transferred into their name. This effectively means the guy from the legal office and his co-workers own 51% or more of the company and have the majority of voting rights. What is to stop them selling the land & house at a fraction of what its worth to friends and family, the heirs receiving 49% or less of the paltry amount of the land sale? If you effectively owned thousands of companies would you be tempted to become mega rich by legal means such as this. Of course if the said person who owns the legal office and has his name on thousands of companies did not have the stomach to do such a dastardly deed, but were to sell his shares to some "big wig" politician or "police chief" we are talking the potential billions of Thai Baht being transferred into Thai names (almost) perfectly legally. Given that obvious scenario must have crossed certain people in high places minds, and given the huge amount of rewards on offer to implement such a scenario, I feel the temptation may be too great and confiscation of property after the death of each foreigner owning property through a company structure will become the norm.

There are many other possible interesting scenarios, which makes me feel owning land though a company is kind of like playing a game of pass the parcel time bomb. I also think a lot of houses will come on to the market at knock down prices the more "owners" are aware their property is not inheritable.

My advice to anyone who owns property through a company is to review the shareholders of your company. It used to be you needed at least 4 or 5 Thai nationals in your company, but that changed a couple of years ago. Now you only need 2 Thais and one foreigner. Arrange to transfer the Thai-owned shares of your company into the names of two Thais you can trust and are well known to you. Keep all records of your company in your own hands and get all company documents translated into your native language.

"Then it doesn't matter who the other two people are in your company or what percentage of stock they own"

Regardless of their management/voting rights, other people own 51% of your company and it's assets. When you die and your will leaves your company to someone other than these shareholders, you are only bequething YOUR 49% arn't you.? Your will cannot give your heirs this 51% as YOU don't own it.

If you have several companies then surely you are willing the 51% in each company to these anonymous shareholders?

Americans can own 100%.

Yes there is a US / Thailand trade agreement whereby US citizens can own 100% of a company, but this type of company, (100% US owned) can not own land.

How to upload a picture?