new2here

Actually, If it’s the money that I’m thinking about, then it would meet the Federal Statues in terms of producing faux notes.. be that size, color, single-v-double sided printing etc. You can make “fake” notes, but there’s several restrictions that you have to meet in order for it to be legally produced. Referencing to the apparent attempted use goes.. I’m not sure if the federal law related to attempted use is or can be applied extra-territorially like some other federal laws. That one might be purely the domain of Thai law.

Good question… I’d wonder not only will this spread to other banks (my own GUESS only is that it will as there’s really only upside for the bank and little downside by going this route) AND id wonder if at any point in time, banks will ask/require account holders to verify/update their status? For example you opened it back in 201X and at that time held a Non-B and WP.. but now in 2025 you don’t .. I’d wonder if they will want to see if the then-status still holds true today?

In my opinion, we are past the “carrot” approach in the carrot and stick system.. I think the authorities have done faaaaar more informing than is really necessary. So.. at this point, any non-compliance really is simple willful non-compliance.. Therefore, it’s time for the stick… and by definition, the stick is supposed to “hurt” — it’s punitive and should be felt and interpreted as such by offenders. Seize and impound vehicles of offenders .. Yes, some of the vehicles aren’t owned or are leased by the offender/driver, that’s true.. but it should still be seized - allow it to be returned it to the owner after X days in impound, and the driver now is liable for all fines, impound costs and lost revenue while it’s in impound. Start applying mandatory jail times .. not weeks or months.. but days… and make it mandatory.. To me, once you start taking and seizing people’s stuff and taking their freedoms away - you’ll see change.

I tend to agree.. While I think socio-economic demographics of an IKEA customer probably overwhelmingly support a move away from cash payment and towards e-payments, QR and the like, I DO think that having some reasonable mechanism to accept cash is still a smart move Maybe it’s a “cash this register only” or the like.. but some way for cash paying customers to shop.

This isn’t an auditors issue.. the auditors really only verify that TG has followed the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and relevant Thai law as to their reporting of their financials …. How the may operate, their policies and protocols — that’s purely a management decision. So upgrades etc — Deloitte has zero input to this practice - only that whatever financial impact it has or doesn’t have, are properly recorded in their reports.

I recall TGs outside auditor is the Thai arm of Deloitte Touché.. as such, I’d be very very surprised if there was any malfeasance or violations of GAAP - otherwise Deloitte wouldn’t sign off on any of the required disclosures.

I wonder if Thai law allows for businesses to start to require selected group to “pre-pay” before being serve? While I don’t necessarily like this solution I think businesses have a legit grievance and I think they should be able to take reasonable proactive preventative measures.

Here’s my take.. and it’s not unique to Thailand, nor a condemnation of it either. In no specific order .. 1) I think there’s a general lack of “safety culture” here .. safety is of course talked about - you see all kinds of signs/posters extolling safety.. but in practice, safety and safety compliance just isn’t an ingrained part of the daily life here . 2) Overall lack of firm, fair and CONSISTENT enforcement of existing laws.. On the books, Thailand has essentially the same motor vehicle laws as many “western” countries — but the enforcement of these laws is spotty or sporadic at best and out right ignored at worst… combined with a penalty system that is both woefully lacking combined with poorly integrated into the later motor vehicle, driver and public safety systems. I’ve long advocated for seizure and forfeiture to the state, of assets used in crimes resulting in injury or death OR repeated offenders.. Once you start taking away people’s “stuff” you’ll see change .. keep running zebras and narrowly missing pedestrians - loose the bike or car (financed or not) … run an illegal club where drugs are found or fire escapes blocked and people are hurt - loose the building and land. Harsh? yes.. but in the end, the “state” has the onus to ensure compliance with safety laws.

i had this account type in 2023 and when it matured i had a choice; USD or THB (at that days rate) I chose USD and was given notes in acceptable shape .. you can always politely refuse/request a different note if you feel that a specific one won’t be exchangeable later on.. i’ve never known any bank to refuse a reasonable request at the time of exchange

I would set up so that those holding visas like the DTV and various Non-Os (that require a local bank account) would be eligible to open an account at either SCB or Krungthai (because of their relationship with the national government) despite not holding a WP (which tends to be the key document many banks want) That way, Immigration would know that an account opened at SCB or Krungthai meets the requirements for type of account necessary .. AND the applicant would be able to open said account at a branch of SCB/Krungthai, by virtue of their holding said DTV or NON-On visa without the need/hassle of an “agent” or similar 3rd party. Both banks have a sufficient national footprint as far as physical branches goes and both are ATM “pool” participants.. So account access shouldn’t be a major issue. By limiting this to only 2 banks, it makes it easier for the regulators to make sure accounts are opened only for legitimate purposes and for those whose identity is confirmed.

Hi, I’ve asked this question to BBL before (I bank with them and at the Silom HQ office where most of these offices are located) I was told it’s still remitted to Revenue, but with a “999” type tax identifier.. It’s coded with BBLs payor ID* (as it should) but is tagged with an “unknown” payee code. (Note that BBL has many different tax IDs for its different operating divisions like retail banking, their asset management arm, etc) When/if it is later identified and assigned to a specific tax ID, then its re-coded and an update sent to revenue automatically

For me, I have done it, in-person, at my local RD office. To me fair, I have a rather straight forward return… none the less, I take all my papers; receipts (ex tax withholding forms from banks for interest received), tax withholding certificate from employer, etc then the staff just “plug in” what data goes where.. I’m usually done in about 15 mins or so. They usually ask some confirming questions; do i have a thai child, am I married etc.. All questions that might impact the final tax calculation. When done they show me my refund (i commonly get a bit back) and i’m in my way. My personal take here is so long as you don’t have an overly complex return and you generally know what is and is not necessary to report and what can be shown to revenue as a deduction- then i think DIY is very doable but the opposite I think also holds true.. If you’re not familiar with the process , have a more complex return - then a tax pro might be the better way to go

I agree.. I also think that it means the right can’t then use the excuse of “congress blocked our agenda” as the right effects controls both sides… true, not every R or D will always vote purely along party lines— but i do think that it makes it hard to argue that the opposition blocked you ..

Given the location of SAT1 on the airport property itself, there simply isn’t any way to construct a whole new, stand alone landslide terminal structure to accommodate both outbound processing (ie check-in faculties, outbound immigration and security) as well as all the inbound processes (commonly that’s just baggage reclaim and immigration)… plus you’d need road access to/from it for passengers, plus all the other trappings as well.. what you’d really be doing is creating an airport-within-an-airport To me, I’d argue the opposite, given the entrance is littler smack in front of you when you emerge from outbound security/passport control … and on the arrival side, as you emerge from the train level, you’re also smack in front of the inbound immigration area. To me, I’d bet that mathematically by time alone, even WITH - short train ride from SAT1, I’d you’re still actually closer to the immigration entry point, than if you had arrived at one of the mid or end gates on the F or G main building complex gates.

To me, there’s not much legitimacy to the whole VAT issue as that’s compulsory under the law.. so that is what it is.. yes, one can argue HOW it’s administered- be that “baked” into the menu/sticker price or added in addition too.. but the tax itself is legit the service charge.. that to me is different.. I agree that there’s a legit argument made for the case that by adding is a fixed cost and unavoidable - you have undercut what what a tip” is supposed to be - a post-sale, discretionary payment in recognition of service provided at some level or above.. by assessing it at 10% across the board and not voluntary, there’s no external motivation to go above and beyond .. nor is there any real risk to sub-par service either. So.. I do think there’s a legit case to be made for how “service charges” are done here (by many but not all) but the VAT is a different case.