new2here

My wife and I won 10,000 2 years ago. At that time the Nonthaburi GLO office wasn’t too far so we went there. As I actually bought the ticket, I signed it they paid me - using all my data (passport etc) and minus the very minor taxes due. It was actually quite smooth. The part that took the longest was the validating the ticket itself. Once the ticket was validated as genius and the numbers verified, the paperwork was less than 10 minutes and they gave me a paper check (i don’t recall if they offered a cash pay option) against Krungthai bank. Krungthai accepted it and my account was credited 2 days later (i deposited it past the cutoff time for that days check clearance process) Everything I have seen, heard and experienced tells me that foreigners are eligible to legally play and win with the GLO bi-monthly lottery subject to the same rules for Thais. I myself don’t find the ticket price relative to the odds and max payouts to be hugely compelling per se, but it is one of the few legal ways to gamble in the kingdom.

To me, there’s a few issues all packed in here In no specific order, did the driver state or is it clear, up front that payment in alternative forms are accepted? if so, then it would appear the pax would be “right”. If not, then i think the driver would have a case. As far as not having enough cash goes- I agree that the passenger has the onus to ensure they have sufficient cash to pay for the expected fare OR make it clear and acceptable up front, that the taxi would need to stop and wait (with meter running) while the pax gets more cash As far as the claim that he “grabbed her arm” goes .. For me, one you lay hands on another - without support of law - then you’re automatically out of bounds and I’d agree that legal intervention is appropriate.

While aircraft today have the technical range for a SEA/AFO/LAX/JFK- BKK non-stop, in my head, I wonder about the economics of that type of routing. Given non-stops draw revenue from only O&D traffic - without the ability to draw connection traffic at the hub point (ex: China Air via TPE, All Nippon/JAL via HND/NRT, or Emirates via DXB) I’d wonder if there really is enough volume to justify such a routing and the aircraft utilization that it would require. Bangkok, like a few destinations in the region, *tend* to be more leisure destinations - therefore tend NOT to draw paid premium cabin demand - which would be a huge driver for cost and revenue justifying this kind of long and thin route.. Somewhat similar to how SQ runs their EWR/JFK-SIN with an all C/J & PE cabins and forgo straight Y class all together. But for that market, it clearly has sufficient paid premium cabin traffic to support both routes (EWR and JFK), I’m not entirely sure that BKK has the same level of consistent demand.

I understand that teaching can involve punishment for certain types of “failure”.. and I also get that fundamentally punishment is designed to be a negative stimuli .. that said, I think whatever form it takes really has to end up being more positively motivational than negatively punitive. LATER in life, sure, punishment can (and probably should be) much more punitive - as people of that age are adults and as such own 100% of their acrions. Kids, while still responsible for much of it, are still formative - and I think the key should be more “molding” the behaviors that we - as educators - are after and less about the focus being punitive.

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