BritTim

If an ex, this would probably work, but would be a fraudulent application, and likely get you blacklisted from Thailand if discovered.

On the requirement for proof the money came from abroad ... The reason for the requirement is that it prevents people using a one-day loan to satisfy the financial deposit requirement. If you can demonstrate that the money has been continuously in your account for several months, most immigration offices will waive the requirements for proof that the money came from abroad. Check with your local immigration office to see what their policy is on this. As an alternative ... If you are a South Korean national, I believe it is possible to get a letter from your embassy in Bangkok confirming that your income is greater than 65,000 baht per month. If so, you can use this as an alternative to money in the bank. You could also enquire at the Thai embassy in Seoul whether they will issue you with a 90-day single entry visa and, if so, the requirements. In some cases, you only need to be able to show 800,000 baht in the bank anywhere to get the visa.

Simplest would be to enter Thailand visa exempt, and use an agent to facilitate longer stay as a retiree. This involves little effort on your part. The agent can offer you different options, cheaper if you are willing to transfer 800,000 baht into a Thai bank.

Unless you are from a country that is entitled to visa exempt entry to Laos (very few countries) you need to add the cost of a Lao visa (either eVisa or visa on arrival).. Even without that, I think 3,000 baht is optimistic. Taxis from provincial airports tend to be expensive. If looking for a visa exempt entry or a new entry on a multiple entry visa, this still looks like a decent candidate.

If transferring to a domestic flight, you must clear immigration. In the past, there have been a few international flights that disgorged some passengers in Bangkok and continued to Chiang Mai. Then, indeed, you can clear immigration on arrival in Chiang Mai. I am not sure if such flights exist at the current time. They were used by airlines that did not have carrying rights for domestic services in Thailand.

I endorse the recommendation to get a tourist visa and enter via Chiang Mai. If you want to enter visa exempt, you will be taking a big risk if you do not enter by land. Entering by land involves cost and inconvenience but is the safest solution of all.

As far as passing Immigration is concerned, that is definitely true. However, it can be very useful when scrambling for tourist visas at embassies/consulates. All Thai consulates in the region have some limits on issuing tourist visas to long stay tourists (with a lot of variation between consulates). At the current time, they enforce those restrictions by scrutinising your passport for evidence of total stay in Thailand, previous tourist visas, and visas they have issued you themselves. A new passport means that they do not have the evidence of you disgraceful preference for spending long period in Thailand.

Note that it is easy to check whether you are entering Immigration Zone 1 or Zone 2, and entering Zone 2 directly will save you a bit of time as you will not need to walk between the two after passing Immigration in Zone 1.

You could just use an organised "visa run". Otherwise, would you be driving yourself, or planning to use public transport? DIY on public transport is possible, but means a long, tiring day. Ask if you want details.

I am not sure what you are referring to. I have never seen anything stapled into your passport when you get an extension at an immigration office. Are you referring to the TM6 (currently suspended) that was previously used whenever you entered Thailand, and assuming that is connected in some way with the 30 days from a visa exempt entry you were given when you arrived in Thailand? If so, that card is removed by immigration at the airport or land crossing when you leave the country.

Safest, but incurring some cost and inconvenience, would be to enter with your METV by land. For example, you could fly to Kuala Lumpur, take the train to Padang Besar and on to Hat Yai airport, and fly domestic to wherever you want to end up in Thailand. Historically, since you have a visa, flying direct to Chiang Mai, clearing immigration in that airport would also be fine.

If your immigration history is even remotely questionable (e.g. more than 90 days in Thailand as a tourist in the last six months, or otherwise a history of long stays) do not risk it. This is the only land crossing where you can end up in a world of hurt. They will stamp your passport with a denied entry stamp, and a written comment. They will then tell you you must return to Thailand by air. If you follow this advice, airport immigration will then likely proceed to deny you entry again. Immigration at Don Muang and Suvarnabhumi airports and the Aran crossing seem to have close connections with each other and gang up on those they think have overstayed their welcome in Thailand. This does not apply, it seems, if you have a multiple entry Non O visa (at least from what I recall). Just do not use this crossing as a long stay tourist.

Fair point

Caught by whom? ... And what crime is anyone going to be charged with? If you know a good Thai lawyer, some time give them the following scenario and ask what crime(s) are being committed by anyone ... Agent pays the senior official's wife to induce the official to use his discretion to waive funds seasoning and approve an extension The official duly approves the extension Both the agent and the official freely admit that this is what was done You are going to be mighty surprised by the answer. No crime! This is a deliberate loophole in Thai law, and is heavily used, even to influence the approval of multi billion baht contracts. Third world countries' legal systems are not like those of first world countries. Even if you believe the agent and/or the official committed a crime, what crime have you committed? The agent is the expert on immigration matters. Did you force him to commit a crime (assuming a crime was committed which it was not).

Some posters have the beliefs they do because they have actually researched the subject, and understand Thailand, rather than making assumptions out of ignorance on what surely must be true.

The fact that no one can point at a single case where this has happened does not prove that it has never happened. That is true. However, it does rather call into question your assertion that using an agent to facilitate your extension is high risk. If there have been as many as 100 cases in the last 30 years, none of them having become public knowledge, that would still not make the process high risk, bearing in mind the total number of such extensions processed every year.

If you are worried about honest officials taking action against corrupt officials and agents who know how to navigate the law, quit worrying. Worry even less if you are one of the customers of such an agent. Honest officials will only take action if actual laws are broken, and only if you broke them. Under certain very rare circumstances, you might have to worry about dishonest officials other than those gaming the system to approve legal extensions. You might also have to worry if using an agent who fails to correctly take advantage of the loopholes in the law that currently facilitate the agent assisted extensions racket. I am not sure how many agent assisted extensions occur in Thailand annually. I am sure that it is many thousands at a minimum. What I can say (and this is going to encourage a troll - sorry) is that there has never been a post on this board or a credible news article suggesting foreigners are being arrested and deported because they use agents. There have been cases where agents were arrested and prosecuted, but only for fraud against their customers (who have not suffered any legal consequences). Past performance does not guarantee future results, and I make no claim that using an agent to facilitate an extension is absolutely zero risk. In my judgment, the risk is extremely low, and has nothing to do with the legality of the process.

That is your decision. and I respect it. Nearly everything in life involves risk. It is obviously not the lowest risk option, but you ameliorate the risk to a significant degree and clearly assess that the benefits outweigh the residual risk. That said, the argument that it has not YET happened to you is not totally convincing. Dying once as a result of being smeared over the tarmac (even if it only happens, say, once every 15 years) is not a good outcome. Stay lucky! I have friends who I really like who are heavy smokers and who (so far) have suffered no obvious major consequences. They assure me that they take care of their health in other ways and are not worried. Maybe, they are right. I gave up smoking 48 years ago, and believe my decision was prudent.

That has definitely been known to happen. The really high risk activity, though, is getting on a motorcycle, something not only Thais but many foreigners undertake (not me: I am willing to take small risks, but I am not suicidal).

As a matter of interest, what is your personal strategy when you need to be on the other side of a road?

Indeed, and yet I personallly take this risk on a regular basis. I am not willing to call an Uber every time I want to cross the road to avoid the possibility of being flattened by a driving lunatic.

They are going to have to arrest a well connected senior immigration official at the same time. Very occasionally, there are high level conflicts among the Thai elite. When that happens, there can be collateral damage involving those who are only indirectly involved. Even should this occur, they would only go after the senior official caught up in the power struggle and the agent. You are at additional level removed from all this, and would be incredibly unlucky to be targeted. Not impossible, but on a par with your risk in crossing the road.

You have a very superficial grasp of the rules. Yes, there are customary financial requirements. However, senior immigration officials in the key positions have legal discretion to waive the requirements (especially those around funds seasoning). There are legitimate reasons for them to have this power. What we are seeing with the agent system is an abuse of discretion which falls short of breaking any laws. Also, as I tried to explain earlier, the corruption laws in Thailand have deliberate loopholes. Even if the agent and/or the official were breaking any laws, you would not be. I conceded in an earlier post that it is conceivable that action could be taken against you without legal justification. You can consider that a huge risk. I do not.

Cite the applicable law (make sure it is a Thai one).

There is a very small risk. I do not deny that. As I posted before, it is arguable that the agent and a senior immigration official engaged in corrupt practices (though, the way the law is worded, this cannot be prosecuted if done correctly). However, you have broken no laws. The risk is that the authorities come after you without a legal justification, which is possible but very unlikely.