Arkady

I have had a number of people over the years come to me to ask for help after being bilked by these fraudulent expat financial advisors. Most claim they are licensed but have no qualifications or licenses of any type. Even, if they are licensed in the UK for example and the customer is British, there is no UK coverage for customers not residing in the UK. The products they sell are invariably registered for sale only offshore and wouldn't be covered. The worst case was a guy who was invested in a managed futures fund which lost money heavily in the Subprime blow up year when managed futures were the only asset class that did well. He tried to get what was left of his money back and visited the owner of the advisory company in an office in Sukhumvit and was screamed at to get out of the office or he would call the police and use his connections to have his client deported and blacklisted. After a little research I discovered that the offshore company running the fund was actually owned by the expat advisor himself. The URL of the fund's website was registered to a condo address in Sukhumvit. He had set it all up with a a website that showed performance stats and a name that made you think it was based in the City of London. I lost touch with that guy but assume he lost 100% of his money as it was a pure scam. The fund was fake and the idea was to get as many suckers in as possible and then start showing terrible performance figures and keep their money, or most of it. The expat advisor was later exposed in relation to a football fund and is hopefully no longer operating in Thailand. No doubt he had been bribing Thai police to allow him to run offices with young farangs doing cold calling without WPs and who knows, if he could have got someone deported in his heyday. Another guy was put into a string of shady investments which seemed in the UK but were set up to have the look of something legit. They were all registered in the Isle of Man, so not covered by UK regulators. There were real documents online and to give the flavour one of the funds invested in the hospitality industry in the UK but had a fine print clause allowing it to "invest" in unsecured loans to affiliated businesses. It later turned out that 80% of its assets under management had ended up as an unsecured loan to another IoM fund that went bust. Other investments ended up worth no more than 20 cents in the dollar. My friend wrote the UK regulators and the UK Ombudsman but all said they could do nothing for him. He was recommended to make his complaints to the Isle of Man regulator but that was a waste of time, as they also offer nil protection to non-residents. The UK regulator did confirm that they had never had anyone of that name licensed with them, despite his claims. Finally I sent my friends to the Thai SEC to try to get the expat financial advisor to try to get the guy for providing financial advice without a licence. He got a meeting with some helpful young staffers at the SEC. They told him they were aware of these foreign criminals posing as financial advisors and preying on expats but there was nothing they could do under the SEC Act, unless he had sold something that could be deemed as a security under the Act. I believe the SEC has evolved since then and they have found ways to go after farang fraudsters and at least censure them and some have been prosecuted. The old line used to be that, if no Thais have been scammed and the police have been paid off, no crime has occurred but fortunately that has changed to a certain extent.

That seems to be what is not thought through, even though in Thai language reports they admitted they have been wanting to do this since the time that Abhisit was PM, i.e. 13 years. But many, if not most, of the items bought from Lazada and Shopee Thailand and drop shipped from China now seem to come via Flash and other couriers. Aliexpress also seems to deliver some things at least the last mile by Thai courier, although some packages from Aliexpress and Chinese sellers on Ebay come from the Singapore and Hong Kong post offices. Not sure how this all works, whether Flash is contracted by China Post or by Thailand Post. Aliexpress vendors seem to under invoice higher value packages automatically without the buyer having to ask, whereas US Ebay sellers often put up warnings saying they will report buyers who request under invoicing to the FBI.

The permanent secretary for finance, Mr Lavaron, was quoted as saying the Customs Department would make an announcement about this to avoid having to legislate it in parliament. So far there has been no announcement from the Customs Department. All their various types of announcements are listed here https://th.customs.go.th/list_strc_download_with_docno_date.php?ini_content=announce_160426_01&ini_menu=menu_Interest_and_law_160421_07&left_menu=menu_Interest_and_law_160421_07_160421_01&order_by=date&sort_type=0&lang=th&root_left_menu=menu_Interest_and_law_160421_07&left_menu=menu_Interest_and_law_160421_07_160421_01. Also there is nothing in the Royal Gazette searching under "value added tax"\, nor any Finance Ministry ministerial regulations on the matter. Has anyone seen an official announcement of the rescinding of the tax exemption? It look like it hasn't been announced yet and normally there is some notice period. I would think at least a month for a tax change of this type.

Let's not get too exercised about the provision to file tax returns, if you don't have any taxable income. PWC is correct that it is in the law but, as Dogmatix has explained, it doesn't seem to be enforced for good reasons. There are many other important aspects that are worth posting about.

They have told the media they will prevent shops selling fried flower but there is nothing about that in the draft bill. I searched the word flower in Thai and nothing. No questions about that from shop owners and growers in the public hearing at the ministry either. Perhaps it is something that will come later in ministerial regulations they don't need to get through parliament.

Yes. A PR's 13 digit ID number, which remains the same, if he upgrades to citizenship, should be used as his TIN. However, in cases where they or their company continue to use their old foreigner TIN, it doesn't seem to cause a problem. As a PR I filed for tax under my 13 digit number for years. Then I moved to a company that ignored me when I told them to use my TIN. They applied for a new foreigner TIN for me and insisted on using that the 3 years I worked there. I filed my tax return under my 13 digit number as usual submitting the documentation from the company with the foreigner number. The RD had no problem with this.

Interesting but no mention of the potential impact on the condo market, particularly in resort areas where there are hardly any Thai buyers and the developers have to cook up dubious schemes to sell foreigners the 51% that is supposed to be owned by Thais. Surely there are a number of foreign condo buyers who actually live in Thailand most of the year? They are obligated to remit the money for the purchases which could be taxable at 35% now. I am surprised the condo developers remain silent, as their train speeds on towards a brick wall.

I think it is fair to assume that they will do this in the not too distant future. They already demand evidence of tax payment of employee and company for renewal of NON-B visas from what I recall. Also they may well raise the monthly amounts and lump sum. Under the first Thaksin regime they were raised substantially when he first came to power in 2001 (I think the lump sum was raised from 200k, so 4x). If you have already been in the country long enough for file a tax return and pay tax, there would be a logic to this for sure. Some double tax treaties allow the country of residence to collect tax and make the taxpayer try to claim a refund of tax already deducted in the other jurisdiction. Others will allow the taxpayer to claim a tax credit for tax already deducted in the country of origin. If you are earning the minimum required for renewal, currently 65k a month, you are way above the threshold that requires you to do a Thai tax return. So Immigration could easily ask for a certified copy of your prior year tax return. The current forms have a space to declare foreign income but I don't think there is anywhere you can claim a tax credit under a foreign DTA.

Before COVID Chinese buying of condos had become a huge chunk of the developers' market and has apparently been creeping back since the Chinese have been allowed to travel again. China has a double tax treaty with Thailand but it seems only to address corporate tax payers, not individuals. Perhaps China was only concerned about its state owned enterprises at the time. Anyway most of the money is assumed to be earned in the black economy in China and wouldn't benefit from a DTA. So for any Chinese who spends over 180 days a year in Thailand the idea of having to pay tax on money brought in to buy a condo would be a bit of of turn off. Even for those who spend less than 180 days in country, the idea of foreign remittances maybe getting screened for income tax liability could spoke the market completely. Also when you think of a typical expat farang arried to a Thai who wants to bring in a chunk of cash to buy a bit of landed property for his family to live in, they could also be put off. Their money is not even going directly into a real estate investment which might eventually be granted exemption from scrutiny. It is technically being gifted to his wife.

This new interpretation of the Revenue Code to mean ANY previous tax year, rather the apparent intent which was the THE previous tax year, gives rise to exactly that concern, since it appears to set no limit on how long ago that money was earned. Not only that the interest earned on the savings account going back indefinitely could also be deemed as taxable when remitted to Thailand. The Revenue Code doesn't specify income from property or real estate, as many of the translations suggest, but actually says income earned from assets overseas which could be any form of income generating asset. Furthermore there is no separate treatment of capital gains in the Revenue Code. So any capital gains, say from selling a house at any time in the past, could be taxed at progressive rates as income, if remitted to Thailand.

A well thought out and explained commentary but there are some potential issues. A2 There is a ruling for the RD's tax lawyers from the early 2000s that I can't lay my hands on for the moment to the effect that foreign pension income remitted to Thailand by Thai tax residents in the year it was earned was indeed deemed taxable income. The RD has done nothing to try to enforce this probably because it would be too much trouble and very little would be collected, since a great deal of the pensions would be covered by DTAs. That is still true but this idea doesn't seem very well thought through, so nothing can be said to be impossible. B Section 41 of the Revenue Code indeed appears to say that income earned abroad in the previous tax year is taxable when remitted to Thailand and that has always been the RD's interpretation until now. However, when you look at the Thai original and take into account that Thai has no definite or indefinite articles, you can see that see that it could be interpreted as income earned abroad in a previous tax year is taxable when remitted to Thailand. And that unfortunately appears to be the interpretation that Srettha as finance minister has instructed the RD to make. If you consider the intent, it seems that the previous interpretation was intended. That is a wordy language and makes up for vagaries like having no definite or indefinite articles by adding more phrasing for the avoidance of doubt, e.g. "in any previous tax year whatsoever". But the drafters didn't say that which implies they meant only the previous tax year for which you have to file a tax return. Some may say this interpretation is non-intuitive and is merely a sleight of hand tactic by the government to try to raise more revenue without the need to subject amendments to the Revenue Code to parliamentary scrutiny and test the unity of the marriage of convenience coalition. It could be that the new interpretation will be challenged in the tax court. D The exchange of information agreement is a concern in this context. I received a letter from the UK taxman accusing me of concealing income that had obviously come from a bank somewhere reporting a remittance. I had to pay my tax accountant to send them a letter explaining that I was a non-UK tax resident but regularly filed tax returns on UK sourced income. The same could easily happen in reverse in Thailand.

Aciclovir cream applied within a couple of days of the outbreak around my eye lessened the severity for me. It was still under patent under the name of Zovirax at that time and very expensive. A doctor at BNH prescribed it for me in a tiny tube and I bought more tubes for half that price but still very expensive at a pharmacy. Fortunately the patent expired some time in the 90s and aciclovir is now readily available as a low cost generic. There must have been thousands of shingles and herpes sufferers who couldn't get access to the medication while it was still under patent.

A troll post was deleted.

Thanks for all responses. I am wondering whether to get Zostavax, while waiting patiently for Shingrix, after reading Sheryl's comments. But there are some suggestions online that it can cause shingles and that the US FDA cancelled its approval which is worrisome, if correct. I had chicken pox as a kid and had a nasty dose of shingles around my eye and forehead in my 40s. So the virus is definitely resident in my body and could come out at any moment, the risk increasing with age. My mother had a horrific dose of shingles in her 80s and I certainly don't want to go through that, if it can be avoided.

The last time I had to show my ID to buy alcohol was in a hotel in Pakistan.

For some unknown Thailand continues to drag its heels on approving and importing Shingrix and most hospitals only provide Zostavax which seems to be largely discredited in the West as, not only being not very effective at preventing shingles but also actually causing shingles. Skyzoster has been developed by SK Biosciences of Korea and Thailand was the first country outside Korea to applrove in May 2020. Malaysia has just appoved it this month as the second country outside Korea to do so. It now has a market share in S Korea of 56% I have just seen it on the price list of Mahidol U's Travel Clinic near Victory Monument but I haven't seen other Thai hospitals offering it. https://www.thaitravelclinic.com/cost.html Does anyone have any information or opinions on this new vaccine? I would like to get a shingles vaccination, preferably Shingrix, but have no interest in Zostavax.

I have ordered a single bottle from iHerb and it arrived at my door with no problem. Of course, it is subject to the usual strictures to do with importing supplements. Strictly speaking, even though the supplement is perfectly legal in Thailand the brand needs to be approved by the Thai FDA and you need some documentation to import it. But in practice they usually let through small packages coming by mail with declared value under THB 1,500. Everything sent by courier gets opened and taxed and may not be allowed in. I have only tried it a couple of times but it worked. 3mg made me feel drowsy enough fall asleep without ill effects in the morning.

That is what I thought too. The wife's signature can't possibly show up there under UV because she is not an authorized signatory for the bank and was not with me when I got the new bank book for the company. The teller acknowledged that I was a sole signatory for the account in the computer and said I could sign a cash cheque by myself. But she was pointing to the legend "2 authorized signatories" printed in the back of the book, as if this was a special condition for my company account, rather than a boiler plate blank. In the end she was ignoring what I was saying and just burbling nonsense like "Mister you tomollow go to own Kbank branch" in pijin English like a complete retard, despite the fact she could see I am a Thai citizen and I was speaking to her in Thai that was obviously a lot better than her English. I had to go back to Big C today after and was tempted to go and tell her I had successfully made the withdrawal at another branch but not knowing if she was on duty and the difficulty of getting to talk to her without appearing rude while she was serving customers put me off. It is a pity because she will never learn, if no one points ever points out her mistakes and her colleagues at the branch seemed as clueless as she was. I assume they put the worst new recruits to work at shopping mall branches because no one wants to work the later hours.

I have a personal account at the Big C branch but I am not a regular there or at the branch where I successfully made the withdrawal. I have had UK banks asking questions like do you know any of the staff at this branch who could verify your identity when trying to cash cheques in the old days but in Thailand they usually seem to just play by the rules. I once withdraw nearly a million in cash as a foreigner at a branch where no one knew me for a property deal and no one batted an eyelid. As long as they cover themselves with signed copies of your ID, they usually seem happy.

I didn't mention that I was Thai in the post, as it shouldn't have made a difference but it is possible that the teller was suspicious of my Thai ID card, even though it is registered as my ID document in the account and she ran it through the ID card reader. For sure the teller was Thai Chinese. Thai banks hire almost exclusively Thai Chinese, particularly in Bangkok.

I have always considered Kbank as my preferred Thai bank. Until yesterday they were always sensible and easy to deal with. Yesterday I went into a Kbank branch to make a withdrawal from my company account. I normally prefer to go to the stand alone branches but because it was after normal banking hours I went to a branch in a Big C which is open till 6.00 pm. The teller spent a long time fiddling around with the computer and then got up and left her seat to go into the small office without explanation, leaving me standing for about 15-20 minutes. I heard her talking to someone on the phone while she was away from her desk but couldn't hear what she said. Finally she came back with a colleague and explained that it was impossible for me to make the withdrawal because my savings account book had a condition in the back that two authorized signatories were required. She claimed she had spoken to someone or other who had confirmed this was the case. She had looked up information on the company account and found that there was a Thai director (my wife) in addition to myself and asked me if I knew her. Then she said I would have to come back with my wife to co-sign the withdrawal or, strangely, I could sign a cheque by myself but I didn 't have the cheque book with me. I told her it was absurd because I have never registered my wife as an authorized signatory for the company account at Kbank, even though she is indeed a director and authorized signatory of the company. So how could they demand that she co-sign with me, if the company has never appointed her a bank signatory? In addition I pointed out that the back of the savings account book merely has space for two authorized signatories, as indeed has my personal account savings book, but it was ridiculous to interpret this as meaning that every account must have two authorized signatories who have to both sign for everything. She refused to believe that I have been making withdrawals from the account alone for the past 20 years and told me that in order to change the condition I would have to go to the branch where the account was opened. Today I went to a stand alone branch near Big C and made the withdrawal with my sole signature as normal. I told the teller what had happened yesterday at the Big C branch down the road and she just smiled and said "kha, kha", understandably not wishing to get drawn into a discussion about incompetence at other Kbank branches. I can only think that what happened was a combination of racism, incompetence and stupidity. It is hard to imagine that anyone would really believe that the space for two authorized signatories at the back of every book means that a company must have two authorized signatories who must both sign for everything. It is also hard to imagine that she would have dared try this stunt on a Thai Chinese businessman trying to access his small business account.

Like many US embassies these days, since Trump gutted the Foreign Service, there is now a massive waiting list to get an appointment for a tourist visa at the US embassy in Bangkok and the consulate in Chiang Mai. A Thai might have to wait more than a year. I believe India is even worse. At least Americans can just hop on a plane and enter Thailand without a visa.

This keeps on being reported as if it is a proposal by the government for a new law or amendment of an existing law. It is not. It is already an existing section in the Land Code (Section 96 bis below) as a result of an amendment made by the Democrat led government in 1999. The current government obviously does not have the ability to get a law or amendment of its own of this type through parliament with the public participation process and vetting by the juridical council required with hardly any parliamentary time left before elections and significant opposition to land sales to foreigners throughout Thai society, including probably its own MPs. In fact all the government needs to do is issue a one page Interior Ministry regulation in the Royal Gazette to update the qualifying investments for the THB 40 million to investments that are actually available today. So if they really want to do it, it will be done. Section 96 bis was sabotaged by the Interior Ministry subsequent to its promulgation in 1999 because no existing qualifying investments were ever specified in ministerial regulation. Regulations were delayed for 3 or 4 years until Taksin was in power and specified only qualifying investments that had already ceased to be available and others that were supposed to be issued but never were. So no foreign purchases of land have ever been authorised under 96 bis. Nevertheless the Post hilariously quoted today someone saying that it worked really well to revive the economy in the late 90s 555. Section 96 bis The provisions prescribing the acquisition of land by foreigners by virtue of the provisions of a treaty under first paragraph of Section 86 shall not apply to the foreigners who bring in the capital for investment more than forty million Baht as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations whereas the acquisition of land for purpose of residence shall not exceed one rai and shall be approved by the Minister. The acquisition of land by foreigners under paragraph one shall be in accordance with the rules, procedures, and conditions prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations. The essential issues shall be included in the Ministerial Regulations as follows. (1) The type of business in which the foreigners invest that economically and socially benefits the country or which is declared by the Board of Investment as eligible for the application of the investment promotion under the law thereon. (2) The period of maintaining the investment shall not be less than three years. (3) The land that the foreigners may acquire shall be within the locality of Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, the City of Pattaya, Municipality, or the zone designated to be the residential area under the law on city planning.

Logically they could as Thai credit card companies and other financial providers are able to do so but PP has chosen not to. Imagine the furore, if they tried to pull the same stunt in the US and closed the accounts of green card and work permit holders. They would be accused of racism and shamed into finding a work around without any doubt whatsoever. But discriminatory racist business practices are OK for PP in third world countries.

I am wondering what level of domestic business PP can do in Thailand. The number of times I have seen a Thai online merchant accepting PP can be counted on the fingers of mutilated hand. Thai SME vendors also hardly ever accept credit or debit cards. Everyone transfers the money electronically and sends the slip by LINE. Not protection for scammed buyers but great for vendors with no fees or charge backs. For e-commerce I would guess that PP has only been used by Thais and foreigners who have credit cards and buy stuff from overseas vendors. A very small percentage of Thais do this and a large percentage of foreign residents for obvious reasons. While they were offshore, you couldn't link to a Thai bank account. So it was limited to credit cards. Coming onshore and being able to link to Thai bank accounts, I guess they hope they will be able to penetrate the domestic market. But it does seem a very long shot. Anyway the share price has been telling us that PP has been going down the tubes for a while. The only innovation I can see is their compliance with Thai regulations and coming onshore but this is negative as far as I can see. Their market niche for me was largely that they were offshore and not part of the Thai nanny state regulatory environment.