Arkady

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

  A bit further;

 

- Out of Thailand in one block period of 364 days and your PR is safe.

 

- Out of Thailand in one block period of 365 days or more and PR automatically cancels. 

 

 

The criterion is that you must leave and return to Thailand with a still valid re-entry endorsement. To stay out for 364 days, you need to get your new re-entry endorsement immediately before departure. No excuses are accepted for returning with an expired re-entry because it's in the Immigration Act. You just get stamped in on a transit visa, if your nationality qualifies.  If not, you may be denied entry.  But you are free to reapply once you meet the qualifications again without prejudice due to the fact that you gave up or lost your PR. 

There seems to be no suggestion that the murderer's father might at fault for allowing his son to get hold of a loaded firearm.

The cook, Mrs Nathee, who made the leopard tail soup for her fat boss, got a real 20 month sentence in place of her 4 month suspended sentence.

i may have missed something but is there any word on the application window for 2019 yet?

I changed my nationality to Thai for my KBANK account and it was easy as pie.  I just took my ID card to the bank and they scanned it and did the job in under five minutes.  The same operation was much more difficult with other Thai banks. Because your name change documents are foreign documents I guess you will have to get certified translations notarised by the Thai Foreign Ministry.  My guess is that it will be easier and cheaper to withdraw all the funds from the old account by ATM card and open a new one in your new name.  But for the driving license they probably will need the notarised translations. Maybe you can do the same there and apply for a new one from scratch under the new name, if you also have a home country license in the new name to show them.  I would get someone to call them first to see what documents they need to change the name.  Getting the translations and notarisations is not difficult but it is time consuming and costs money.  Also the original document has to be notarised by your embassy for the ministry to notarise the translation which some embassies won't do.  Since you are only a tourist and won't need the translations regularly in Thailand, you'd be better off not having to get them.

5 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

No.  Selling individual single items is fine.

Agreed.  Immigration would have a tough time convincing a criminal court that a foreigner selling a bicycle that he no longer needed was in contravention of the Immigration Act and the decrees covering the working of aliens. Indeed, when you consider higher value items such as cars, motor bikes and condos, it is simply not an option to dump or give away unwanted items.

Some years ago a young British couple came to Thailand on their honeymoon. On their first day in Bangkok they set off to see the Royal Palace and were run down and killed on a zebra crossing nearby. Tragic.

Sadly these checkpoints can't be terribly effective or well trained, if the insurgents were able to kill all but two of the armed volunteers without taking any fire themselves.  I would guess the motive was also to make a statement to the authorities.  It seemed like they were already quite well armed including with assault rifles and only got pistols and shotguns which are readily available on the black market.  They will now have to take increasing pressure from the Thai army trying to hunt them down. 

Just goes to show how easy it is for a few men with assault rifles on full auto to hose done a group of unsuspecting people sitting closely together.  Probably better to disband the volunteers since they are just targets and a source of weapons for the insurgents.  They would need a lot more training, better weaponry and technological aids to be an effective fighting force.  The government seems to think that giving them a few elderly Remington pump action shotguns and letting them buy their own pistols at the civil service welfare price is a substitute for training.   

The definition of work is very broad.  If they know you are in Thailand working for a foreign company, they are entitled to consider you as woking and needing a WP, although some Immigration or Labour offices may interpret things otherwise. As far as  the Revenue Dept is concerned any income you receive from working or providing services while physically in Thailand is most certainly taxable. It doesn't matter whether the work was done for a Thai or foreign company or whether payment was made onshore or offshore. I was once made to pay tax based on the number of days I had been in Thailand over the previous year despite not having an office in Thailand at the time. That was an unusual case and they are unlikely to go after most digital nomads but they could if they wanted to.

Lucky they are Thai and go to the police and not East European or other foreign nationality go-go dancers.

Mr Charles Cochand, defending, apologised for his client having jumped bail. He said Taylor committed the ram raid at a time when he was in emotional turmoil because of the death of his father.

I guess lawyers have to think of something to excuse the inexcusable in their clients but it is hard to imagine the Co-op was somehow responsible for his father's death, causing him to take revenge in this way.

4 hours ago, chang1 said:

Years ago, I had 2 days overstay because Biman Bangladesh Airways messed up my return flight. 1000 Baht fine and that was it. I have been spending around 3 months a year in Thailand since. If they had made a fuss I would never have returned. Also many others would have been going elsewhere as well. They really need to understand the damage that this sort of treatment does to their tourist industry. I now advise people to go elsewhere because of all the problems they face in Thailand now. For those that say "he broke the law and deserves to be punished", How was he hurting Thailand? Then look at the rip off taxi drivers on Samui that illegally refuse to use the meter and are never punished, yet damage tourism every day. 

If you overstay more than say a month then you deserve punishing but less than that, it should be dealt with by the fine on departure. 

Tend to agree with you. I overstayed a couple of days many years ago because it was not considered a serious offence then and I didn't have time to apply for a tourist visa in advance.  In those days most Western passports got only 14 days for a transit visa, not 30 days as now.  I was given a slightly scary interrogation about the reason for my overstay and then asked to join a queue of other foreigners who had to pay B100 a day for overstaying, regardless of their excuses which the officer didn't really listen to. I think that was an appropriate reaction by Immigration in those days to overstayers by less than a month, i.e. give the overstayers a slightly stern interrogation and ticking off and then fine them the standard amount. 

Lengthy overstays without good reason, i.e. physically or mentally incapacitated, should face the full force of the law in terms of blacklisting.

Glocks are very popular handguns in Thailand because they are relatively cheap and light and have a "cool" factor.  The design has no safety as it is supposed to a heavy enough trigger pull to prevent accidental discharges.  Of course it is not and there are many accidental discharges and accidental deaths as a result.  The trigger pull from the factory is about 5.5lbs which is a lot lighter than the average S&W revolver that is 11-12lbs from the factory.  Revolvers don't have safeties but the argument about the heavy trigger pull is more of valid there.  Thais also like to lighten their Glock triggers to about 3.5lbs with after market parts which makes them easy to fire accidentally. Even if it was a gun with a safety, it would no problem with most models for a drunk to slip it off without even realising it. 

Anyway I guess this case is going to go away quite quickly, unless the woman was someone important to the Chinese government.  Whether the owner had a proper carry permit or not, he is going to have to pay over some big bucks to quieten things down.

12 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Is that legal to keep a loaded gun in your car?

 

 

Only if you have a Por 12 concealed carry permit for that particular gun.  These are difficult to get and have to be renewed annually but it is possible that someone like that had one.  The article says the gun was properly licensed but that could just mean a regular Por 4 permit that doesn't allow carrying the gun loaded in your car. 

Presumably the gun owner was driving under the influence, since he had to get out of the car and urinate in the bushes.  Perhaps he avoided being shot in the head by the drunken Chinese passenger as a result.  A sad story.

On 9/3/2019 at 2:46 PM, yankee99 said:

when sb asked my wife about my religious beliefs atheist was not a option. 

I am not religious but I told them I was a Christian because that's what was filled in on my application form. Mrs Arkady chimed in immediately and told them I wanted to do the Buddhist oath and I said that was fine with me. It comprised of a lot of long words which I didn't fully understand and some of them were quite difficult to repeat after the officer as he went rather fast. It didn't make any difference to me what religion the oath was based on.  I was over the moon to have got to that stage and have the privilege of making the oath.

If someone feels strongly about being an atheistic, they should probably take the Buddhist oath, since they don't believe in any god as such.  It is more of a belief set than a religion.  If they can't accept even that, then by all means withdraw the application on principle. 

18 hours ago, samran said:

Yeah I was confused why such an old ministerial order was placed on the same page as the 2019 announcement but figured they knew what they were doing...

 

So am i right to understand that if you apply on the basis of having three years consecutive work and visa history - that if you just also happen to be married to a Thai citizen they will automatically lower the income threshold? 

 

Or are you technically applying under another category?

If there is no longer a salary requirement in the current guidelines, I think we can assume that the basic requirement of B80,000 a month applies to applicants providing "patronage".  I doubt than anyone was ever successful applying on the basis of B30,000 income of the patronage provider when that was in the guidelines or ministerial order. Those who have tried applying under this category have reported earlier in this thread that they had to meet all the same qualifications as those applying under the regular business category.  Those who applied under the investor category reported the same thing and advised applying under the business category as regular employees instead to avoid overly burdensome scrutiny of the business they have invested in. Basically there is one category for application for PR, as far as Immigration is concerned, and the others are just there for show and to give them the opportunity to demand more documents from applicants with no benefit to the latter.  I have also heard that lawyers regularly advise their clients that they need to show more than the B80,000 minimum salary to have a chance but can't say, if people get through with the minimum.  Perhaps that would be a case where providing patronage to a Thai wife and kids would help actually help.

What I am not sure about, although I am sure there is discussion about it earlier in this thread, is whether you have to apply under the patronage category in order to get the discount for having a Thai spouse. I think not but maybe someone with more experience can chip in on this point. 

5 hours ago, beeper said:

I have PR for over 2 years now and have secured a mortgage with UOB (same as available for Thais) to buy a condo. The mortgage has to be accompanied by a life insurance.
Insurance company Prudential is asking me to submit to an HIV test before finalizing the insurance.
Is this standard procedure for all life insurances in Thailand?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I have a life insurance policy with Prudential which I took out just to take advantage of the tax benefit.  I was not asked to undergo any medical tests and wouldn't have bothered with the policy, if they had asked for that, because it was not essential to have it.  The sales rep came to my house and I remember asking her about medical tests and she said they sometimes asked for but it wouldn't be necessary in this case without further explanation.

A friend had a very similar case to yours. His Thai wife applied for a mortgage for a house and the bank insisted on life insurance with a firm that asked her for medical checks.  He got so irritated with the bank for being slow and giving conflicting information and the insurance company that he told both he would blow them off, if the latter still insisted on the medical checks. Miraculously the insurance rep came back to him and told him that he no longer needed the medical checks.  My understanding is that these medical checks are not compulsory in every case at most insurance companies but they try to get them, if they can, to reduce their risk. However, insurance reps make a fair bit of upfront commission on life policies and, if they see that about to vaporise in front of their eyes, they may put pressure on the boss to waive the medical checks.  Perhaps they have to agree to a charge back of commission, if the insured then kicks the bucket from AIDS in short order.   

Quite a broad range of questions and expect those with experience of teaching will chip in with answers to questions about teaching licenses etc. 

Re minimum salaries, these are required by Immigration for NON-B visas but, if you are going to be applying for annual extensions based on marriage to a Thai you will be bound by the regulations for that type of visa instead, i.e. the B400k lump sum or the monthly remittances from overseas.  However, when you apply for a work permit, the Labor Ministry will want to know your salary from your employer, regardless of your type of visa, and they have the discretion to reject applications for whatever reason and this can vary from branch to branch.  They will expect you to be earning some sort of salary and may not expect you, as a farang, to be earning much less than the B25,000 a month they see executives from Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos earning, if they are on NON-B visas. Of course, you have other financial burdens to pass to get your marriage extensions but the Labor Ministry is free to take the view that issuing a work permit to someone who is not even earning enough to pay income tax (B15,000 a month) is providing no economic benefit to the country.

Regarding social security payments for the required 4, not 3, Thai staff there is a catch 22 here.  The evidence of the Thai staff required by the Labor Ministry is evidence of their enrollment in the social security system under the name of your company and receipts to show they are paid up to date. Yes, it is true that employees may only be enrolled once in the social security system but employing someone who is already in the system under another employment would defeat the purpose, since they would not be counted as an employee for purposes of qualifying for a work permit. The current payment is 5% of salary paid by the employee and the company respectively up to a maximum of B750.  Bachelors degree grads have to be paid at least B15,000 a month and others B6,000 a month.  Therefore your number of B1,500 is correct for the combined employee/employer contribution for a bachelors degree grad.  The Social Security Fund people will come unannounced at some point to visit the company and the staff and so will the Labor Ministry.  Last time I looked directors were not allowed to join the social security system, nor were significant shareholders. So, if you will be a director and a shareholder, you will probably not be eligible yourself, although I heard that this might change.  

Labor Ministry offices have discretion to allow less than the minimum 4 Thai employees and sometimes do, particularly in the provinces.  Usually a letter is required from the company to explain why exemption is requested.  This is more likely to be accepted in the first year of operation of a new company than in subsequent years.  I was told in the main Bangkok office several years ago that they were not likely to make exceptions, even in the first year, unless the foreign employee was paying tax on a huge salary, such as B1 million a month, but, as I said, Labor offices upcountry are more likely to be lenient on this issue.

1 hour ago, MRToMRT said:

Actually that's no different from any other current method of transfer for a foreigner, you need to provide your ID and a valid reason for transfer to swift and interbank as well.

I read this as they are just adding regulation to the internet transfers that non-banks now provide. 

 

Don't get me wrong its still prehistoric but does not seems to be as bad as some think.

The devil will be in the details but the article just refers to electronic transfers which include all types of overseas remittances including credit card payments and Paypal.

Things will likely get harder with the new AMLO regulations that the cabinet has just approved requiring more documentation for any outward remittance over B50,000.  There are regulations that allow investors to import funds and invest in shares or condos and then remit the principle and after tax profit back out again.  I think the problem is that the inward remittance has to be booked for that specific purpose and supporting documentation is required about the purchase and sale of the assets when you want to remit out again.  If you bought the property or shares in someone else's name, the chain seems to be broken as far as the Bank of Thailand is concerned. 

I think a fix for this could be to remit the funds from overseas direct to the Thai person whose name will be used to buy the asset and tell them to book it with the bank as a loan to purpose property.  You need to back this up with a loan document but this can be in English and can be a fairly basic one copied from a sample on the Internet.  After selling the property the Thai nominee should be able to remit out the principle together with whatever interest was specified in the loan agreement and this can be a bullet payment, i.e. all interest is payable on repayment of principle.  I have successfully remitted out money that was booked as a loan to my Thai company which I had used to buy land without any trouble.   I have also booked remittances to myself, now being a Thai citizens, as loans to purchase property.  I have not sold any of that property yet or tried to remit out any of the personal loans yet but I don't think there would be a problem.  Of course, if your Thai nominee is your spouse and you get divorced or he or she passes away in the interim, that could be a problem but nothing is perfect, particularly when you are in the world of nominees.

3 hours ago, lucjoker said:

well they do this ,it works both ways.

Friend sold his house , 3 milj bht.

He put the 3milj  in his thai bank.

Years ago he transferred this 3 milj to buy the house in Th.

Got proof that the money came from his Belgian bank.

So he thought he could send it back to his Belgium bank........NO WAY said the thai bank.

Because he took it out of the thai bank. If it stayed all the time in the Thaibank ,then he 

could sent it back. 

Seems not normal? 

I am not sure if I understand this correctly. If he transferred the money from Belgium to buy a property, he should be able to show evidence of the original remittance and the buying and selling transactions. Then he should be able to remit the principle and any after tax profit back to Belgium.  That's what happens with share transactions on the SET, although the broker usually arranges it all for you.  There must have been something missing in his documentation or in the bank's understanding of the regulations.  If he bought a house in the name of a nominee, rather than a condo in his own name, that could have been the issue.  If you remit money to buy land in the name of  a Thai spouse or a nominee, the chain may be broken as far as the Bank of Thailand is concerned.  In that case, you have technically imported the funds to lend to a Thai citizen to buy land.   Then they sell the land and repay you the principle possibly with some profit but that might not fit into the rigid box that allows a foreigner to remit principle and profit back out after selling an investment in shares or property.

3 hours ago, Max69xl said:

What has an airline ticket got to do with the topic? Do you normally transfer money abroad when booking a hotel room or buying an airline ticket? What's wrong with a thai Visa card or thai PayPal? Those work worldwide. 

I was assuming that this will also apply to credit and debit card overseas payments as well as Paypal over B50,000. That will be logical, particularly as Paypal can make payments to individuals overseas using your credit card or bank account.  But I hope it will not happen. 

This is upending over 20 years of liberalisation of the capital account.  You used to need to send a form to the Bank of Thailand for outward and inward remittances over USD 20,000.  Then it was increased to USD 50,000 and I talked to a forex officer at BBL at that time who told me the BoT didn't really have time to even look at the forms, as there were far too many each day.  But the last time I didn't an inward remittance over USD 50k, not BoT form was required.  Now it's going to be 50,000 baht and AMLO or whoever gets the forms to check will be utterly swamped. 

I very occasionally order things from overseas that require a bank draft over B50k.  Now this will be impossible as it will be too much trouble for vendors to submit proof of ID to Thailand. The only answer will be to use overseas bank accounts credit cards paypal etc for booking things like airline tickets from overseas vendors or paying hotel bills abroad over B50k.  Absolutely ridiculous.

2 hours ago, samran said:

Sorry - I know this is probably covered here somewhere, but just wondering if the income requirement for a Thai PR applicant is lowered if they are married to a Thai citizen?

If you are married to a Thai and apply for PR you get a 50% discount on the fee payable on success, not on the initial application fee. This is worth having because the fee is c180k but they will scrutinise your marriage carefully to ensure you are not getting something for nothing.

Apart from the discount for being married to a Thai doesn't lower any of the required qualifications as far as a I know.  The income requirements are not specified in the guidelines for applying anyway but Immigration, which is much less transparent than Special Branch vis a vis citizenship applications, has internal guidelines on things like salaries and minimum paid up capital of employer (5m I was told in the late 90s when I applied) etc. 

I was driving in Pattaya last week and a young farang on a fairly large bike that he seemed unable to control nearly drove into me. I don't know if he had a bike licence or not but by the way he was wobbling around he certainly shouldn't have been on it in Pattaya traffic. 

Although it probably won't happen because the motor bike rental people would lose out too much, I hope this will become law and will be properly enforced for the safety of tourists and all those around them.  While they are about it, it would also be a good idea to enforce the law on Thais driving without licenses.