notamember

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

You don't have access to the money. Agents in Pattaya charge i.r.o. 20k baht.

but its in your bankbook if they do it right

6 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Your brain. I was pointing out that visa agents do other things besides seeding accounts, in reply to someone who held the belief that, having seen visa agents with handfuls of passports in Jontien Immigration, there couldn't be a crackdown on visa agents who seed bank accounts.

 

Now do you see what's out of place?

try again, i missed your point

you said that agents are being turned away as Tommy said so now they are not ?

cos some geezer on here said he saw passports being moved around in immigration that must belong to agents?

Passports in Immigration? whatever next?

9 minutes ago, bkk6060 said:

You are right.

But the big money is in the "seeding", not the 90 day.

Like I said, I think people would be shocked how many do not meet the qualifications and need the seeding.

1000's. Many more then one could imagine.

complete strangers loaning complete strangers 800,000 baht without any security

how much would those who have  800, 000 want in return for doing that?

Just now, wgdanson said:

You can still be working in UK or wherever, and still get a retirement extension in Thailand.

yes but unlikely you would be here for 90 consecutive days and he did say reporting (plural or more than one)

3 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

OK, point taken. Yes on bank statements it says my NI number and DWP. But I don't think the Consulate check every one of them, not when they send your letter back within a week, or DID.

but they do, or how would they reach a conclusion on income and know what to write on your letter?

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

A good journalist never reveals his sources!

never let the truth get in the way of a good headline

5 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

In the four times I have got an income letter from British Consulate in Bangkok, I have NEVER had too prove the income claimed, simply send copies of my bank statements. I am not mixing anything up.

so what is sending copes of bank statements, if not to prove income?

if not needed as you claim them why send at all?

just tell them what you earn and pay for the letter

(thats what you claimed before is done at British embassy , but is not)

7 minutes ago, Spidey said:

I listened to the full news item. The fact that several visa agents had already been turned away was stated in the news item.

i listened too

However this is Tommy saying it, on a commercial radio station

its not CNN or BBC

give me a break Spidey, its just more rumor and speculation spurred on only by people like you who actually believe it

only was you would know for sure was if you were an agent and you were turned away

but if you are so sure about it then ask Tommy to justify his source and name the agents who were turned away?

i see you are following this thread Tommy, so who was turned away? 

31 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Now immigration. As reported Jontien Immigration has already turned away a number of visa agents.

are you serious?

do you really think immigration would even acknowledge the existence of agents by supposedly publicly turning them away?

i have a bridge for sale in London, interested?

2 hours ago, wgdanson said:

Never had Immigration in either Jomtien or Phitsanulok 'shit' on my application. If you have the correct amount of money, and the correct documentation....no problems. This new rule is has been made because you could tell the Brit Consulate anything you wanted about your gross UK income, and they would issue the signed letter, no questions asked. Now the Thai lot have got wise to this scam and are closing the loophole.

you are wrong

Brits have always had to prove the income claimed, you are mixing them up with US embassy letters who write what you pay for

On 10/7/2018 at 2:08 PM, SidJames said:

There's not much on that FB page.

Some pictures of trees & a video about a merc

now i know why you need to ask on here for recommendations

Alisa Kohtsombat

Express Law Office

look on Facebook

Alisa Kohtsombat

Express Law Office

Facebook

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

sdf

 

Come to think of it, I do not.  Also could be, "To ensure there is no need for the applicant to work-illegally"?  I am open to other suggestions of why they created a financial-vetting process.

i understood it to be proof that the applicant had money to hand that is instantly accessible so that in case of accident or illness the person would not be a burden on the Thai health system

i have no reference for that either but until your post, i have never seen it being linked to a persons daily living expenses or illegal working

17 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Friend round the coner was short this year, just 1000 baht solved the problem. This is Thailand, some of you think too much, and no i am not going to name the office!

not difficult to guess, your past posts and topics  are littered with clues as to where you are

5 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Official Reason: "To ensure those staying here on retirement-based stays have adequate funds to support themselves."  

This makes sense, but the amount is beyond what is needed to live comfortably in Thailand.  Logic would indicate setting a minimum-income amount which maximizes foreign-currency inputs from foreign-residents. 

 

Also, there is an "agent" system to facilitate retirement-extensions for those without the required financials, undercutting any notion that officialdom "really cares" if ex-pats here are even reasonably solvent.  The ads for this agent-service are public, and the scheme ongoing for years, so it would appear to be an officially-approved, unofficial policy. 

 

Ergo ...

Real Reason: "To maximize the use of agents for extensions.  Agents provide short-term loans for the bank letter, then pay into an unofficial financial-channel within the bureaucracy, in order to get the money-seasoning requirements waived." 

 

There are similar Official-vs-Real reasons and schemes associated with other services and extensions of stay, varying by office.  The primary goal is not to "vet" anyone, per the official public mandate, but to extract as much money as possible under the table, regardless of the nature of the applicant.

Official Reason: "To ensure those staying here on retirement-based stays have adequate funds to support themselves."  

do you have a reference to an official source for this?

7 hours ago, cleverman said:

Read more carefully. I made no mention about loaning money. Why do you make false comments?

so whats the criminal act you were referring to?

armed with the knowledge of your intent , i will know if my comment is false or not and apologize if i am wrong

On 9/20/2018 at 8:39 AM, cleverman said:

Advising a criminal act should not be allowed. 

so its criminal to loan money?

Thai law says it is criminal if you are charging more than 20% interest

other than that its not and like banks you can advertise it as much as you please and where you please regardless of what its to be used for

is the visa agent providing the 800.000 ?

20 hours ago, BritTim said:

You know, I have not verified for myself that the earth is round, but I am willing to accept the testimony of those who credibly state this to be true. The different treatment accorded to applicants using agents at some immigration offices is not a matter of speculation but is a fact.

aside from any financial consideration one might care to imagine, what i believe is a fact is that officials give preference to agents because they know exactly what needs to be done, they know what paperwork is needed, they know what fees are to be paid, they present applications that can almost be rubber stamped and in doing so make the officers life so much easier

Thats why they can appear to process bundles of agents applications in a few minutes rather than taking hours with some individuals who have omitted items and have to get more paperwork, more photocopies, more applications, fill in TM28's and get TM30's , do 90 day reports, add their telephone number to an application and Buddha only knows what else is served up to frustrate their day and their progress through the ever growing pile of applications

if i were an IO, i would welcome agents applications too because they know what the IO needs

on the occasions i have been to immigration and people watched, its hard to imagine a place that demands more of its officers in terms of patience and understanding with the rude, ignorant and thoroughly disrespectful people that attend there

15 hours ago, JackThompson said:

I have had personal experience with being given the run-around on 2 services at an office.  My experience - including many specifics I experienced personally - has been reported by others at the same desks in the same office.  Next door to this office - literally feet away - is an agent who offers get the same services rendered for a hefty fee.  Other agents have public ads offering to circumvent financial requirements.  This activity is not only public, but advertised. 

yet you have not experienced the agent service that you claim to know so much about and often say is illegal, often allude to problems for the participants come Judgment Day, yet there it is, in your own words, next door to this office 

It would not be hard to find the culprits, if they wanted to clamp down on the practice would it?

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

It is in-context here, because agent-submitted apps at that office avoid the problems described for some types of extensions (maybe not retirement at that office / yet). 

Where agent-activity does not impact non-agent applications - such as at Chang Wattana - and the written requirements are followed - I don't mind at all if others chose to use agents.  It is only when differential-treatment is given, to force people to agents, that it becomes a problem to the rest of us. 

 

I do not blame those facing difficult situations at some offices for recognizing the normal-path is blocked or restricted, and doing what is necessary to stay here.  If Non-O MEs (I use one now) are eventually stopped, and if the annual extension route were blocked where I live, I would have no choice but to:

• abandon my life and wife here
• "move" to Bangkok (or somewhere with a fair office) every year for my extension
• pay an agent

An agent-solution might be (may be in the future) the most practical or only possible solution, in this case.

so Jack, as you have never used an agent, how do you know all this to be fact and then circulated like this on this forum instead of the mere speculation that it really is?