What constitutes a bank?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

8 hours ago, sinbin said:

So??? If the Cooperative isn't a bank and not covered then it is more likely to be a 'Credit Union'. Irrespective Why should immigration control my choice of where I deposit my monies. It's in Thailand and it's accountable. If the Coop crashes that is then my problem. Old saying, only invest what you can afford to lose.

 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad491e/ad491e04.htm

 

Asking WHY regarding a government regulation and expecting a productive answer in Thailand is usually not a very useful endeavor.

 

The only real answer is it's their government, their Immigration Bureau and the rule language they adopted to say "bank in Thailand."

 

You could also ask, why is it OK for O-A visa applicants to have their required bank deposits held in their home country bank, yet retirement extension applicants have to have their bank deposits in a Thai bank? Once again, the answer is, because it's their rules and that's the way they made them.

 

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Asking WHY regarding a government regulation and expecting a productive answer in Thailand is usually not a very useful endeavor.

 

The only real answer is it's their government, their Immigration Bureau and the rule language they adopted to say "bank in Thailand."

 

You could also ask, why is it OK for O-A visa applicants to have their required bank deposits held in their home country bank, yet retirement extension applicants have to have their bank deposits in a Thai bank? Once again, the answer is, because it's their rules and that's the way they made them.

 

That latter regulation is actually very, very logical.

[tryasimight]

4 hours ago, Aditi Sharma said:

Wont any local agencies manned or womaned by Thais take care of this for a fee? Expats have work to do.

Not on a retirement extension they don't.

[Aditi Sharma]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

The officials' reason is very simple. Their own opinion is that a cooperative is not a bank. They are probably even correct. There is a set of regulations for banks (under the Bank of Thailand) and a set of rules for cooperatives (under the Board of National Cooperative Development). Some officials will probably make a different determination, but IMHO a cooperative in Thailand is not a bank, and it is not the job of the immigration officials to decide it should be treated as such. If the law is intended to allow accounts in financial institutions other than banks, it should say so.

Brilliant BritTim, this reads like a home run :-) 

[gk10002000]

16 hours ago, sinbin said:

No problem. As I've said previously they provide the same services as banks. Ask your wives. These Coop's are everywhere. The police have them, nurses have them, teachers have them, farmers have them. Most major provincial towns/cities will have one or more.

 

And you got that information from where? 

I could be wrong.  But the bottom line is the officials did not accept it.  So you can strive for more information or to more convince yourself that you are correct and that you should have been able to continue using the cooperative, but it is a moot point.  Use what is more standardly accepted as a bank and all is well.  Others that do similar things with similar institutions maybe will have more to say on it. 

[Si Thea01]

Any farang who comes with money. (Yes, sarcasm)

[asiaexpat]

Thai word for bank is thanakan (ธนาคาร ) while sahagaan ( สหกรณ์) is cooperative as in the OP meaning. The rule states ธนาคาร or bank, not cooperative. Easy to understand.

[Aditi Sharma]

2 hours ago, asiaexpat said:

Thai word for bank is thanakan (ธนาคาร ) while sahagaan ( สหกรณ์) is cooperative as in the OP meaning. The rule states ธนาคาร or bank, not cooperative. Easy to understand.

But that's quibbling over words. The question is one of funds which the OP had. He should have been let off with a warning. And they should have put a board outside saying a co-operative is not a bank. Why make someone go back with a wrinkle?

 

[sinbin]

On 10/6/2017 at 11:20 AM, Shiver said:

 Putting together other posters points it seems more important that fast access has to be possible

Not correct. The IO will accept 'Fixed Term' bank accounts. 

On 10/6/2017 at 12:34 PM, stevenl said:

Was your money with the cooperative accessible without any financial penalty 

No, But that is irrespective because my 'Fixed Term' was done to match my extension requirements. Been in 'Fixed Term' account now for my Visa for over 10 years. Not all those years with the Coop btw.  

On 10/6/2017 at 2:59 PM, Just Weird said:

One IO overlooking the official requirement in the past is not setting a precedent for future applications.

No one really says they are but just maybe they were correct in the past and this time they're wrong. As I said 'there were 4 officers that were reading the rule book and as far as I could make out they didn't all agree but the top man got the final say.' This time.

On 10/6/2017 at 3:05 PM, BritTim said:

If the law is intended to allow accounts in financial institutions other than banks, it should say so.

That is the sticking point. We do not truly know what the official translation is. They certainly wouldn't me or the wife have a gander at it' It could say 'Financial Institution' in Thai but on translation, due to how clever the translator is, it come down as 'bank' to make matters easier for himself.

 

Sorry for late replies I've been away.

[sinbin]

On 10/7/2017 at 12:58 PM, Aditi Sharma said:

But that's quibbling over words. The question is one of funds which the OP had. He should have been let off with a warning. And they should have put a board outside saying a co-operative is not a bank. Why make someone go back with a wrinkle?

 

That is what I asked. I asked if they could give my extension this time and I'll sort things out for next time. After all I've been allowed my extension a number of other times and it didn't make any difference. Suddenly they can overlook the seasoning time my money has to be in another bank, one week, but they can't overlook giving it to me now.

[Just Weird]

On 10/7/2017 at 12:58 PM, Aditi Sharma said:

But that's quibbling over words. The question is one of funds which the OP had. He should have been let off with a warning. And they should have put a board outside saying a co-operative is not a bank. Why make someone go back with a wrinkle?

 

It's not, it's you that is quibbling over (wrong) words.

 

The question is where the funds are kept and it has to be a bank.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, sinbin said:

On 10/6/2017 at 3:05 PM, BritTim said:

If the law is intended to allow accounts in financial institutions other than banks, it should say so.

That is the sticking point. We do not truly know what the official translation is. They certainly wouldn't me or the wife have a gander at it' It could say 'Financial Institution' in Thai but on translation, due to how clever the translator is, it come down as 'bank' to make matters easier for himself.

Well, we do not know for sure what the immigration officials were looking at. However, we do know that the original Thai version of the Police Order (see http://bangkok.immigration.go.th/2notice/327_2557.pdf Section 2.22 (5)) does use the Thai word "ธนาคาร" (bank in English).

 

EDIT: Note that the Police Order I cite dates from 2014. I have not researched what the written regulations stated prior to that time.

Edited October 8, 2017 by BritTim

[Just Weird]

47 minutes ago, sinbin said:

No one really says they are but just maybe they were correct in the past and this time they're wrong.

 

Sorry for late replies I've been away.

 

They really did, that was why I responded...

On 10/6/2017 at 10:25 AM, Aditi Sharma said:

Have the immigration firmly ruled before that  co-operatives were not banks? In the OP's case they have thereby setting a precedent.

[Aditi Sharma]

40 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

It's not, it's you that is quibbling over (wrong) words.

 

The question is where the funds are kept and it has to be a bank.

I dont know. If you would not disagree with me that OP was a customer in the immigration office, it was poor customer service on their part to let him go and putting him through the hassle of moving funds from a co-operative to a bank. 

[Aditi Sharma]

 

54 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

They really did, that was why I responded...

 

You mean when the OP was at the immigration window asking for an extension they made the fine distinction for him ( for his benefit for the first ever time) that the co-operative was not a bank. He should have been told Sir we cant accept funds in a co-operative after this instance because we do not consider a co-operative to be a bank, I am sure you would understand, we let it pass this time. 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Aditi Sharma
edit

[Just Weird]

17 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

 

 

You mean when the OP was at the immigration window asking for an extension they made the fine distinction for him ( for his benefit for the first ever time) that the co-operative was not a bank. He should have been told Sir we cant accept funds in a co-operative after this instance because we do not consider a co-operative to be a bank, I am sure you would understand, we let it pass this time. 

No, that's not what I meant. 

There has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable for the deposit of visa extension funds.  There is not a fine distinction between the two as far as extensions of stay are concerned.

[Aditi Sharma]

3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

No, that's not what I meant. 

There has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable for the deposit of visa extension funds.  There is not a fine distinction between the two as far as extensions of stay are concerned.

One couldnt tell, could one? That: there has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable for the deposit of visa extension funds. So during the lack of it, the OP should have been given the benefit of the doubt not without being informed at the same time that funds in co-operative accounts would no longer be acceptable qualifying funds to support extension of stay applications. I am not saying your point of view in incorrect. Only if I may say so less compassionate towards the OP under the circumstances. 

[Just Weird]

28 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

I dont know. If you would not disagree with me that OP was a customer in the immigration office, it was poor customer service on their part to let him go and putting him through the hassle of moving funds from a co-operative to a bank. 

You don't know?   You should know by now, countless posters have clarified it for you.  

 

Is it "poor customer service" to expect the OP to do what every other extension applicant does, i.e. comply with the regulations?  What has happened in the past has no bearing whatsoever on his latest application.  That is a comment to you, not a criticism of the OP.

[Just Weird]

3 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

One couldnt tell, could one? That: there has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptablefor the deposit of visa extension funds. So during the lack of it, the OP should have been given the benefit of the doubt not without being informed at the same time that funds in co-operative accounts would no longer be acceptable qualifying funds to support extension of stay applications. I am not saying your point of view in incorrect. Only if I may say so less compassionate towards the OP under the circumstances. 

Jeez..

You need to read what I said again..."there has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable" means that nothing else is acceptable, it does not mean that there is any doubt about acceptable institutions, nor does it mean that there is any ambiguity.  There was no benefit of the doubt required to be given.

 

You may say whatever you like but this is not a thread about compassion, it is a thread about Immigration's rules.  For very good reasons compassion is not an element of the granting of visa extensions.

[Aditi Sharma]

7 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

You don't know?   You should know by now, countless posters have clarified it for you.  

 

Is it "poor customer service" to expect the OP to do what every other extension applicant does, i.e. comply with the regulations?  What has happened in the past has no bearing whatsoever on his latest application.  That is a comment to you, not a criticism of the OP.

That ' I dont know' was in response to the point about quibbling. 
As you have just stated that " there has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable for the deposit of visa extension funds," you would agree that we were not talking about the OP's unwillingness to comply with the regulations. The regulations were quite agreeably grey on whether co-operatives were a bank or not. And to the OP's dismay, we all got to learn that they werent. Did you have prior knowledge that co-operatives were not a bank? Just asking.  Obviously, the OP was caught completely by surprise. Are you saying that even in these circumstances the OP shouldnt have been given the benefit of the doubt?   

 

 

 

 

[Aditi Sharma]

I think the Immigration Police should have anticipated the OP's confusion and said that funds in anything other than a bank were NOT acceptable. In the absence of that clear contraindication, it creates ambiguity in the minds of people like the OP and for the purposes of equity they should be given the benefit of the doubt. That's what I think. 

[Just Weird]

1 minute ago, Aditi Sharma said:

That ' I dont know' was in response to the point about quibbling. 
As you have just stated that " there has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable for the deposit of visa extension funds," you would agree that we were not talking about the OP's unwillingness to comply with the regulations. The regulations were quite agreeably grey on whether co-operatives were a bank or not. And to the OP's dismay, we all got to learn that they werent. Did you have prior knowledge that co-operatives were not a bank? Just asking.  Obviously, the OP was caught completely by surprise. Are you saying that even in these circumstances the OP shouldnt have been given the benefit of the doubt?  

Please stop. 

 

The regulations are not a grey area.  It's a bank or nothing, it always has been.  No suggestion that any other place for deposits was acceptable has ever been made.  It is you that is trying to make it a grey area.

 

As it happens I did know that co-operatives were not banks but that is irrelevant also.

 

My opinion is that the IOs were absolutely correct in their decision but they did give him some leeway by ignoring the seasoning requirements for the funds after he had made the transfer to the correct place, so, effectively, he was given the benefit of the doubt.

[Just Weird]

10 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

I think the Immigration Police should have anticipated the OP's confusion and said that funds in anything other than a bank were NOT acceptable. In the absence of that clear contraindication, it creates ambiguity in the minds of people like the OP and for the purposes of equity they should be given the benefit of the doubt. That's what I think. 

"I think the Immigration Police should have anticipated the OP's confusion and said that funds in anything other than a bank were NOT acceptable."

That is exactly what they said!  That's why he has to transfer his funds to a bank!

 

I'm assuming by "contraindication" you mean contradiction, but then I'm unsure what you mean by the "absence of that clear contradiction".  In the OP's case there was no contradiction, so there was an absence of contradiction as far as Immigration rules were concerned.

[RoyDee]

On 10/5/2017 at 4:20 PM, mfd101 said:

If you had adopted the attitude and appearance of believing that it was all YOUR own fault and not theirs, you might have received a better result.

 

Save THEIR face and YOU can release a tirade in the car on the way home.

Spot on. Sounds like a new senior IO. Keep jai yen and ask how your misunderstanding can be resolved. You are the guest, remember. TIT.

[Aditi Sharma]

3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"I think the Immigration Police should have anticipated the OP's confusion and said that funds in anything other than a bank were NOT acceptable."

That is exactly what they said!  That's why he has to transfer his funds to a bank!

They should have done it before the OP came to the window. 

 

3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

I'm assuming by "contraindication" you mean contradiction, but then I'm unsure what you mean by the "absence of that clear contradiction".  In the OP's case there was no contradiction, so there was an absence of contradiction as far as Immigration rules were concerned.

I did not mean contradiction, I meant contraindication meaning express statement of what is not. 

 

I think I get what you have said and I agree with you. It's alright if you dont get my point. You have asked me to stop, I will. Cheers.

[BritTim]

6 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"I think the Immigration Police should have anticipated the OP's confusion and said that funds in anything other than a bank were NOT acceptable."

That is exactly what they said!  That's why he has to transfer his funds to a bank!

 

I'm assuming by "contraindication" you mean contradiction, but then I'm unsure what you mean by the "absence of that clear contradiction".  In the OP's case there was no contradiction, so there was an absence of contradiction as far as Immigration rules were concerned.

I think the point being made (which I do not agree with) is that for the benefit of those who do not know what a "bank" is, immigration should have had a explicit definition (perhaps, a list of acceptable banks, perhaps a list of types of financial institutions that are not banks) to avoid an applicant believing a non bank is a bank.

[Aditi Sharma]

3 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I think the point being made (which I do not agree with) is that for the benefit of those who do not know what a "bank" is, immigration should have had a explicit definition (perhaps, a list of acceptable banks, perhaps a list of types of financial institutions that are not banks) to avoid an applicant believing a non bank is a bank.

Sir, when you say "acceptable" banks there will be people who will say ask what banks would not be acceptable in that case. 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Aditi Sharma
edit

[Aditi Sharma]

And more importantly why not. I dont think the forum has found an answer to the question presented by the OP yet. Why are co-operatives not acceptable as banks. Agreed that they are not banks. 

[BritTim]

Just now, Aditi Sharma said:

Sir, when you say "acceptable" banks there will be people who will say what banks would not be acceptable. 

When I say "acceptable", I mean banks that the Thai authorities define as being banks. The Bank of Thailand webpage I gave a link to earlier in this thread lists them.

I do not think it realistic to list them in a Police Order as they will tend to change over time. In addition, most applicants will probably know the difference between a bank and other kinds of financial institutions.

Anyway, however the Police Order was worded, some applicants and some immigration officials will probably misread it.

[asiaexpat]

Time to close this one.