Not doing 90day report, departing <96th day [solved]

[elviajero]

8 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

That is badly written, misleading, and wrong.

"If a foreigner staying in the kingdom over 90 days without notifying the Immigration Bureau ... a fine of 2,000.- Baht will be collected."

Did you intentionally leave out this part that says "or notifying the Immigration Bureau later than the set period". That means the 7 days after.

"If a foreigner staying in the kingdom over 90 days without notifying the Immigration Bureau or notifying the Immigration Bureau later than the set period, a fine of 2,000.- Baht will be collected."

 

Yes, because I was quoting the first clause of a compound sentence! The conjunction "OR" separates the "notifying the Immigration Bureau later than the set period" into a separate clause; therefore, it wasn't relevant to the clause I was quoting. I'm no English language expert, but if you can't read/understand a simple compound sentence how can you justify it as the source of your opinion. 

 

When you break down the sentence into its component clauses it makes it easier to understand. The first clause is saying that anyone that stays longer than 90 days without reporting will be fined 2K, which as I pointed out is ridiculous because it would include everyone from 00:01 on day 91; and as everyone is getting fined within the 'set period' it makes the second clause redundant.

 

Also, you failed to quote the entire note that included information on being arrested. I believe the note is supposed to say that someone caught with an overdue report can be arrested and fined 4K, whereas someone reporting late is fined 2K. The writer just made a pigs ear of it.

 

The bottom line is that it's a badly written note that makes no sense.

[elviajero]

8 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

I don't care about your misinterpretation or twisting of what it says in the immigration act. It is still are report of staying over 90 days in the country. That is the primary reason for doing the report.

I'm not misinterpreting or twisting anything.

 

It is an address report required because you're staying in the country. Here's the proof.

 

Immigration Act

If the alien stays in the Kingdom longer than ninety days, such alien must notify the competent official at the Immigration Division , in writing , concerning his place of stay , as soon as possible upon expiration of ninety days.

 

TM.47

"... MY PRESENT ADDRESS IS"

"PLEASE NOTIFY YOUR ADDRESS AGAIN ON"

 

Online reporting website

"Apply for Notification of residence when staying in the Kingdom over 90 days."

 

"According to The Immigration Act,B.E.2522,the foreigner who has received a temporary stay permit and stayed in the Kingdom of Thailand over 90 days must notify his residence to immigration officer every 90 days."

 

The primary reason is to update/report ones address for the next 90 day period. 

[farangx]

On 4/28/2018 at 9:52 AM, lkv said:

Leaving after 97 days does not mean you do not have to do a 90 day report. Next time when you apply for an extension Immigration will pick up on the fact that you have spent 97 consecutive days without reporting and you will incur a fine of 2,000 baht.

 

Tod from the ThaiVisa Advice group of Facebook explains it better.

 

 

 

 

Whether the person left the country on the 92nd day or the 97th day or more, he would have violated the law if he did not do a 90 day reporting.  If immigration pick that up at a later day, he can be subjected to a fine.

[lkv]

All right let me twist it a bit more.

 

What happens if one makes an online report on day 92, and while it's pending leaves the country on day 93, and the online report finally goes through on day 94 when that person has already left Thailand?

 

?

[ubonjoe]

8 minutes ago, lkv said:

What happens if one makes an online report on day 92, and while it's pending leaves the country on day 93, and the online report finally goes through on day 94 when that person has already left Thailand?

It would not be possible to do the online report on day 92. It has to done within a window of 15 to 7 days before the report is due.

[farangx]

2 hours ago, lkv said:

All right let me twist it a bit more.

 

What happens if one makes an online report on day 92, and while it's pending leaves the country on day 93, and the online report finally goes through on day 94 when that person has already left Thailand?

 

?

For that twist to work, you will need to have someone at immigration reset the system date to enable that entry to be made.  Failing which hacking into the system maybe required.

 

Tod was spot on, mine was just a shorter version of his ....

[elviajero]

15 hours ago, farangx said:

Whether the person left the country on the 92nd day or the 97th day or more, he would have violated the law if he did not do a 90 day reporting.

No they haven't. The law says you have to report 'asap' after day 90. If you report more than 7 days after day 90 the report becomes overdue and you can be fined.

 

21 hours ago, farangx said:

If immigration pick that up at a later day, he can be subjected to a fine.

If you leave before a fine becomes due you can never lawfully be fined.

[PoorSucker]

It's always going to the IO discretion. 

 

[phuketrichard]

18 hours ago, lkv said:

All right let me twist it a bit more.

 

What happens if one makes an online report on day 92, and while it's pending leaves the country on day 93, and the online report finally goes through on day 94 when that person has already left Thailand?

 

?

you cant!!!

15-7 days before its due, when online reports are accepted.

[farangx]

On 4/30/2018 at 6:18 PM, elviajero said:

No they haven't. The law says you have to report 'asap' after day 90. If you report more than 7 days after day 90 the report becomes overdue and you can be fined.

 

I said very clearly that he would have violated the law IF HE DID NOT DO a 90 day reporting.  You are clearly talking about something else.

[elviajero]

7 hours ago, farangx said:

On 30/04/2018 at 7:18 PM, elviajero said:

No they haven't. The law says you have to report 'asap' after day 90. If you report more than 7 days after day 90 the report becomes overdue and you can be fined.

I said very clearly that he would have violated the law IF HE DID NOT DO a 90 day reporting.  You are clearly talking about something else.

That only applies to someone staying in the country and reporting after the set period (within 7 days after).

 

If you leave the country on day 92 you do not need to report your address because you are leaving the country, and you cannot be fined for not reporting your address because you haven't stayed longer than 97 days. To be fined late for reporting you must stay in the country and report after 97 days.

 

I'm correcting you, not talking about something else.

[farangx]

25 minutes ago, elviajero said:

That only applies to someone staying in the country and reporting after the set period (within 7 days after).

 

If you leave the country on day 92 you do not need to report your address because you are leaving the country, and you cannot be fined for not reporting your address because you haven't stayed longer than 97 days. To be fined late for reporting you must stay in the country and report after 97 days.

 

I'm correcting you, not talking about something else.

Doesn't matter, that is your interpretation, not how I read it ....

[elviajero]

11 minutes ago, farangx said:

Doesn't matter, that is your interpretation, not how I read it ....

It's not my interpretation, it's the law. I advise you stop reading and ask immigration.

[lkv]

40 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It's not my interpretation, it's the law. I advise you stop reading and ask immigration.

You're the only one here that keeps twisting it.

 

Tod Daniels is saying that he personally knows people that were fined for not reporting in day 90 to 97 next time they visited Immigration (after leaving the country between day 90 and day 97).

 

Believing your version of the story would not only imply that Tod Daniels does not know what he is talking about, but he is also blatantly lying about those people that got fined in exactly this situation.

 

Or the other option is that those IO's abused the law, which, although some do in some places, I don't feel it applies in this particular situation.

[elviajero]

56 minutes ago, lkv said:

Tod Daniels is saying that he personally knows people that were fined for not reporting in day 90 to 97 next time they visited Immigration (after leaving the country between day 90 and day 97).

Any Tod, Dick or Harry can set up a Facebook account and start giving advice!

 

I don’t believe for one minute that he knows anyone that has been retrospectively been fined. And if he does he should know it’s unlawful and be advising those people to get a refund.

 

As I’ve pointed out, if someone leaving on day 95 can be fined then so could someone leaving at 00:01 on day 91. That would be ridiculous.

 

3 hours ago, lkv said:

Believing your version of the story would not only imply that Tod Daniels does not know what he is talking about, but he is also blatantly lying about those people that got fined in exactly this situation.

His quoted posts prove to me that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to 90 day reporting.

 

Anyone that believes all they read on a forum is naieve to say the least. If I want to know the facts on important issues I get them direct from immigration, which is why I’m confident in my advice.

[lkv]

16 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Anyone that believes all they read on a forum is naieve to say the least. 

Based on that very same logic I don't believe anything you are saying ?

 

But we're going around in circles, I'm off for now. ?

[elviajero]

17 minutes ago, lkv said:

36 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Anyone that believes all they read on a forum is naieve to say the least. 

Based on that very same logic I don't believe anything you are saying ?

??