I don't understand the logic of Thai Immigration

[Spidey]

Just now, Bill97 said:

Pure speculation. Fact is that a much higher % of Brits are scamming. After all they are entitled.


Sent from my iPod touch using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

And where do you get that fact from?

 

Given the facts that I have quoted, it's logical to infer that a far higher percentage of Americans are scamming. (Probably taking lessons from their President).

[BritManToo]

30 minutes ago, Bill97 said:

Pure speculation. Fact is that a much higher % of Brits are scamming. After all they are entitled

1

It's never really been an option for us Brits as our consulate always wanted to see evidence of income.

Unlike Americans whose consulate will take their word on the matter.

 

My Brit pals tend to just move elsewhere when the VISA conditions get hard.

But I know several Americans that have always lied about their income to get the letter.

 

I've never used an income letter as proof, either cash in my Thai bank, or more recently, a VISA issued in another country (no evidence of money/income required).

[amexpat]

On 10/13/2018 at 10:40 AM, Thaidream said:

If I was the Embassy- I would inform Thai Imm what  Us law states and inform them that if they find someone has lied about their income to notify the US FBI office at the Embassy for further investigation.

Why not?  The FBI doesn't have much to do these days, do they? 

[steve73]

There is nothing to prevent someone borrowing 800k for a period of 3 months to satisfy the savings method.  I know friends who have made arrangements between themselves.  A Thai bank would be unwilling to lend without some substantial security.  A visa agent who lends on this basis and obtains the extension would be entirely legal.  It would be quite reasonably to pay the agent say 2% interest for this 3 month period, or 16,000 kbt.

 

The problem arises when the 3 month period is waived by the Immigration Officer for some undisclosed (or perhaps illegal?) reason.

 

[Thailand]

2 hours ago, Bill97 said:

Pure speculation. Fact is that a much higher % of Brits are scamming. After all they are entitled.


Sent from my iPod touch using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

And how does that work for Brits then?

I don't think they can raise up their hand and say my income is this much?

[blackhorse]

And hasn't the Statutory Declaration /Affidavit form of declaration been a problem for the Americans with immigration saying they are unacceptable without proof of income as too many were making false declarations, likely to happen with Australians also.
I am fully aware of what criteria has been and is required by immigration. Simply many people who can prove their income may find themselves unable to get their extensions of stay without an embassy confirmation of some sort, this will surely not only apply to Brits and Americans in the future.
Immigration are fully aware of this situation.

How would they know if Americans are making false declarations?

[NancyL]

53 minutes ago, steve73 said:

There is nothing to prevent someone borrowing 800k for a period of 3 months to satisfy the savings method.  I know friends who have made arrangements between themselves.  A Thai bank would be unwilling to lend without some substantial security.  A visa agent who lends on this basis and obtains the extension would be entirely legal.  It would be quite reasonably to pay the agent say 2% interest for this 3 month period, or 16,000 kbt.

 

The problem arises when the 3 month period is waived by the Immigration Officer for some undisclosed (or perhaps illegal?) reason.

 

And what happens when the visa applicant holding the 800,000 baht during the three month period becomes ill and decides to use the 800,000 baht in their account to pay their medical bill or has a Thai g/f or someone else close to them who runs off with the money during the time they are holding the visa agent's 800,000 baht or worse yet, dies?  I've known this to happen in cases where friends were sharing 800,000 baht between them.

[Naam]

2 minutes ago, NancyL said:

And what happens when the visa applicant holding the 800,000 baht during the three month period becomes ill and decides to use the 800,000 baht in their account to pay their medical bill or has a Thai g/f or someone else close to them who runs off with the money during the time they are holding the visa agent's 800,000 baht or worse yet, dies?  I've known this to happen in cases where friends were sharing 800,000 baht between them.

= sh!t happens.

[steve73]

8 minutes ago, NancyL said:

And what happens when the visa applicant holding the 800,000 baht during the three month period becomes ill and decides to use the 800,000 baht in their account to pay their medical bill or has a Thai g/f or someone else close to them who runs off with the money during the time they are holding the visa agent's 800,000 baht or worse yet, dies?  I've known this to happen in cases where friends were sharing 800,000 baht between them.

Obviously the visa agent would require adequate security, and this may mean holding the applicants bank book with a pre-authorized withdrawal slip...

And if between friends - then you should choose your friends more carefully....

[Thailand]

28 minutes ago, blackhorse said:

On 10/12/2018 at 5:01 PM, Thailand said:

And hasn't the Statutory Declaration /Affidavit form of declaration been a problem for the Americans with immigration saying they are unacceptable without proof of income as too many were making false declarations, likely to happen with Australians also.
I am fully aware of what criteria has been and is required by immigration. Simply many people who can prove their income may find themselves unable to get their extensions of stay without an embassy confirmation of some sort, this will surely not only apply to Brits and Americans in the future.
Immigration are fully aware of this situation.

How would they know if Americans are making false declarations?

Random checks perhaps?

[Spidey]

11 minutes ago, Thailand said:

Random checks perhaps?

Doesn't happen but due diligence would suggest that it should.

[Spidey]

20 minutes ago, steve73 said:

Obviously the visa agent would require adequate security, and this may mean holding the applicants bank book with a pre-authorized withdrawal slip...

And if between friends - then you should choose your friends more carefully....

The visa agent puts nothing into the applicants account. It goes into a separate account which the applicant doesn't have access to.

[steve73]

7 minutes ago, Spidey said:

The visa agent puts nothing into the applicants account. It goes into a separate account which the applicant doesn't have access to.

But the separate account must surely be in the applicant's name (in order to support the extension), and the agent must hold preauthorized withdrawal from it (so he can get his funding back). 

[Spidey]

Just now, steve73 said:

But the separate account must surely be in the applicant's name (in order to support the extension), and the agent must hold preauthorized withdrawal from it (so he can get his funding back). 

Apparently not. That's where the dodgy deal comes in which needs a sweetner to the Immigration officer.

 

I don't know the fine detail as visa agents don't tend to broadcast their illegal activities.

[DILLIGAD]

But the separate account must surely be in the applicant's name (in order to support the extension), and the agent must hold preauthorized withdrawal from it (so he can get his funding back). 

Maybe these ‘agents’ could have a ‘clients account’ with required funds held in it, plus a Bank guarantee also held as security.
Just a thought by someone who spent a few decades working in Banking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spidey]

Just now, DILLIGAD said:

Maybe these ‘agents’ could have a ‘clients account’ with required funds held in it, plus a Bank guarantee also held as security.
Just a thought by someone who spent a few decades working in Banking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

[blackhorse]

Doesn't happen but due diligence would suggest that it should.

A random check would need a bank book but obviously there wouldn't be one produced from a scammer. They would go home and try again or do a border run instead

[steve73]

7 minutes ago, DILLIGAD said:

Maybe these ‘agents’ could have a ‘clients account’ with required funds held in it, plus a Bank guarantee also held as security.
Just a thought by someone who spent a few decades working in Banking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And if this money were held for the required 3 month minimum, then there would be no "sweetener" necessary and it would be perfectly legal. 

As a former banker what fee would you expect the agents/bank require to set up such a deal?  

[Spidey]

Just now, steve73 said:

And if this money were held for the required 3 month minimum, then there would be no "sweetener" necessary and it would be perfectly legal. 

As a former banker what fee would you expect the agents/bank require to set up such a deal?  

Not legal as immigration expect the money to be the client's money, not created in some notional account that he has no access to. The point is to prove that you have sufficient funds to live off for the next 12 months  which Immigration equates to 800k per annum or 65k per month.

 

I know that they currently charge an average of 20k to acquire a visa extension through this route.

[LomSak27]

On 10/13/2018 at 10:40 AM, Thaidream said:

If I was the Embassy- I would inform Thai Imm what  Us law states and inform them that if they find someone has lied about their income to notify the US FBI office at the Embassy for further investigation.

 

I would add that this is the same concept that is used in making statements to the police; a court; or anyone else that issues an Oath.

 

And that is why you are not the Embassy  

[steve73]

13 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Not legal as immigration expect the money to be the client's money, not created in some notional account that he has no access to. The point is to prove that you have sufficient funds to live off for the next 12 months  which Immigration equates to 800k per annum or 65k per month.

 

I know that they currently charge an average of 20k to acquire a visa extension through this route.

I don't wish to seem pedantic, as I am in broad agreement with your stance, but "expectation" is not the same as a legal requirement, and even if you genuinely had 800k at the time of extension, there is nothing to stop you spending it immediately. 

If anyone doesn't have sufficient funds to live here then there are no state hand-outs to assist.... We are all here by our own free will.

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, steve73 said:

I don't wish to seem pedantic, as I am in broad agreement with your stance, but "expectation" is not the same as a legal requirement

Try telling that to Thai Immigration. 

[Jingthing]

I don't wish to seem pedantic, as I am in broad agreement with your stance, but "expectation" is not the same as a legal requirement, and even if you genuinely had 800k at the time of extension, there is nothing to stop you spending it immediately. 
If anyone doesn't have sufficient funds to live here then there are no state hand-outs to assist.... We are all here by our own free will.

Of course. You may spend it all down if you want immediately after getting your annual extension stamp. That isn't news or a controversial point.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[AGareth2]

it would seem to me the the BE is saying that if you can show 12 monthly transfers from abroad of 65 k into a Thai bank Immigration will accept this and there is no need for a letter

[Thailand]

1 hour ago, AGareth2 said:

it would seem to me the the BE is saying that if you can show 12 monthly transfers from abroad of 65 k into a Thai bank Immigration will accept this and there is no need for a letter

But immigration has yet to make any comment on this situation as yet and they have the say not the British Embassy. 

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, Thailand said:

So would it be safe to say that many abuse the system as some of the Americans do and make false declarations irrespective of the potential penalties?

I wouldn't say many; however, it's possible there are some. They are in deep doo-doo if they are caught.

[Spidey]

Just now, Lacessit said:

I wouldn't say many; however, it's possible there are some. They are in deep doo-doo if they are caught.

I've never heard of anyone being caught. The US Embassy would have to investigate their income declaration, which wouldn't be easy. Can't see it happening.

[Lacessit]

Just now, Spidey said:

I've never heard of anyone being caught. The US Embassy would have to investigate their income declaration, which wouldn't be easy. Can't see it happening.

Easy enough for Australian authorities. If ( and it's a fairly big if ) the Thai immigration people queried an Australian's income, they can go to our tax office or Centrelink to verify the data. Everything is linked. There's no escaping Big Brother in Oz.

[blackhorse]

Easy enough for Australian authorities. If ( and it's a fairly big if ) the Thai immigration people queried an Australian's income, they can go to our tax office or Centrelink to verify the data. Everything is linked. There's no escaping Big Brother in Oz.

Thailand and oz are not linked. Thailand does not have access to centerlink or any banks or the TAX office

You really think even if they could they would dedicate man hours trying to disprove a visa application via international channels lol

[steve73]

In many cases income is derived from a few home country sources - state pension, company pension & private pension.  In case such as these it is reasonable that their embassy could at least understand the evidence of statements etc, if not actually "verify" them accurately.

 

But some people have pensions from 2 or more countries, perhaps income from investments in other countries (eg. Panama), or even simply drawing down their own savings or selling some investments, which could be based anywhere. In this case there is little the "home country" embassy can do to verify all of these sources (and I'm sure these people wouldn't want them snooping around too closely anyway).  Not every country insists that its citizens declare all their worldwide assets.  For these people the 800k savings is currently a more suitable arrangement, even if they can easily meet the total income.  The possibility using a Thai bank statement & letter verifying that the required income is deposited into T/L would perhaps be even better IF it were available.