Yet more confusion over the removal of Income Certification Letter for British expats

[soalbundy]

4 hours ago, bigginhill said:

I doubt that the rental agreement would suffice and I add owning a condo in Thailand why can't the 800,000 be  reduced. Can't do that? Then if I rent it and deposit the monthly rent ? I guess that neither but it is income. 

And both of the above mentioned rentals coould have been put on the letter of income for the BE and would have been accepted.

 

you could rent it to yourself and claim the rent as income, or not?

[newatthis]

5 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

this just doesn't prove anybody has any legitimate income source!  If the Thais accept something as simple as that, all that shows is that somebody transferred in that money for three months, or maybe in one month but for three months total amount hopefully.  But it can obviously be misused.  A person can simply have money provided to them, transferred in for them, or just use some of their own cash to transfer it in for three months.  They might be spending down some sum of money with no future income available.   This just is not much proof of the intent of the constant and continuing income verification.   Now, how would a new person getting their first visa show 3 months of transfers!  And maybe some people don't want to transfer money in on any regular basis.  I certainly don't.  I will be returning home at least once a year if not twice, then return with about $10,000 USD each time.  maybe use ATM now and then as needed.  I have no plans and certainly no desire to give Thai banks much access to my financial institutions.  Even the ATM account I use is very limited and does not tie to any of my brokerage accounts or anything else.

I'm lost here.  Where does it say that only three months of transfers is adequate to show a monthly income of 40,000/65,000? I would expect immigration to request 12 month's proof of such income. 

[Pib]

Whether 3 or 12 months, a person could be repatriating the incoming money on a regular basis so he/she could send it again...and again...and again...etc.  Like having one pot of money in the home country of say 10K....send 2K monthly....but every few months send the money back to mostly fill back up that pot so the monthly transfers could continue. 

 

Sending back small amounts is generally easy enough even from Thai banks....and some of the new says of using/transferring digital currency can make it even easier.  Sure there would be some fees/losses in repatriating the money of maybe around 5% but that just a price paid in beating the system.

[Peterw42]

25 minutes ago, Pib said:

Whether 3 or 12 months, a person could be repatriating the incoming money on a regular basis so he/she could send it again...and again...and again...etc.  Like having one pot of money in the home country of say 10K....send 2K monthly....but every few months send the money back to mostly fill back up that pot so the monthly transfers could continue. 

 

Sending back small amounts is generally easy enough even from Thai banks....and some of the new says of using/transferring digital currency can make it even easier.  Sure there would be some fees/losses in repatriating the money of maybe around 5% but that just a price paid in beating the system.

Yes, that right, there are 100s of ways to show an income, fake an income, unless immigration is employing a team of forensic accountants etc.

I'm doing a similar exercise at the moment, my wife is refinancing her mortgage and needs to show the bank a certain income for 3-4 months, so every-time I bring money from home or get money from the ATM I send it via my wife's account, bank sees it as income. Wife also has a novel one where she overpays Electricity bill then get funds back tagged as income.

There is also nothing to stop 3-4 people using the same 800k deposit, move it from account to account for 3 months each.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Peterw42

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, newatthis said:

I'm lost here.  Where does it say that only three months of transfers is adequate to show a monthly income of 40,000/65,000? I would expect immigration to request 12 month's proof of such income. 

The only proof that they will accept is an embassy letter.

[Pib]

And just to make it real easy if wanting to go the route of sending so much money per month and they repatriating it periodically just so you can send it again, just open a Foreign Currency Deposit (FCD) account which is accepted retirement/marriage extension purposes (accepted just like a regular savings account) but with a FCD transferring funds back out is easy.

 

Per transfer back to the account it came from in the home country the transfer fee would be around Bt350 to Bt1200 depending on the Thai bank as fees vary a little.  Approx Bt300 if you will absorb any intermediary/correspondent bank fee that may apply (that is that intermediary bank slices off a fee as it flows thru them) or around Bt1200 if you want the Thai bank to pick up in intermediary bank that may apply.   Now to repatriate the funds you will also pay a 0.5% fee (Bt500 min).  

 

For example...a few snapshots for Bangkok Bank regarding their FCD....other Thai banks have basically the same rules and very similar fees.  Full info at their webpage below

https://www.bangkokbank.com/en/Personal/Save-And-Invest/Save/FCD-Account-for-Non-residents

 

 

[Peterw42]

1 hour ago, newatthis said:

I'm lost here.  Where does it say that only three months of transfers is adequate to show a monthly income of 40,000/65,000? I would expect immigration to request 12 month's proof of such income. 

It doesnt say it anywhere, its speculation, because it 3 months for the 800k deposit people are thinking it would be 3 months for an income. As with all of these things, its speculation on page 3 of the thread, then being re-quoted as fact on page 6 of the thread.

[newatthis]

1 minute ago, Peterw42 said:

It doesnt say it anywhere, its speculation, because it 3 months for the 800k deposit people are thinking it would be 3 months for an income. As with all of these things, its speculation on page 3 of the thread, then being re-quoted as fact on page 6 of the thread.

Thank you for the clarification. 

[Spidey]

Just now, Pib said:

And just to make it real easy if wanting to go the route of sending so much money per month and they repatriating it periodically just so you can send it again, just open a Foreign Currency Deposit (FCD) account which is accepted retirement/marriage extension purposes (accepted just like a regular savings account) but with a FCD transferring funds back out is easy.

 

Per transfer back to the account it came from in the home country the transfer fee would be around Bt350 to Bt1200 depending on the Thai bank as fees vary a little.  Approx Bt300 if you will absorb any intermediary/correspondent bank fee that may apply (that is that intermediary bank slices off a fee as it flows thru them) or around Bt1200 if you want the Thai bank to pick up in intermediary bank that may apply.   Now to repatriate the funds you will also pay a 0.5% fee (Bt500 min).  

 

For example...a few snapshots for Bangkok Bank regarding their FCD....other Thai banks have basically the same rules and very similar fees.  Full info at their webpage below

https://www.bangkokbank.com/en/Personal/Save-And-Invest/Save/FCD-Account-for-Non-residents

 

 

All of this is pointless and muddying the waters.

 

What part of "Immigration only accept embassy letters as proof of income" don't you understand?

[HHTel]

6 hours ago, bigginhill said:

What puzzles me is that, as some have mentioned, it's possible to obtain a Non O-A retirement visa at the Thai Embassy in London. The financial requirements are the same and the Thai Embassy requires the same evidence of income as the British Embassy do to issue income letters.

 

The Thai Embassy in London accept this evidence with no further verification, yet the British Embassy are telling us that it won't satisfy Thai Immigration.

 

Methinks somebody is telling porkies...…...and it ain't Thai Immigration.

That is for a visa.  The question here is for 'extensions of stay'.  That's different.

[Peterw42]

10 minutes ago, Pib said:

And just to make it real easy if wanting to go the route of sending so much money per month and they repatriating it periodically just so you can send it again, just open a Foreign Currency Deposit (FCD) account which is accepted retirement/marriage extension purposes (accepted just like a regular savings account) but with a FCD transferring funds back out is easy.

 

Per transfer back to the account it came from in the home country the transfer fee would be around Bt350 to Bt1200 depending on the Thai bank as fees vary a little.  Approx Bt300 if you will absorb any intermediary/correspondent bank fee that may apply (that is that intermediary bank slices off a fee as it flows thru them) or around Bt1200 if you want the Thai bank to pick up in intermediary bank that may apply.   Now to repatriate the funds you will also pay a 0.5% fee (Bt500 min).  

 

For example...a few snapshots for Bangkok Bank regarding their FCD....other Thai banks have basically the same rules and very similar fees.  Full info at their webpage below

https://www.bangkokbank.com/en/Personal/Save-And-Invest/Save/FCD-Account-for-Non-residents

 

 

This is all speculative, presuming that one day immigration will want the income to come from outside of Thailand, at the moment they dont.

If it comes about, I think people will get very creative, send funds to paypal and back, buy something on-line then cancel, overpay a bill then get a credit. There are banks like citibank that do transfers between citibank accounts in different countries with no fees etc.

[Spidey]

Just now, Peterw42 said:

This is all speculative, presuming that one day immigration will want the income to come from outside of Thailand, at the moment they dont.

If it comes about, I think people will get very creative, send funds to paypal and back, buy something on-line then cancel, overpay a bill then get a credit. There are banks like citibank that do transfers between citibank accounts in different countries with no fees etc.

They never will change current policy. Why would they because one embassy has had a hissy fit? It would involve Thai Immigration taking on much more work and responsibility, something that they've never been inclined to do. Why do you think that they brought the embassy letter requirement in, in the first place? 

[Pib]

21 minutes ago, Spidey said:

All of this is pointless and muddying the waters.

 

What part of "Immigration only accept embassy letters as proof of income" don't you understand?

Understand it perfectly....just showing how easy it would be to game the system "if they were to simply accept 12 monthly transfers going to your Thai bank accounts as acceptable proof without any income letter" as the BE said they would accept. 

 

Thai Immigration will want more proof you have real, consistent income which can not proved by simple transfers....basically the will want to know more about the "source of the funds" like form a pension,  a high balance financial account (i.e., big ass savings/investments), etc.   I don't foresee then wanting to go down this road due to complexity, except maybe for govt pensions.   

 

Now, Thai Immigration sure would love it if embassies would do "validation" of the source of funds but that's just too complex to do....and even not easy for govt pension because it would require the embassy to accept documents produced by the person which could be faked....embassy can't access other govt systems to confirm a govt pension.  

 

In the end even embassy really can not "validate" source of income all it can do is confirm a person said he had such income and maybe provided some supporting docs that may be real....we are taking the person's word.   

 

[cleopatra2]

On 10/14/2018 at 10:38 AM, Spidey said:

What puzzles me is that, as some have mentioned, it's possible to obtain a Non O-A retirement visa at the Thai Embassy in London. The financial requirements are the same and the Thai Embassy requires the same evidence of income as the British Embassy do to issue income letters.

 

The Thai Embassy in London accept this evidence with no further verification, yet the British Embassy are telling us that it won't satisfy Thai Immigration.

 

Methinks somebody is telling porkies...…...and it ain't Thai Immigration.

The documents provided in the UK have jurisdiction in the UK but not  overseas .

For a document produced in the UK to have legal jurisdiction overseas , it would be required to be legalised , usually by the FCO

Edited October 16, 2018 by cleopatra2

[Spidey]

6 minutes ago, Pib said:

Understand it perfectly....just showing how easy it would be to game the system "if they were to simply accept 12 monthly transfers going to your Thai bank accounts as acceptable proof without any income letter" as the BE said they would accept. 

 

BE either openly lied, lost something in translation or were completely clueless about Thai Immigration policy. The Thai Immigration policy will not change, ever.

 

AS I said, you are muddying the waters by postulating wild theories about something that isn't going to happen.

 

It may be amusing for you but you aren't helping people who have genuine concerns about a real dilemma.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Spidey

[Spidey]

Just now, cleopatra2 said:

The documents provided in the UK have jurisdiction in the UK but not  oversees .

For a document produced in the UK to have legal jurisdiction oversees , it would be required to be legalised , usually by the FCO

Which is what the embassy letter does.

[Pib]

As already said by others (and just to repeat) it all comes down to what Thai Immigration will accept.  The BE (or any other embassy) has no direct power in setting TI policies.  Now TI will surely take into consideration what foreign embassies will or will not do to support TI policies (call that maybe some indirect influence) like issuing income letters, but it's only a factor for consideration in TI setting its policies.

 

If TI continues to require embassy income letters then those embassies which don't provide them will take away that extension income option for its citizens.

[Pattaya46]

16 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Yes to TI wanting verification. UK response is to discontinue the letter.

Don't you think that TI always wanted that ? 

No doubt that when they started to ask proof of incomes, decades ago, they expected a letter with a content they could trust, not a worthless letter with fancy figures and a nice stamp. 

So very probably not a new request from TI. At most a recent reminder of what they were expected from the embassy.

[Spidey]

Just now, Pib said:

As already said by others (and just to repeat) it all comes down to what Thai Immigration will accept.  The BE (or any other embassy) has no direct power in setting TI policies.  Now TI will surely take into consideration what foreign embassies will or will not do to support TI policies (call that maybe some indirect influence) like issuing income letters, but it's only a factor for consideration in TI setting its policies.

 

If TI continues to require embassy income letters then those embassies which don't provide them will take away that extension income option for its citizens.

TI will only accept income letters. This isn't going to change, they won't take into consideration the policies of foreign embassies, particularly one that has spread blatant lies about them. There's no "ifs" about it.

 

To suggest otherwise is to give people false hope and detracts from the real issues that people are facing.

[Thaidream]

29 minutes ago, Pib said:

Understand it perfectly....just showing how easy it would be to game the system "if they were to simply accept 12 monthly transfers going to your Thai bank accounts as acceptable proof without any income letter" as the BE said they would accept

While this is certainly possible- I have to believe Thai Imm is smart enough to require aided proof such as a pension letter; Social Security verification; Company Letter indicating payments IN Addition tp transfer data. I already take more than 65K from my Us bank account via Thai ATMs or go into a Thai bank and get a cash advance on my cards.  While I could then deposit the funds in a Thai Account and then draw it out again- it's a useless exercise to prove what?   There are far better ways to prove income stream that are overlapping and from 2-3 difference sources. It's pretty hard to forge all the documents and also forge the ATM cards/Credit Cards..

 

The bottom line is that if your living in Thailand you need to have a place to stay; eat; and all the other things that support life. That costs money - and unless you are getting your monies illegally there is always some documentation to prove it.  Even Las Vegas requests proof of identity when you win more than $600 gambling. There are several ways that Thai Imm can use to verify income- the Embassy letter was rather a universal way  as it is one page and comes directly to the point.

 

The problem with the BE Letter- is it was never sworn to- no oath was taken and thus no criminal liability for the applicant/ The Australian; American and others make you sign an affidavit indicating  the info is true under penalty of perjury.  If you lie- you have committed a crime- twice- once in your home country and another in Thailand. It's the same oath one swears when they testify in court; give evidence to a lawyer or provide notarized statements seeking loans and investments.  

 

Could you lie- I suppose but most entities use  multiple ways to eliminate fraud by requesting documents that give overlapping info . The best way for Thai to proceed is to accept the letter from all Embassies and spot check the affidavits -while for British Nationals since their Embassy will not co-operate they may need added documentation others don't need.  My earnest hope is the the BE  continues the letter with some changes  vis a vis the Aussies letter or USA letter.

[pagallim]

Core to this situation is the disparity between Embassies and what they choose to provide rather than Thai Immigration's specific and detailed requirements.   The UK and others, go the actual letter route, with income figures that are 'substantiated' by detailed documentary evidence in whatever form, and the only signatory is that of the issuing Consul staff.   Others go the 'Statutory Declaration' way, with no supporting documents, only an affidavit and signature by the applicant, which is merely witnessed by their own Consul staff.

 

One could also argue that the 400/800,000 baht seasoned in a Thai bank account is actual proof of required funds for a one year visa extension.   Demonstrated income is historical, subject to exchange rate fluctuations, and with the exception of certain pensions, not a guarantee of continued receipt of the required amount for the duration of the new extension.

 

That both current options could be abused by some there is no doubt.

 

Unfortunately, the BE's unilateral decision has the potential to bring many otherwise law abiding individuals living their lives in a retired or family environment into conflict with the law, or significant distress to both themselves and their families.

[Saltire]

How many Brits live in Thailand long term (honest question - I have no idea)?

 

I don't have the time to read every page but please tell me (politely ???? ) if I am missing something here.

 

The British Embassy are saying they get only 250 applications for income letters per month, so around 3000 per year.

 

Can I therefore assume that this is very likely to be the smaller percentage of the TOTAL of those who live here long-term on a marriage or retirement visa/extension but do NOT ask for an income letter, i.e. therefore must use the 400/800k in-the-bank route? 

 

So if 3000 require letters, I wonder how many Brits do not and at the moment are unaffected?  

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Saltire

[soalbundy]

16 minutes ago, Saltire said:

How many Brits live in Thailand long term (honest question - I have no idea)?

 

I don't have the time to read every page but please tell me (politely ???? ) if I am missing something here.

 

The British Embassy are saying they get only 250 applications for income letters per month, so around 3000 per year.

 

Can I therefore assume that this is very likely to be the smaller percentage of the TOTAL of those who live here long-term on a marriage or retirement visa/extension but do NOT ask for an income letter, i.e. therefore must use the 400/800k in-the-bank route? 

 

So if 3000 require letters, I wonder how many Brits do not and at the moment are unaffected?  

 

 

 

250 a month could be a lie, more likely 250 a week

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

Which is what the embassy letter does.

The first question is the consulate authorised to make such declarations. A note on British High Commision ( British consulates in commonwealth countries ) are not allowed to carry out any notarial acts.

[Pattaya46]

17 minutes ago, Saltire said:

So if 3000 require letters, I wonder how many Brits do not and at the moment are unaffected?

There would be between 65'000 and 85'000 British expats in Thailand (depending of sources...). No idea how many are on Retirement or Marriage Extension.

 

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, pagallim said:

Core to this situation is the disparity between Embassies and what they choose to provide rather than Thai Immigration's specific and detailed requirements.   The UK and others, go the actual letter route, with income figures that are 'substantiated' by detailed documentary evidence in whatever form, and the only signatory is that of the issuing Consul staff.   Others go the 'Statutory Declaration' way, with no supporting documents, only an affidavit and signature by the applicant, which is merely witnessed by their own Consul staff.

One could also argue that the 400/800,000 baht seasoned in a Thai bank account is actual proof of required funds for a one year visa extension.   Demonstrated income is historical, subject to exchange rate fluctuations, and with the exception of certain pensions, not a guarantee of continued receipt of the required amount for the duration of the new extension.

That both current options could be abused by some there is no doubt.

Unfortunately, the BE's unilateral decision has the potential to bring many otherwise law abiding individuals living their lives in a retired or family environment into conflict with the law, or significant distress to both themselves and their families.

Most of the objection to transferring a lump sum to Thailand has come from those who don't want to rather than those who cannot, so in their case the distress is more one of financial inconvenience than anything else.

[Jingthing]

21 minutes ago, Saltire said:

How many Brits live in Thailand long term (honest question - I have no idea)?

 

I don't have the time to read every page but please tell me (politely ???? ) if I am missing something here.

 

The British Embassy are saying they get only 250 applications for income letters per month, so around 3000 per year.

 

Can I therefore assume that this is very likely to be the smaller percentage of the TOTAL of those who live here long-term on a marriage or retirement visa/extension but do NOT ask for an income letter, i.e. therefore must use the 400/800k in-the-bank route? 

 

So if 3000 require letters, I wonder how many Brits do not and at the moment are unaffected?  

 

 

 

Well all people, Brits and otherwise, using the money in the bank and seasoned method have not been showing up for embassy letters because they aren't needed for that. The BE wouldn't know that number unless they asked immigration. There was an item with the Pattaya radio interview that seemed to indicate immigration had told the British that about HALF the British applications were done without letter.

[soalbundy]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Well all people, Brits and otherwise, using the money in the bank and seasoned method have not been showing up for embassy letters because they aren't needed for that. The BE wouldn't know that number unless they asked immigration. There was an item with the Pattaya radio interview that seemed to indicate immigration had told the British that about HALF the British applications were done without letter.

something wrong there, that would indicate only 6,000 Brits in Thailand or that 3,000 on income related visas didn't need a letter.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, soalbundy said:

something wrong there, that would indicate only 6,000 Brits in Thailand or that 3,000 on income related visas didn't need a letter.

I agree. That number sounds very low. 

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I agree. That number sounds very low. 

seems she was telling pokies again, or just didn't know what she was talking about. I could imagine that 3,000 a month send their applications directly to the embassy (probably a hell of a lot more) and the rest are processed by consuls,honoury and official, yes they all end up at the embassy but the consul would take or send his in bulk possibly to another desk ie. 'already checked by consul' desk.