Australia joins the UK and USA with withdrawal of income verification

[nasa123]

19 minutes ago, EricTh said:

 

Opening a  bank account is  not a  problem with Bangkok Bank.

 

I opened it when I was a tourist many years ago. Opening it with retirement  or marriage visa is even easier.

 

So that's not an excuse.

 

 

 

 

Sorry but in Phuket you can not open a bank account if you don’t have a B-visa. 

[Olmate]

Wrong, no worries if retired

[hotchilli]

On 11/2/2018 at 9:01 AM, TSF said:

Looks like all farang living in Thailand on annual extensions will now need to have the 400K & 800K THB in a Thai bank account in order to continue living in Thailand. Now, just wait and see if next year they'll double the required sums. I've been expecting it for a couple years now, but it'll happen because they want you gone.

Or the monthly income... don't read into the situation what's not there !!!

[THE REVERAND]

Goodbye Thailand hello Vietnam, Cambodia or Malaysia. It looks like the good old days are over  or maybe they want to fill the country with Chinese. This government is hell bent on destroying Thailand "The land of the Loaned Watch" or Can't Remember will get smaller and smaller for farangs. 

[Peterw42]

50 minutes ago, nasa123 said:

Sorry but in Phuket you can not open a bank account if you don’t have a B-visa. 

That may be your experience but most of the banks will open an account on a long stay visa, marriage, retire etc. I have 2 Phuket accounts opened without a B visa. I have a friend who opened an account in Patong last week with only a tourist visa.

Nowadays banks are less likely to accept WP as they no longer have an address.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Peterw42

[Russell17au]

6 hours ago, bearsamui said:

I understand Stat Decs wont be accepted anymore as evidence of funds but what about letters from employers? I have provided a letter from my employer verifiying my salary for the last 3 yrs for my Non O extension which I have had stamped by the Aust Embassy. I earn triple the monthly amount required but don't have the required funds in my thai account.

The letter from my company is proof of funds, its not a stat dec. Will this still suffice?

Looking at the current requirements requested by immigration it just says proof of funds of 40000bht a month. A letter from my employer and pay slips are proof of funds.

Thai Immigration are NOT refusing to accept the Sta Decs, the embassy is refusing to issue the Stat Decs.

It is easy for the applicant of the Stat Dec to supply their last years Notice of Assessment from the tax office to the embassy which would be proof of income for the year and as it is a government document and it cannot be altered in any way it is easy for the embassy to verify the applicants income, but the embassy is too lazy to even think about doing something like that. The UK and the USA would have a similar situation with their tax assessments

[Peterw42]

28 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Or the monthly income... don't read into the situation what's not there !!!

YES, That statement should be the title of the thread. The speculation and presumption that the income method has been terminated is not doing anyone any favours.  

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, EricTh said:

Opening a  bank account is  not a  problem with Bangkok Bank.

Each branch is different, as I found out when I went to open a 2nd acct with them, and the branch closest to where I was then living refused.

 

1 hour ago, EricTh said:

I opened it when I was a tourist many years ago. Opening it with retirement  or marriage visa is even easier.

 

So that's not an excuse.

So did I - years ago.  But not so easy everywhere, and harder now than just a year ago even where it used to be easy.
 

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, ryane66 said:

Unbelievable that a citizen could go into their Embassy,  write down a figure and swear that it is true. In the Canadian Embassy l have to bring in 3 months of bank statements showing my pension income before they issue a notarized letter. While not foolproof, very few would slip through the cracks.

I suppose the USA and Australia decided to skip the 'photoshopped bank-statements' step, which those willing to commit a Felony for an income-letter, would undoubtedly take.

 

I agree with your post, in general, though.

[nasa123]

15 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

That may be your experience but most of the banks will open an account on a long stay visa, marriage, retire etc. I have 2 Phuket accounts opened without a B visa. I have a friend who opened an account in Patong last week with only a tourist visa.

Nowadays banks are less likely to accept WP as they no longer have an address.

wrong wrong  ask all the banks in Chalong and Phuket Town you most have a B visa if you  not have that you will NOT have a bank account, new policy in all banks.

[JackThompson]

12 hours ago, Zack61 said:

How difficult is it to get a Lao visa?

Yes - my wife's (Thai) choice if I get booted out from here.  She already speaks the dialect.  I understand it's the usual "fixer" thing for a business-visa, right?

 

12 hours ago, Ebumbu said:

Approved on entry as American. Have been there twice. You pay, you stay. It was maybe $100? I understand you need to make a visa run every 60 days, forever. Could be wrong. That's inconvenient, but I understand Westerners can stay there indefinitely. I think it's also true of Cambodia and Vietnam. I'm reporting hearsay info though. Anyone want to confirm or deny? 

Definitely true for Cambodia, Vietnam, and the PI.  Not sure about Laos - but paying the extra days on VOAs would be expensive.  Probably better to get a "business visa" for a fee to an agent - which I have heard is how it's done there. 

Same corruption-based system as here, in other words.  Very unlike the PI, where you are welcome to come, the IOs smile, and "fixers" are outright banned for anything related to immigration.  Maybe the wife and I will open a Thai restaurant there, if all other options to stay here are removed or become exorbitant due to the corruption-fee costs associated with a legit permit-of-stay.
 

[OneeyedJohn]

8 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

whats your problem with 90 day reports?

1 simple 1 page form and some passport copies and thats it

really easy peasy and quick quick

 

 

That's not what happens at my IO. I roll up with passport in hand, give it to the counter clerk, a quick tap tap tap on his computer and he staples a card  in my passport with the date of my next visit in 90 days.

I do absolutely nothing. Up to 15 days before and 7 days after.

I was a few days late, but still within the 7 days once recently, and I got the distinct impression he was not pleased, after he muttered

" come on time in future ".

[Zack61]

At the end of the day it’s going to cost the embassy some easy revenue. 71 AUD for 5 minutes of their precious time to stamp and sign a stat dec. they’ll have to increase the price of other services to compensate. 

[Zack61]

1 minute ago, OneeyedJohn said:

That's not what happens at my IO. I roll up with passport in hand, give it to the counter clerk, a quick tap tap tap on his computer and he staples a card  in my passport with the date of my next visit in 90 days.

I do absolutely nothing. Up to 15 days before and 7 days after.

I was a few days late, but still within the 7 days once recently, and I got the distinct impression he was not pleased, after he muttered

" come on time in future ".

I was told by IO 15 days early is ok but never late. This was back in July. 

[JackThompson]

12 hours ago, The Names Bond said:

I believe there have been too many dodgy dealings by some persons using companies which are dishonestly showing that Farang has sufficient funds to live here. Everyone knows it goes on but nothing has been done about it until now. Thailand, as we all know, has many corrupt practices and it would appear they are trying to become more honest. A large task for sure but they have to start somewhere.

That "place to start" would be ending "fixer" agent applications - publicly advertised and obviously feeding a pyramid-scheme reaching high enough to quell an investigation of the practice for decades.  Everyone certainly knows about this, given the public-advertisements of "Sponsored" / "No Money" retirement extensions.

 

The "place to start" would not be going after those swearing under penalty of perjury / felony-charges in their home-countries.  Immigration already could, and sometimes did, ask for supporting evidence of incomes declared in embassy-letters, so there was literally Nothing To Fix, if honesty was the real goal.

 

But (surprise-surprise), it appears the change in policy is designed to increase "fixer" agent business, just like the "EDU Crackdown" did.  This is the best evidence of the real intents and purposes of this change.

 

12 hours ago, The Truth said:

He was being groomed for that position long ago. He probably suggested it.

 

6 hours ago, balo said:

We'll see what will happen , Big Joke wants to get rid of the agents too according to some news articles. 

 

7 hours ago, cyberfarang said:

You`ve almost got it right, except soon the corrupt visa agencies that can pull strings will be put out of business.

No evidence of that, and given the history - all past "crackdowns" served to increase corruption-payments into the pyramid-scheme.  Only agents and IOs trying to do private-deals, and not sharing the loot, seem to be getting into trouble.

 

7 hours ago, cyberfarang said:

Another point, there are going to be those who will try to borrow the lump sums 2 or 3 months before application dates thinking they can fool immigration. But I predict that immigration will soon be asking to see bank books with monies going in and out including the lump sum amounts. So for example. if immigration see 400k or 800k suddenly paid into an account, they will want to see it`s origins.

They might indeed to that - but to Force more applicants to agents.  Same as this, "Your letters are no good any more," move - which 3 embassies how report they were told by TI.

[OneeyedJohn]

4 minutes ago, Zack61 said:

I was told by IO 15 days early is ok but never late. This was back in July. 

It is written in bright red ink on the card stapled in ur passport.

 

jeeez

[JackThompson]

 

6 hours ago, HappyAndRich said:

If your income doesn´t net 65K, then you never had enough to qualify from start.

Yes they did.  That is not what the existing-rules say is required. 

 

6 hours ago, HappyAndRich said:

That´s why they what to see the money know, and not a useless letter with an amount written on it.

We don't know what they want to see, yet.

 

1 hour ago, a977 said:

Totally agree how hard is it in this modern age for a person to enter your pension number into a computer and come up with the answer, I can do it why can't the embassy do it, After all they are the government.

What if your qualifying-income (per the law's stated-requirement) isn't from a pension?

 

11 hours ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

Why are these threads so popular?

Thousands of expats are affected - now from multiple countries.

 

11 hours ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

What's the problem putting some petty cash in the bank?

It's not "petty cash" to people who retired to Thailand in-part due to it being a fairly low-cost/overhead location. 

 

11 hours ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

For years, many forum members of mature age here have been complaining about cheap backpackers and welcoming every new visa rule limiting their stay. What's the problem of putting 800k baht in the bank which at your advanced age should represent 2-5% of your wealth? Most of you should be on extension anyway.

 

Unless, of course, everyone has been lying. 

 

12 hours ago, Kerryd said:

And if it was, it would prove that most of them actually couldn't meet the requirements and actually had been scamming the system all along.

Many could Honestly meet the existing requirements - "global income of 65K/mo" - but do not have 800K Baht in cash to stick into a Thai account - and maybe not meet the new requirements, whatever those turn out to be. 

 

Let's hope the New standard is not what the Phuket office has begun implementing already - only "govt-pensions" accepted as "income" henceforth.

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1065942-income-affidavit-denied-in-phuket/?do=findComment&comment=13524512

 

6 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

Thai Immigration are NOT refusing to accept the Sta Decs, the embassy is refusing to issue the Stat Decs

Some have already begun refusing them, unless one has a "govt pension" (only) document to back it up.  See the link, I posted, above.  Three embassies report TI told them their letters are "no good" any more.

[Pattaya46]

10 hours ago, onera1961 said:

//fly out to a neighboring country to avoid 90-day reporting. 

10 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

Oh I definitely plan to travel out every 88 days to avoid the 90 day reporting. //

Why that? Can't you do it using Internet?

It's a 2 minutes painless work every 3 month.

 

[soalbundy]

2 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

 

Yes they did.  That is not what the existing-rules say is required. 

 

We don't know what they want to see, yet.

 

What if your qualifying-income (per the law's stated-requirement) isn't from a pension?

 

Thousands of expats are affected - now from multiple countries.

 

It's not "petty cash" to people who retired to Thailand in-part due to it being a fairly low-cost/overhead location. 

 

 

Many could Honestly meet the existing requirements - "global income of 65K/mo" - but do not have 800K Baht in cash to stick into a Thai account - and maybe not meet the new requirements, whatever those turn out to be. 

 

Let's hope the New standard is not what the Phuket office has begun implementing already - only "govt-pensions" accepted as "income" henceforth.

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1065942-income-affidavit-denied-in-phuket/?do=findComment&comment=13524512

 

Some have already begun refusing them, unless one has a "govt pension" (only) document to back it up.  See the link, I posted, above.  Three embassies report TI told them their letters are "no good" any more.

Where does it say that the embassies were told that there certification wouldn't be accepted?

[Peterw42]

17 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Some have already begun refusing them, unless one has a "govt pension" (only) document to back it up.  See the link, I posted, above.  Three embassies report TI told them their letters are "no good" any more.

The thread you are quoting is a guy that got refused because he didn't have sufficient backup documentation, (his documents didnt add up to 800k) The income letter was not refused. Immigration has always reserved the option to ask for further proof and sometimes exercised this option, nothing new. You are twisting fact to support your argument. 

The Embassies have never said TI "told them their letter are no good", the embassies have all said they are "unable to verify"

THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS FROM TI OR ANY OF THE EMBASSIES THAT LETTERS ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTED.

 

Inventing your own stories doesnt help anyone

Edited November 3, 2018 by Peterw42

[JackThompson]

4 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

The thread you are quoting is a guy that got refused because he didn't have sufficient backup documentation, The income letter was not refused. You are twisting fact to support your argument. 

I quoted the thread correctly in-context:

 

5 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

  19 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Some have already begun refusing them, unless one has a "govt pension" (only) document to back it up. 

Thankfully for many, so far, only Phuket has been reported to demand "govt pension only" backup evidence.  We shall see if others follow.

 

4 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

The Embassies have never said TI "told them their letter are no good", the embassies have all said they are "unable to verify"

THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS FROM TI OR ANY OF THE EMBASSIES THAT LETTERS ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTED.

 

Inventing your own stories doesnt help anyone

The embassies have stated they will no longer create the letters because TI would no longer accept them without verification-steps which are impossible due to national-laws and practicality (which TI already knew, of course). 

I did not claim that letters issued while still available will be rejected, but given the current climate, I would be prepared to show "back up evidence" of the income-stated. 

 

That back-up evidence could always have been requested, so there was no need for TI to move the goalposts on the letters in the first-place.

[certacito]

33 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Same as this, "Your letters are no good any more," move - which 3 embassies how report they were told by TI.

 

No, they were not told that, they were told that they needed to verify the income stated on the letter - totally different.

[Media1]

15 hours ago, mfd101 said:

This is Thailand, not the 21st century.

Thailand 4 was to be operational in 1w months 3 years ago.. Big Prayut lol

[giddyup]

3 minutes ago, certacito said:

 

No, they were not told that, they were told that they needed to verify the income stated on the letter - totally different.

Well, I read it as, the letter wouldn't be accepted at face value, ie, letter no good.

[Ned]

What's the story with the tens of thousands of non farang settlers in Thailand.......like Indians, Bangladeshis, Japanese, Koreans and those from African countries.

Are they under pressure now too?

[JackThompson]

9 minutes ago, certacito said:

43 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Same as this, "Your letters are no good any more," move - which 3 embassies how report they were told by TI.

  

No, they were not told that, they were told that they needed to verify the income stated on the letter - totally different.

 

Ergo: Embassy-letters, as they have always been produced to-date, would no longer be of any use. 

[Peterw42]

23 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

because TI would no longer accept them

Happy to see a quote from either TI or any of the embassies that makes that statement ?

 

Unable to "supply" is not the same as "not accepted"

 

All of the embassies use very specific (identical) language "we are unable to verify", none of the embassies say "TI will not accept. 

 

If you can get to the bottom of why all the statments from the embassies are identical and use the same wording, I think you would get to the bottom of the issue which is more a legal liability issue than an immigration or funds issue.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Peterw42

[onera1961]

Bearsamui stated:

"I earn triple the monthly amount required but don't have the required funds in my thai account"

 

 

 

Wow 7,000 USD monthly income but no money in a Thai account. May be TI don't want people who want to hide their money. ????

Edited November 3, 2018 by CharlieH
Misquote corrected

[JackThompson]

2 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

Happy to see a quote from either TI or any of the embassies that makes that statement ?

 

Unable to "supply" is not the same as "not accepted"

I would like TI to explain the situation also.  What does an American (Aussie, Brit) need to supply next year, if they don't have a letter, to get an extension?

 

On the rest, maybe I am misunderstanding your point.  Three embassies have said that TI told them they needed to Do Something New - independent verification of income-sources on their letters.  They say they can not do it, and are cancelling the letter-service, because the existing letters do not meet the NEW standard demanded by TI. 

 

Why would TI require a new standard, but still accept letters based on the old-standard in perpetuity? 

 

All we have now (we think), is a "grace period" on letters issued under the original-standard, which seems to cover the use of letters issued through the end of this year, for the usual 6-mo usage-period.  But, even that is speculation, as there has been no info forthcoming official-statement from TI - other than various reports of "An IO told me..." at various offices.

[certacito]

11 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

 

Ergo: Embassy-letters, as they have always been produced to-date, would no longer be of any use. 

The letters as they are now would be fine, IF the embassies verified the income, (which they won't), immigration has not said that they won't accept letters.