Acceptance of Embassy letters of Income

[Tanoshi]

14 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

I would like to know what option, if any, for extension of stay via monthly 65K+ income as still in the current Police Order will be open to someone who has not secured an income letter from their respective embassy as of the DEC 31 2018 cut-off date.

Your not alone in that respect and until Thai Immigration announce an acceptable alternative, the situation isn't clear.

 

Current Police Orders state.

Quote

3) Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month: or

(4) On the filing date, the applicant must have funds deposited in a bank in Thailand of no
less than Baht 800,000 for the past three months. For the first year only, the applicant must
have proof of a deposit account in which said amount of funds has been maintained for no
less than 60 days prior to the filing date: or

(5) Must have an annual earning and fluids deposited with a bank totaling no less than
Baht 800,0000 as of the filing date.

The order lacks any specifics of acceptable evidence, such as an Income letter, income deposited in a foreign bank, or deposited in a Thai bank.

The Embassies appear to interpret (3) as income deposited in a Thai bank as being sufficient evidence for the future., which is logical as Thai Immigration can verify Thai bank letters/statements.

 

I can't speak for others, but if I were following the advice of my Embassy and Immigration refused to accept my income deposited in a Thai bank, I be contacting my Embassy to pressurise Immigration.

 

 

 

[skatewash]

43 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Of course the British, US and Australian Embassies could have continued to issue the letters and wait for Immigration to refuse them. How would that help their citizens.

 

Immigration requested the Embassies to 'verify' it's citizens incomes, which they cannot do.

They have therefore withdrawn the service, because they do not want Immigration to misinterpret the letters as verifying income and avoid any litigation.

If other Embassies continue the letters and wait for Immigration to refuse them because the income cannot be verified, then their citizens will find themselves in the same boat as the Danish citizens. I fail to see how that helps anyone.

3

"How would that help their citizens?" 

It would have gotten them their extensions based on income (like the citizens of the Canadian, German, Austrian, Japanese, Guatemalan and all the other embassies except for the preemptive four).  It would have put US citizens on notice that Thai Immigration had a problem with the verification that was being done or wasn't being done.  It could have advised Americans that given the verification concerns of TI that the embassy letter might not be accepted by TI in the future.  It could have advised Americans to switch to the more secure bank method.  It could have done all these things which would have been hugely important to the US citizen.  In other words, it could have served its primary purpose (according to the Dept of State):

 

Quote

The primary purpose of an embassy is to assist American citizens who travel to or live in the host country.

https://www.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm

Instead, for reasons we may never know, it decided to take the unilateral action of stopping the letters.  Can you show me any statement that says "the US Embassy has been informed that Thai Immigration will refuse to accept the letters?"  I would be interested to see that.

Ultimately, Thai Immigration may no longer accept the letters, but that is a decision for the Thai Immigration to make, not the US Embassy to make preemptively.  US citizens gained absolutely nothing from this action, indeed, they have been disadvantaged in a major way over all the citizens served by other embassies that did not choose to act in such a foolish manner.  Those other citizens can continue to provide the required letter, US citizens can't get such a letter starting in 2019.  

The US Embassy could have provided notification to US citizens of the problem without contributing to the problem.  Notification doesn't require cessation of the letter.  Just as cessation of the letter, doesn't require notification (see the actions of the Danish Embassy).  They are separate issues and surely an organization with any diplomatic skill could have figured that out.  The US citizens in Thailand were simply ill-served by their embassy.

This has nothing to do with whether Thai Immigration decides to make any changes or not.  That is their perogative.  The US embassy went out of its way to make things worse.  That's shameful.

Edited December 1, 2018 by skatewash

[JLCrab]

Well I have started my monthly 65K+ SWIFT FTT deposit as of last month (instead of via the ATM or BKK Bank NYC ACH route) and will do another in a few days. It might be in the end a futile gesture but to me it's better than dwelling on they coulda done this or they coulda done that.

[evadgib]

7 hours ago, JLCrab said:

Well I have started my monthly 65K+ SWIFT FTT deposit as of last month (instead of via the ATM or BKK Bank NYC ACH route) and will do another in a few days. It might be in the end a futile gesture but to me it's better than dwelling on they coulda done this or they coulda done that.

Seen this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46399707

Methinks it could affect the above for Brits in the same boat.

[JackThompson]

8 hours ago, skatewash said:

Can you show me any statement that says "the US Embassy has been informed that Thai Immigration will refuse to accept the letters?"  I would be interested to see that.

The closest we have are reports of conversations where embassy-personnel were told the letters would not be valid in their current format.  The BE freedom-of-info request I read, stated that there was "no written record" of their conversation on this topic. 

 

I'm not sure why our embassies would do this for no reason.  If they "sold" letters which turned out to be useless, that could also have turned out badly - but as you said ...

 

8 hours ago, skatewash said:

The US Embassy could have provided notification to US citizens of the problem without contributing to the problem.  Notification doesn't require cessation of the letter.  ...

They are separate issues and surely an organization with any diplomatic skill could have figured that out.  The US citizens in Thailand were simply ill-served by their embassy.

This has nothing to do with whether Thai Immigration decides to make any changes or not.  That is their perogative.  The US embassy went out of its way to make things worse.  That's shameful.

It has everything to do with it - but I agree the onus should have been put on immigration to reject what was always accepted prior.

 

I have to wonder if some sort of under-the-table trade was made, and we are not hearing what the real reason for this move was.  Otherwise, why would the embassies run-cover for immigration's decision to change their policy?

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by JackThompson

[UniqueWord]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46399707

Sorry mate, I don't see the connection if you'll pardon the pun.

The link is to the difficulties in the future of some folks being unable to get a OTP on their phones to authenticate an on-line purchase.  This being due to legislation to be introduced next year (2019).  Maybe I just picked up the wrong link on BBC.

Anyway I'm confused, but that's not abnormal....

Cheers, UW.

[skatewash]

38 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The closest we have are reports of conversations where embassy-personnel were told the letters would not be valid in their current format.  The BE freedom-of-info request I read, stated that there was "no written record" of their conversation on this topic. 

 

I can't say that I've read everything on this site that has been posted on this subject (for the very good reason that while I write this sentence three new posts have probably been made.)  However, I've literally read hundreds of posts in dozens of threads here on this topic, to include reading the results of the BE FOI requests, the fact sheet, FAQs, and other postings from the US Embassy to their website, the radio interview of the Vice-consul from the BE, and nowhere in all that verbiage has anyone suggested credibly that Thai Immigration said words to the effect that they were not accepting the letters as they are currently drafted.  In fact, I've seen nothing directly from Thai Immigration that would give insight into its side of the discussions.

 

My contention is that they were not told the letters would not be accepted.  Being unhappy with the letters does not mean they would not be accepted.  I'm unhappy about paying taxes but I do it every year without fail, because the alternatives available do not appeal to me. ????  Instead of allowing TI to make the decision of whether on balance they wanted to continue the letter system (despite being unhappy with the level of verification), the US Embassy (as the BE before it) decided to unilaterally cease issuing the letters.  They did not have to take this attitude toward the problem. 

They should have waited to see what TI did.  As a result of doing this before a new system was in place, they left their citizens in a very bad position.  Other embassies reached different conclusions and continue to offer the letters.  The US Embassy did its citizens no favors.  If they honestly felt that TI were going to stop accepting the letters, USE could have notified their citizens of that possibility, suggesting for those able to do so, that they switch to the bank method.  They could have discharged their notification duties without taking the additional step of no longer offering the letters.

 

40 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

I'm not sure why our embassies would do this for no reason.  If they "sold" letters which turned out to be useless, that could also have turned out badly

 

 

I don't think we know all the reasons the USE decided to stop the letters (because it became a hassle, to save money, because they got pissed with TI complaining about the level of verification, because they don't really understand the difference between income and bank methods, who knows what else).  But I think we can be pretty confident that it was NOT because TI threatened to not accept the letters without some sort of change.  Had this actually happened why would USE not have said that and shifted the blame entirely to TI?  They haven't made that claim and my contention is because it would be a false claim.

As for selling the letters that might turn out to be rejected problem, isn't that, in fact, what all embassies do all over the world when someone applies for a visa.  The application fee is always non-refundable even if not issued.  Even when it's issued it may not be honored as the final decision always rests with the immigration officer when the visa holder attempts to enter a country.  That's the standard operating procedure, is it not?  As long as the embassy could sell the letter in good faith (i.e., not being told it would not be accepted by TI), then they're in no worse a position than they would be if they sold someone a visa and the visa holder was rejected for entry when they tried to enter the country.  A visa isn't a guarantee of entry any more than the issuance of a letter is a guarantee of it being accepted.

 

41 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

- but as you said ...

 

It has everything to do with it - but I agree the onus should have been put on immigration to reject what was always accepted prior.

 

I have to wonder if some sort of under-the-table trade was made, and we are not hearing what the real reason for this move was.  Otherwise, why would the embassies run-cover for immigration's decision to change their policy?

 

 

Yes, that's my point.  "The onus should have been put on immigration to reject what was always accepted prior."  That's exactly correct.  Nothing was gained by the cessation on the part of the USE.  If notification was a concern, notification could have been given to US citizens:  "TI has expressed concern with the level of verification offered by the US embassy.  USE has explained why we cannot do more to verify the income.  TI may in the future refuse to accept the letters but in the meantime, USE will continue to produce them."  Such a notification gives US citizens time to prepare for a plan B (bank method, etc.).  My point is that notification of possible changes in the future did not have to include cessation of the letter.  They are separate decisions that for some reason were conflated by the USE.

[skatewash]

2 minutes ago, UniqueWord said:

Sorry mate, I don't see the connection if you'll pardon the pun.

The link is to the difficulties in the future of some folks being unable to get a OTP on their phones to authenticate an on-line purchase.  This being due to legislation to be introduced next year (2019).  Maybe I just picked up the wrong link on BBC.

Anyway I'm confused, but that's not abnormal....

Cheers, UW.

I didn't get the direct connection, either.  But here's a possibility.  Better security is a good thing, but when you move to a two-factor authentication system you should consider the impact on people who may not be in a position to comply with the protocol (because they might not have a mobile, etc.).  In other words, when you change the process there can be unintended consequences (side-effects, if you will) that should be considered and somehow worked out if possible before changing the system and leaving some people out in the cold.  People without phones aren't the problem, they're collateral damage from those seeking to fix a real problem.

 

I had the feeling that embassy staff (reinforced by the BE vice consul radio interview) really don't understand the difference between the income and bank methods of extension.  Don't really understand the implications.  To them, it's six of one, half-dozen of another.  You say tomato, I say tomahto.  Because they personally aren't affected one way or the other.  She has people to take care of her visa, no reason for her to understand the process her customers go through.  She basically said during the interview (I paraphrase) FCO asked us if the income method were the only method to get an extension, to which we (BE) replied, no indeed sir, our citizens can just switch to the bank method.  Easy peasy.  No problem here at all.  If someone has the equivalent of 65,000 baht in their home country as a result of income, why mathematically that's basically the same thing as having 800,000 baht equivalent to put in a Thai bank.  Whatever.  Honestly, I can't be bothered to understand the difference.  Besides makes no difference to me!  So they (FCO) said to stop the letter."  I believe the bank security article was meant as an analogy to this situation with the income letter.   Unintended consequences and collateral damage due to a failure to take into consideration different people's circumstances when procedures change.

[evadgib]

8 hours ago, UniqueWord said:

Sorry mate, I don't see the connection if you'll pardon the pun.

The link is to the difficulties in the future of some folks being unable to get a OTP on their phones to authenticate an on-line purchase.  This being due to legislation to be introduced next year (2019).  Maybe I just picked up the wrong link on BBC.

Anyway I'm confused, but that's not abnormal....

Cheers, UW.

Transferring pensions from UK accounts will likely be affected & some banks may not recognise non UK mobiles or like the fact that we're abroad ????

[a977]

21 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

I disagree.

At least the British, US and Australian Embassies have given some notice to it's citizens of an impending change.

Look at the Denmark Embassy in contrast, who suddenly announced immediate cessation of the service on 14/11/18.

A Danish citizen due to renew their extension within the following 3 months of this date, has been left high and dry, unless they already have the necessary funds deposited in a Thai bank for the required seasoning period.

Even if they have the funds in Denmark, they haven't been given the opportunity to transfer and season the funds in time.

 

Now let's suppose, some of the Embassies are continuing to issue the letters and waiting for Immigration at some point to refuse them. Let's just say for arguments sake Immigration suddenly announced 'non acceptance' of Income letters from Feb 1st 2019.

Wouldn't the citizens of all those Embassies still continuing with the service, which is now suddenly no longer accepted, be placed in exactly the same position as the Danish expats find them selves in.

Agree there maybe some impending change coming so why jump the gun and get the citizens of these countries stress levels going through the roof. There was no need for those 4( I REPEAT ONLY FOUR ) Embassies to go ahead and cancel SD's until such time as the Thai Government does do or say something about change. This whole SD thing is turning into a farce. 

[skatewash]

37 minutes ago, a977 said:

Agree there maybe some impending change coming so why jump the gun and get the citizens of these countries stress levels going through the roof. There was no need for those 4( I REPEAT ONLY FOUR ) Embassies to go ahead and cancel SD's until such time as the Thai Government does do or say something about change. This whole SD thing is turning into a farce. 

Advanced notification of a potential problem which could have occurred as early as May (when TI first raised their concerns) in no way required the cessation of the letters.  You can warn people of a potential problem without causing an actual problem.

 

One can explain to people what might happen if they pulled the trigger of a gun pointed at their foot without actually demonstrating what happens when you shoot yourself in the foot.

[wayned]

42 minutes ago, skatewash said:

One can explain to people what might happen if they pulled the trigger of a gun pointed at their foot without actually demonstrating what happens when you shoot yourself in the foot.

Unfortunately the gunman is a government employee that thinks that he/she is on a fast track for career advancement and the gun is pointed at our feet not his/hers and they really do not care what the future brings other than their recognition for what they have implemented!   A true cavil servant at work!

[Tanoshi]

12 minutes ago, skatewash said:

Advanced notification of a potential problem which could have occurred as early as May (when TI first raised their concerns) in no way required the cessation of the letters.  You can warn people of a potential problem without causing an actual problem.

The problems started with Thai authorities as far back as 2018, with false/forged Educational certificates, which had been certified by Embassies. Until this time, it appears the Thai authorities misunderstood the legal term of 'certification' as the same as 'verification'.

Since last year, Educational certificates now have to be certified and verified as genuine, before being legalised in your home Country, then translated in Thailand, before being legalised by the MFA.

 

This issue and misunderstanding of 'certification' then rolled over into questioning 'Income letters' and again the Thai authorities found expats declared incomes could not be verified when asking for supporting documentation in support of the Income letters. Negotiations took place and the Thai authorities, who previously considered certification having the same meaning as verification, requested 'verification' as opposed to 'certification'.

 

Governments can only verify documents issued by public institutions whose records are accessible to the public.

They do not have access to information from private institutions.

The British Embassy announced withdrawal of the service in light of the fact they told the Thai authorities they could not comply with their request to verify incomes due to legalities (DPA).

Continuing to issue such letters, which Immigration may construe as being verified as per their request, could lead to litigation, further problems, and damage relationships, which they wish to avoid.

Other Embassies followed suit for the same reason.

[skatewash]

5 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

The problems started with Thai authorities as far back as 2018, with false/forged Educational certificates, which had been certified by Embassies. Until this time, it appears the Thai authorities misunderstood the legal term of 'certification' as the same as 'verification'.

Since last year, Educational certificates now have to be certified and verified as genuine, before being legalised in your home Country, then translated in Thailand, before being legalised by the MFA.

 

This issue and misunderstanding of 'certification' then rolled over into questioning 'Income letters' and again the Thai authorities found expats declared incomes could not be verified when asking for supporting documentation in support of the Income letters. Negotiations took place and the Thai authorities, who previously considered certification having the same meaning as verification, requested 'verification' as opposed to 'certification'.

 

Governments can only verify documents issued by public institutions whose records are accessible to the public.

They do not have access to information from private institutions.

The British Embassy announced withdrawal of the service in light of the fact they told the Thai authorities they could not comply with their request to verify incomes due to legalities (DPA).

Continuing to issue such letters, which Immigration may construe as being verified as per their request, could lead to litigation, further problems, and damage relationships, which they wish to avoid.

Other Embassies followed suit for the same reason.

3

I agree with everything up to this point:
"Continuing to issue such letters, which Immigration may construe as being verified as per their request, could lead to litigation, further problems, and damage relationships, which they wish to avoid."

If you're telling me that the BE were incapable of explaining to TI exactly what their income letter certified, exactly why they could not do what TI were requesting them to do, then they should pack it up and go home, because at that point they are worthless and serve no useful purpose.

 

"Could lead to litigation" is laughable.  In which jurisdiction would such a case be brought?  Under what claim?  Further problems?  You mean like British citizens not being able to use the income method to get their extensions unless something changes by the middle of next year.  A decision made preemptively by the BE without thinking through the consequences and without negotiating a replacement process. The excuses are nonsensical.  If the BE is really incapable of effectively representing their citizen's interests before the Thai government then I would submit to you that the relationship is already damaged beyond hope.

There are 195 countries in the world, 4 have decided to unilaterally stop producing the income letter.

[Nielsk]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

The problems started with Thai authorities as far back as 2018, with false/forged Educational certificates, which had been certified by Embassies. Until this time, it appears the Thai authorities misunderstood the legal term of 'certification' as the same as 'verification'.

Since last year, Educational certificates now have to be certified and verified as genuine, before being legalised in your home Country, then translated in Thailand, before being legalised by the MFA.

 

This issue and misunderstanding of 'certification' then rolled over into questioning 'Income letters' and again the Thai authorities found expats declared incomes could not be verified when asking for supporting documentation in support of the Income letters. Negotiations took place and the Thai authorities, who previously considered certification having the same meaning as verification, requested 'verification' as opposed to 'certification'.

 

Governments can only verify documents issued by public institutions whose records are accessible to the public.

They do not have access to information from private institutions.

The British Embassy announced withdrawal of the service in light of the fact they told the Thai authorities they could not comply with their request to verify incomes due to legalities (DPA).

Continuing to issue such letters, which Immigration may construe as being verified as per their request, could lead to litigation, further problems, and damage relationships, which they wish to avoid.

Other Embassies followed suit for the same reason.

Every year in Denmark we receive an annual report from our tax office about what we have earned and paid in taxes. Before the next income year, the tax authorities will provide an advance schedule showing expected income and tax payments for next year. All issued by the Danish tax authorities. It should be accepted as a vertification by the Immigration Office. The Immigration Office will be pleased with that. The Danish Embassy and the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs say, however, they do not think it is a guarantee for the Thai authorities. I believe it is the foreign embassies and foreign ministries who have a duty to explain to the Thai authorities the quality of this evidence. Of course, I do not know how other countries 'tax administrations register their citizens' incomes and tax payments?!?                      Something is rotten in the state of Denmark as written in the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare  !!

[OJAS]

6 hours ago, evadgib said:

Transferring pensions from UK accounts will likely be affected & some banks may not recognise non UK mobiles or like the fact that we're abroad ????

In the context of this thread, I don't believe that this will affect SWIFT transfers, or those made via Bangkok Bank's London branch. It appears to be primarily an issue with credit and debit cards, so could be relevant in the case of TransferWise if the card option is selected for funding a particular transfer from the UK using their services. However, given that the maximum that can be transferred in this way is £2,000 per transaction and the TransferWise charging system is skewed against the use of cards in this way, the optimum funding method is via bank transfers which, likewise, shouldn't be affected by this issue.

 

EDIT - I have just originated a posting about this issue on the Banking forum since it appears to be fundamentally worrying for those of us who use (or are planning to use) our UK credit or debit cards in order to pay for online purchases from Thailand, as I occasionally do.

Edited December 2, 2018 by OJAS

[elviajero]

10 hours ago, skatewash said:

There are 195 countries in the world, 4 have decided to unilaterally stop producing the income letter.

You’re right, but most of those 19 countries won’t have many, if any, expats requiring embassy letters. The UK and US expats probably outnumber all the other ‘western’ countries expats put together.

 

They've stopped the letters because they can’t meet immigrations verification requirements. Maybe others can or aren’t bothered stating they’ve verified the income. I understand why the other four embassies won’t.

[wayned]

The problem that I have is that, at least there USE, has never stated that they have "verified" the income, the letter has always been a notarized affidavit that is filled in by the applicant where he swears the information is true under penalty of+ committing purgery.  The Police order says "proof" of receiving at least 40000 or 65000 per month, it does not say "verified" or "certified".  The system has worked since the income letter option was created, has been accepted by immigration and continues to be accepted.  My opinion is that you shouldn't fix something that is not broken!  Would you buy and put a new engine in your car if it was working fine?

[skatewash]

4 minutes ago, wayned said:

The problem that I have is that, at least there USE, has never stated that they have "verified" the income, the letter has always been a notarized affidavit that is filled in by the applicant where he swears the information is true under penalty of+ committing purgery.  The Police order says "proof" of receiving at least 40000 or 65000 per month, it does not say "verified" or "certified".  The system has worked since the income letter option was created, has been accepted by immigration and continues to be accepted.  My opinion is that you shouldn't fix something that is not broken!  Would you buy and put a new engine in your car if it was working fine?

Yes, especially if you were still trying to use the car.  You might order the new engine but you'd be a fool to lift the old engine out until after the new engine is delivered.  The BE lifted the old engine out of the car, dropped it on its foot in the process, all before going online to find out if the new engine is even available anywhere.

[elviajero]

41 minutes ago, wayned said:

The problem that I have is that, at least there USE, has never stated that they have "verified" the income, the letter has always been a notarized affidavit that is filled in by the applicant where he swears the information is true under penalty of+ committing purgery.  The Police order says "proof" of receiving at least 40000 or 65000 per month, it does not say "verified" or "certified".  The system has worked since the income letter option was created, has been accepted by immigration and continues to be accepted.  My opinion is that you shouldn't fix something that is not broken!  Would you buy and put a new engine in your car if it was working fine?

The proof of income they will accept is income verified by the applicants embassy. Insisting on that embassies now provide that verification seems to be the problem.

 

http://bangkok.immigration.go.th/en/base.php?page=faq

22. Question : What is the required age of the alien wisthing to stay in Thailand with the reason of Retirement?

Answer : For reasons to stay of Retirement, the alien must be 50 year of age or older and must have been granted a Non-Immigrant visa, firstly. More over, the said alien must have evidences to verify his/her financial status of not less than 65,000 Baht per month or 800,000 Baht per year. Evidences showing financial support are as follows; [snip]          2.2  In case of having any other income from abroad such as pension, social welfare      -  Letter from the applicant’s Embassy or consulate in Thailand verifying their pension or other income of the applicant which must not be less than 65,000 Baht per month.

 

The current system is great for expats, but very much broken as it is currently wide open to fraud and doesn't prove/verify anything. 

[wayned]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

The proof of income they will accept is income verified by the applicants embassy. Insisting on that embassies now provide that verification seems to be the problem.

 

http://bangkok.immigration.go.th/en/base.php?page=faq

22. Question : What is the required age of the alien wisthing to stay in Thailand with the reason of Retirement?

Answer : For reasons to stay of Retirement, the alien must be 50 year of age or older and must have been granted a Non-Immigrant visa, firstly. More over, the said alien must have evidences to verify his/her financial status of not less than 65,000 Baht per month or 800,000 Baht per year. Evidences showing financial support are as follows; [snip]          2.2  In case of having any other income from abroad such as pension, social welfare      -  Letter from the applicant’s Embassy or consulate in Thailand verifying their pension or other income of the applicant which must not be less than 65,000 Baht per month.

 

The current system is great for expats, but very much broken as it is currently wide open to fraud and doesn't prove/verify anything. 

One of the meanings from Merriam-Webster for verify is: to confirm or substantiate in law by oath.  That's exactly what the USE Income Affidavit does as does every notarized statement.  

[elviajero]

8 minutes ago, wayned said:

One of the meanings from Merriam-Webster for verify is: to confirm or substantiate in law by oath.  That's exactly what the USE Income Affidavit does as does every notarized statement.  

As far as I aware the USE just witnesse the signature of someone claiming to be making a truthful statement. That doesn't sound like proof or verification of the income to me. 

[wayned]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

As far as I aware the USE just witnesse the signature of someone claiming to be making a truthful statement. That doesn't sound like proof or verification of the income to me. 

That's almost correct, the USE notarizes the Income letter after checking the person's iD, passport, verifying the personal information on the document, from the passport, and having the applicant swear under oath that all of the information is correct.  No notarized document proves anything more than that.  If any Embassy provides a document that certifies that the income amount on the document is correct then they are saying that they they have been provided notarized true copies of the supporting documents from the entity, not the applicant, that issued them, and not by any other means. 

 

The only entity that can "verify" or "certify" the validity of any document, is the entity that issued the document by providing a notarized copy of the original document with the issuing entity certify that it is a true copy.

 

We can go on and on with this discussion ad nauseaum, and yes there is room for fraud, but it has worked for years so why change it.

[JLCrab]

6 minutes ago, wayned said:

We can go on and on with this discussion ad nauseaum

We already have.

[elviajero]

7 minutes ago, wayned said:

We can go on and on with this discussion ad nauseaum, and yes there is room for fraud, but it has worked for years so why change it.

Because of the fraud?

[Ahab]

My retirement extension needs to be renewed in August of 2019. I have well over the required 65K per month coming is from a military retirement into my BKK Bank account every month. I plan on asking about this issue and requirements when I do my 90 day checks until it is time for renewal. Hopefully things will be sorted out before August of next year. Worst case I can go to Laos and get a multiple entry Non-Imm O visa based on marriage. Not ideal but a trip out of country every three months or so is not the end of the world.

[wayned]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

Because of the fraud?

So what you are saying is that 100% of the expats that depend on the Income Affidavit method should suffer because some unknown percentage might be lying about the amount that they are receiving.  Kinda like saying that all Banks should close since somebody might commit bank fraud!!!!

[luckyluke]

That's what I eventually will do also.

But as per now the Austrian Consulate in Pattaya write and sign a L.o.I., so not an Affidavit, I write sign nothing.

They check the documents I present.

I assume by issuing this L.o.I., the Austrian Consulate take the responsibility, if something may appear to be false and eventually found out by T.I..

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, wayned said:

So what you are saying is that 100% of the expats that depend on the Income Affidavit method should suffer because some unknown percentage might be lying about the amount that they are receiving. 

Unfortunately, hasn't that always been the case in life.

 

They are already posts in these topics discussing how to 'circumvent' the required income requirements, should Immigration announce income deposited in a Thai bank as an alternative to Embassy Income letters.

If you genuinely meet the financial requirements, there should be no need to try and 'circumvent' financials and possibly spoil it for the many that genuinely do.

[JLCrab]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

They are already posts in these topics discussing how to 'circumvent' the required income requirements, should Immigration announce income deposited in a Thai bank as an alternative to Embassy Income letters.

Signing a false statement to a (e.g.) US consular official was one thing when everyone knew the chances of anything happening were slim to zero.

 

Signing a statement that your funds are sourced anew every month and they are NOT circumventing the required income requirements in an RTP police station before an RTP official who can arrest you on the spot may be something else.

 

And signing a document to that effect might become standard procedure just as are all the other documents you have to sign when doing an extension via your TM7 form.

Edited December 3, 2018 by JLCrab