If suspected to work illegally in Thailand, tell them "work online"?

[pbrock]

I've read reports in the forums that those who stay extended times in Thailand (on tourist visas?) may be questioned if they work illegally in Thailand and even refused entry.

 

Why do they ask? Anyone ever would be stupid enough to "yes"? Does their questioning or other investigation in such situations ever proof someone worked illegally?

 

Was anyone ever heretic enough to tell them "yeah, I work online"? What happen? What would happen?

 

[Hummin]

Tourist visas intention was not so people could come and go contenious as much they wanted. If you want to live in Thailand, you ned to optain the right visa, and prove you are financial good for living in thailand without working here. 

[JackThompson]

Some have reported saying they worked online, and this was accepted.  I have said I have a business in the USA (true), which was accepted.  When immigration has found entire offices full of farangs working remotely, no prosecutions occurred (including referring prosecutions to the labor-dept) for illegal working.  After all, the money earned originates outside of Thailand, but is spent in Thailand.  Recent legal re-definitions of the definition of work make a prosecution of this activity even less likely than before.

 

Thus, "illegal working" is not the core-issue driving this agenda.  In the case of those with no logical reason to want to work in Thailand illegally, questions of this nature are a cover-story, simply parroting what is asked of those entering higher-wage nations, who actually do have a motivation to stay to work illegally.

Denials-of-entry are currently being reported for those with valid Tourist Visas only at certain locations - Bangkok airports and the Poipet/Aranya land-border.  The issue is not a question of "does this person have money" - because obviously they are eating, traveling, etc - so they do.  And it is not a matter of "working illegally," when the person could earn far more in their passport-country than working illegally in Thailand. 

 

Reports indicate the complaint IOs give, is that the person has entered / stayed in Thailand previously for periods of time - with the "too much time" factor varying by report (seemingly customized to place the visitor's travel-history "over the line").  But because "too much time in Thailand" is not a legal reason for an IO to reject entry, rejection-stamps usually involve not having 20K Baht in cash (a legal but archaic rule), or the assumption that the visitor cannot afford their stay, even if they have the required cash.  This "cannot finance their stay" reason for rejection, absent any evidence this is the case, in-effect invalidates all Visas, as it presumes the MFA's financial checks for the issuance of Visas are de-facto invalid. 

 

The agenda at-play seems to be one of reducing farangs living in Thailand - especially those who are not "paying tribute" to immigration.  An "agent-assisted" extension can cost 10x+ the official extension-fee.  An ED extension through a school may cost 3K to 5K Baht per 90-days.  Elite-visas cost 500K to 2M Baht, some of which goes to immigration.  With the loss of embassy income-letters, many retirees will now be forced to agents.  This is the racket we are dealing with.

 

Fortunately, most IOs at most points of entry follow the law, so the safe solution to entering with Tourist Visas is to avoid the problematic checkpoints.  At any land-border other than Poipet, according to recent reports, one can enter with a valid Tourist Visa plus 20K Baht worth of cash or travelers checks to show, if asked. 

 

Chang Mai airport may be OK as well (no bad reports, so far), but be aware that denial of entry by air will force booking a last minute trip to where you just left - and hopefully you can get entry upon arrival there, or another unplanned and overpriced ticket to your passport-country could follow.

Edited December 19, 2018 by JackThompson

[Happy Grumpy]

A few friends work online, one does conference calls etc with a London HQ, two teach English to Chinese kids with a Chinese based company.

 

They have said this at immigration while getting extensions. One has a non Ed because he studies in the day time, two have non O extended due to marriage. They have Thai Tax numbers (no need for a WP to get that or pay tax on income paid into Thailand), and pay their income tax that way. IO's just smiled and continued with the process.   

[HHTel]

Quote

Seventeen foreigners have been arrested for working illegally following a raid on a condominium in Chiang Mai.

The raid, which took place at 12.30am on Friday found 17 Westerners of various nationalities providing online English classes to people in China from a room in the ground floor of the Riverside Condo.

Source: http://www.samuitimes.com/17-foreign-english-teachers-arrested-chiang-mai-working-illegally/

Edited December 19, 2018 by HHTel

[jackdd]

31 minutes ago, HHTel said:

Source: http://www.samuitimes.com/17-foreign-english-teachers-arrested-chiang-mai-working-illegally/

They were working for a company at an office in Thailand and probably also got paid by this company in Thailand. This is obviously not the same as working at home with a business abroad and getting the money from abroad.

[lordblackader]

Quote

Recent legal re-definitions of the definition of work make a prosecution of this activity even less likely than before.

Yeah - except for the fact the Korean arrested for an overstay in Chiang Mai the other day was also charged with working illegally. His job - working online. 

 

While the Chiang Mai Labor Office is on record as being lax on working online it's still illegal and you can potentially be arrested and charged for doing so without a work permit. 

 

[LivinLOS]

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1288963/my-mate-nate-charged-vows-to-continue-prank-videos

 

Quote

Thai law requires internet-based workers to have a work permit, which he has never had. 

 

Most immigration officers have little to no concern with labour law.. So thier response isnt really the issue. 

[balo]

Plenty of digital nomads here in Thailand. I am one myself.  But I am also retired so I stay here on a 1 year visa.  

 

My small online work got nothing to do with Thailand , I pay my taxes in my home country Norway .  Before I turned 50 and could apply for a visa based on retirement , I also used plenty of tourist visas to stay here long term. Today that would be almost impossible because immigration are looking for "genuine" tourists.

 

Thailand should welcome long term tourists , instead they are sending out a message that you are not welcome here any longer if you want to stay more than 3 months or 6 months.  Try to rinse and repeat on TR-visas and you will also be denied sooner or later. 

 

But as to your question , a digital nomad who pays his tax in his hme country and have no business inside Thailand , do not have to worry , all you need is a valid visa. IF you can get it.  

 

 

   

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by balo

[Hummin]

10 minutes ago, balo said:

Plenty of digital nomads here in Thailand. I am one myself.  But I am also retired so I stay here on a 1 year visa.  

 

My small online work got nothing to do with Thailand , I pay my taxes in my home country Norway .  Before I turned 50 and could apply for a visa based on retirement , I also used plenty of tourist visas to stay here long term. Today that would be almost impossible because immigration are looking for "genuine" tourists.

 

Thailand should welcome long term tourists , instead they are sending out a message that you are not welcome here any longer if you want to stay more than 3 months or 6 months.  Try to rinse and repeat on TR-visas and you will also be denied sooner or later. 

 

But as to your question , a digital nomad who pays his tax in his hme country and have no business inside Thailand , do not have to worry , all you need is a valid visa. IF you can get it.  

 

 

   

 

No problem as long you do not brag about in your favorite bar, or other places ???? 

 

It shouldnt be necessery to mention, it is Thailand, and its their country, with their visa rules. Visa rules can be a bit tricky to cop with somethimes, but mot of the time it works out very well with good planning, and keep up to date with the rules. Had no problem som far, except had to turn around on a land border run to Malaysia once, when the officer warned me I would not get back inside again, due to many border runs the last year. I then turn around, and went to BKK, and fly down to KL for a new tourist visa. No problem. Rules is rules, just have to accept that. 

[jackdd]

28 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

"Thai law requires internet-based workers to have a work permit, which he has never had. "

 

Most immigration officers have little to no concern with labour law.. So thier response isnt really the issue. 

You forget to add a remark to your quote: According to the interpretation of the law of a Bangkok Post reporter

This is only true if the internet based business is based in Thailand, not if it's a business abroad, that's at least what the actions of authorities in the past show. 

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, jackdd said:

4 hours ago, HHTel said:

Source: http://www.samuitimes.com/17-foreign-english-teachers-arrested-chiang-mai-working-illegally/

They were working for a company at an office in Thailand and probably also got paid by this company in Thailand. This is obviously not the same as working at home with a business abroad and getting the money from abroad.

Specifically,

Quote

According to the (Bangkok paper we cannot link to), the foreigners had been hired by BOI 360 Max Co, however the online language school was found to be operating without permission. 

Very different than being paid by "Language Something Ltd, London."

 

2 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

... my-mate-nate-charged-vows-to-continue-prank-videos

 

Most immigration officers have little to no concern with labour law.. So thier response isnt really the issue. 

My Mate Nate's gig is about Thailand, using cameramen, etc.  Not only is it a Thai-centric operation, but what he does is often in bad-taste - making average Thais look foolish.  So, I'm not at all surprised he is being singled-out, and has a bulls-eye on his back. 

[Happy Grumpy]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

No problem as long you do not brag about in your favorite bar, or other places

No problem if you say it to immigration officers too. 

 

 

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, Happy Grumpy said:

No problem if you say it to immigration officers too. 

 

 

If you abusing the tourist visa ? 

[farangx]

You can argue till the cow comes home but it is still the IO's words against you if caught out on a tourist visa.  You are suppose to be on holiday, touring the country, spending your baht and not working your baht off online ....

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by farangx

[JackThompson]

30 minutes ago, Happy Grumpy said:

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

No problem as long you do not brag about in your favorite bar, or other places

No problem if you say it to immigration officers too. 

I would not recommend this.  They are prone to tell people incorrect-info about working-rules, and some will make things up - so who knows what a particular one would say about whether this is "legal or not."

[MaksimMislavsky]

Answered exactly that successfully more than once but it was pre-2014. Finally was denied entry (visa-exempt) twice in winter 2014-2015 (Had Lek crossing from Cambo) on the basis of exceeded limit of days (they counted 108 or so within past year) with no other questions about working or not asked.

Edited December 19, 2018 by MaksimMislavsky

[Hummin]

17 hours ago, Hummin said:

Tourist visas intention was not so people could come and go contenious as much they wanted. If you want to live in Thailand, you ned to optain the right visa, and prove you are financial good for living in thailand without working here. 

 

5 minutes ago, MaksimMislavsky said:

Answered exactly that successfully more than once but it was pre-2014. Finally was denied entry (visa-exempt) twice in winter 2014-2015 (Had Lek crossing from Cambo) on the basis of exceeded limit of days (they counted 108 or so in cal year) with no other questions about working or not asked.

So, we are back to my first post. It doesnt matter what you do, you just have to prove you are capable of getting the right visa. ? And also not working in Thailand, but who would willingly answer they do online work, even the base of work in in another country, and also abuse the tourist visa system? 

[MaksimMislavsky]

9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

you just have to prove you are capable of getting the right visa. ? And also not working in Thailand,

I'm capable of neither of these two so Thailand no longer suits my needs, although remains highly attractive. And I fully understand their wish to restrict possibilities to come and stay, esp. longtime, that's the right thing to do for Thailand.

Edited December 19, 2018 by MaksimMislavsky

[chocolatesound1]

9 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Some have reported saying they worked online, and this was accepted.  I have said I have a business in the USA (true), which was accepted.  When immigration has found entire offices full of farangs working remotely, no prosecutions occurred (including referring prosecutions to the labor-dept) for illegal working.  After all, the money earned originates outside of Thailand, but is spent in Thailand.  Recent legal re-definitions of the definition of work make a prosecution of this activity even less likely than before.

 

Thus, "illegal working" is not the core-issue driving this agenda.  In the case of those with no logical reason to want to work in Thailand illegally, questions of this nature are a cover-story, simply parroting what is asked of those entering higher-wage nations, who actually do have a motivation to stay to work illegally.

Denials-of-entry are currently being reported for those with valid Tourist Visas only at certain locations - Bangkok airports and the Poipet/Aranya land-border.  The issue is not a question of "does this person have money" - because obviously they are eating, traveling, etc - so they do.  And it is not a matter of "working illegally," when the person could earn far more in their passport-country than working illegally in Thailand. 

 

Reports indicate the complaint IOs give, is that the person has entered / stayed in Thailand previously for periods of time - with the "too much time" factor varying by report (seemingly customized to place the visitor's travel-history "over the line").  But because "too much time in Thailand" is not a legal reason for an IO to reject entry, rejection-stamps usually involve not having 20K Baht in cash (a legal but archaic rule), or the assumption that the visitor cannot afford their stay, even if they have the required cash.  This "cannot finance their stay" reason for rejection, absent any evidence this is the case, in-effect invalidates all Visas, as it presumes the MFA's financial checks for the issuance of Visas are de-facto invalid. 

 

The agenda at-play seems to be one of reducing farangs living in Thailand - especially those who are not "paying tribute" to immigration.  An "agent-assisted" extension can cost 10x+ the official extension-fee.  An ED extension through a school may cost 3K to 5K Baht per 90-days.  Elite-visas cost 500K to 2M Baht, some of which goes to immigration.  With the loss of embassy income-letters, many retirees will now be forced to agents.  This is the racket we are dealing with.

 

Fortunately, most IOs at most points of entry follow the law, so the safe solution to entering with Tourist Visas is to avoid the problematic checkpoints.  At any land-border other than Poipet, according to recent reports, one can enter with a valid Tourist Visa plus 20K Baht worth of cash or travelers checks to show, if asked. 

 

Chang Mai airport may be OK as well (no bad reports, so far), but be aware that denial of entry by air will force booking a last minute trip to where you just left - and hopefully you can get entry upon arrival there, or another unplanned and overpriced ticket to your passport-country could follow.

Do you get sent back to your last connection point or all the way back to your original departure city? I usually fly from the US but alway have a connection in Taipei or Manila.

[cat handler]

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Some have reported saying they worked online, and this was accepted.  I have said I have a business in the USA (true), which was accepted.  When immigration has found entire offices full of farangs working remotely, no prosecutions occurred (including referring prosecutions to the labor-dept) for illegal working.  After all, the money earned originates outside of Thailand, but is spent in Thailand.  

Your last sentence to start with, the same can be said about Tomato growers who sell to another country, the money earned originates outside of Thailand and is spent in Thailand, they have to pay tax though don't they. The big thing that get started me is people say they live in Thailand and work online, that doesn't forgo their tax obligations in Thailand (assuming Thailand has income tax) so admitting you are working at all could be admitting to other crimes. Best just to say you have rich parents.

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, cat handler said:

Your last sentence to start with, the same can be said about Tomato growers who sell to another country, the money earned originates outside of Thailand and is spent in Thailand, they have to pay tax though don't they. The big thing that get started me is people say they live in Thailand and work online, that doesn't forgo their tax obligations in Thailand (assuming Thailand has income tax) so admitting you are working at all could be admitting to other crimes. Best just to say you have rich parents.

A few different issues - "Taxable?" and "Need a Work Permit?" and "Legal to do as a tourist?"

On the taxable - if money earned in a year is remitted to Thailand in the same year earned, and the person in question spent over 180 days in Thailand in a year, then it is taxable per personal income-tax law. 

As to, "Requires a Work Permit" - In the case of your Tomatoes grown in Thailand, the operations (growing of the tomatoes) is occurring inside Thailand.  If one merely "owns" the tomato operation, but is not involved in day-to-day operations, they do not need a work-permit.  Otherwise, they do.  But, a server operating in Brazil, modified by the brain of someone who happens to be in Thailand at some point in time, is a different situation. 

As to "Legal to do as a Tourist?" -  not per prosecutions (lack thereof even when "caught red handed") to date - provided business operations and clients are all offshore.  So, the only connection the business has to Thailand, is that money earned by it is remitted here for spending by a visitor.  This income could still be taxable, as per the above rule on that issue.

[JackThompson]

12 hours ago, chocolatesound1 said:

Do you get sent back to your last connection point or all the way back to your original departure city? I usually fly from the US but alway have a connection in Taipei or Manila.

I am not 100% sure how that would work, but I think it would depend on if you cleared customs in Taipei or Manila - hence "officially entered" that country before continuing travel to Thailand.  In most cases, immigration seems to insist that the same airline which brought you in must return you, so their policy may also be a factor.

[JackThompson]

14 hours ago, MaksimMislavsky said:

Answered exactly that successfully more than once but it was pre-2014. Finally was denied entry (visa-exempt) twice in winter 2014-2015 (Had Lek crossing from Cambo) on the basis of exceeded limit of days (they counted 108 or so within past year) with no other questions about working or not asked.

Was this denial-of-entry during the period of time when the "90 days in 180 days on Visa Exempt" ministerial order was in effect?  If so, that would explain it. 

 

The current rule is 2 Visa-Exempt entries by-land per calendar-year - and arbitrary/random-lottery denials of Visa Exempt (with no clear guidelines of what is acceptable or not) if entering by air.

 

Entering by land with Tourist Visas is not reported to be a problem at all entry-points which follow the law - all land-borders except Poipet/Aranyaprathet, and possibly some Airports (CM we have some data that they are following the law - but not much data on U-Tapo and others).

 

14 hours ago, MaksimMislavsky said:

And I fully understand their wish to restrict possibilities to come and stay, esp. longtime, that's the right thing to do for Thailand.

Your coming here and spending money is great for Thailand and the Thai people.  The only issue, is that your doing this does not personally-enrich (directly or by-proxy) those at a few bad entry-points who are inventing fake-rules to block those entering Thailand legally using Tourist Visas. 

Do not be fooled by false-info into thinking you were/are doing anything wrong - unless you are taking a Thai job, overstaying permitted-stay, or otherwise violating actual laws/rules of the country. 

[farangx]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

16 hours ago, MaksimMislavsky said:

I'm capable of neither of these two so Thailand no longer suits my needs, although remains highly attractive. And I fully understand their wish to restrict possibilities to come and stay, esp. longtime, that's the right thing to do for Thailand.

Your coming here and spending money is great for Thailand and the Thai people.  The only issue, is that your doing this does not personally-enrich (directly or by-proxy) those at a few bad entry-points who are inventing fake-rules to block those entering Thailand legally using Tourist Visas. 

Do not be fooled by false-info into thinking you were/are doing anything wrong - unless you are taking a Thai job, overstaying permitted-stay, or otherwise violating actual laws/rules of the country. 

Entering the country legally on a tourist visa in no way means they are genuine tourists, when found to be otherwise they could get booted.  IO cannot simply stamped them in blindly.

 

Some on tourist visas want to stay in the country for extended period because they cannot get enough of the country.  Some on tourist visas want to stay here for as long as they can continuously but not as tourists and they are definitely not doing this to help the local economy. 

 

Some staying long term on tourist visas understood they have to leave eventually and they accepted that, no love loss.  But some don't.  They blamed the Thai government, they blamed immigration non-transparency, they cook up all sorts of stories and excuses to help with their denial.  That surely their length of stay here warrants them to be exception to the rule.  And they will ask for rules to be in black and white so that they can remain in the grey area.  What then is a tourist visa if it is not for tourism?

 

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, farangx said:

Entering the country legally on a tourist visa in no way means they are genuine tourists, when found to be otherwise they could get booted.  IO cannot simply stamped them in blindly. 

Correct.  If the IO has information showing they are taking a Thai job, broke, or involved in criminal activity, there are specific reasons to deny-entry provided in the Immigration Act.

 

Quote

Some on tourist visas want to stay in the country for extended period because they cannot get enough of the country.  Some on tourist visas want to stay here for as long as they can continuously but not as tourists and they are definitely not doing this to help the local economy.  

They cannot do anything but help the local economy, if they are eating and sleeping indoors.  Usually, they engage in other activities, also - most of which involve paying a Thai business.  There are no "freebie"/welfare type services available to mooch from.

 

Quote

Some staying long term on tourist visas understood they have to leave eventually and they accepted that, no love loss. 

So they believed a lie?  There is no rule/law limiting tourism, other than abiding by the relatively short permitted-stays allotted. 

 

Perhaps they left because they refused to be treated like a criminal at a Bangkok airport, wile obeying the law to the letter.  I have met several with stories like this - and may reported similar here - who formerly spent their money in Thailand.

 

Quote

But some don't.  They blamed the Thai government, they blamed immigration non-transparency, they cook up all sorts of stories and excuses to help with their denial.  That surely their length of stay here warrants them to be exception to the rule. 

You have it exactly backwards - there is no exception to any rule being requested.  Adherence to the law is all that is being asked - but the law is not being followed by immigration-offices at a few bad entry-points; they think they are above the law, make up their own rules and face no consequences.

 

Quote

And they will ask for rules to be in black and white so that they can remain in the grey area. 

Any "grey area" that exists would be from a Lack of rules in Black And White - not the other way around.   But Thai immigration-law is very clear - there are specific, proscribed reasons to deny-entry, and "too long here before" is not on that list.

 

Quote

What then is a tourist visa if it is not for tourism?

The law states that a person entering with a Tourist Visa allows one to enter the country with a permitted-stay for up to 60-days.  During that time, the person is forbidden from working a Thai job, or engaging in other criminal activity.  Upon entry, they may be asked to show 20K Baht in cash or travelers checks.  That is how immigration law applies to Tourist Visa entries.

 

"Visa Exempt" entries are different, and have additional conditions, defined in official ministerial orders, regulating their use.

Edited December 20, 2018 by JackThompson

[farangx]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

They cannot do anything but help the local economy, if they are eating and sleeping indoors.  Usually, they engage in other activities, also - most of which involve paying a Thai business.  There are no "freebie"/welfare type services available to mooch from.

I don't see spending 50 baht on a plate of fried rice as helping the economy, I see it as I am hungry I need to eat.

 

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Perhaps they left because they refused to be treated like a criminal at a Bangkok airport, wile obeying the law to the letter.  I have met several with stories like this - and may reported similar here - who formerly spent their money in Thailand.

They can't all be gaming the system ....

 

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

You have it exactly backwards - there is no exception to any rule being requested.  Adherence to the law is all that is being asked - but the law is not being followed by immigration-offices at a few bad entry-points; they think they are above the law, make up their own rules and face no consequences.

If I got it backwards, then I am definitely going forward staying long term on tourist visa, no need to do that 800K seasoning when all I need is only 20K.

 

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Any "grey area" that exists would be from a Lack of rules in Black And White - not the other way around.   But Thai immigration-law is very clear - there are specific, proscribed reasons to deny-entry, and "too long here before" is not on that list.

The grey area exists for foreigners who fall outside the rules of black and white.  It is highly unlikely they are unaware of it if they are already in it.

 

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

The law states that a person entering with a Tourist Visa allows one to enter the country with a permitted-stay for up to 60-days.  During that time, the person is forbidden from working a Thai job, or engaging in other criminal activity.  Upon entry, they may be asked to show 20K Baht in cash or travelers checks.  That is how immigration law applies to Tourist Visa entries.

Yes yes yes the law states that but what is the person using the tourist visa for if he has a few of this visa back to back .... "Oh, I love your country mak mak" or "I have money to eat and place to sleep here, you cannot throw me out just like that?" .... IO says out and that's off you go.

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by farangx

[cat handler]

5 hours ago, JackThompson said:

As to, "Requires a Work Permit" - In the case of your Tomatoes grown in Thailand, the operations (growing of the tomatoes) is occurring inside Thailand.  If one merely "owns" the tomato operation, but is not involved in day-to-day operations, they do not need a work-permit.  Otherwise, they do.  But, a server operating in Brazil, modified by the brain of someone who happens to be in Thailand at some point in time, is a different situation. 
 

Yes but the work is still being performed in Thailand, that's working in Thailand and u need a Work Visa to work in Thailand, maybe nobody has been charged or deported to date but that's not to say they can't be. The smart thing is never to admit to anything, it's not against any Visa rules to have rich parents who support your lifestyle or to have a business overseas run by family that provides you with an income.

[LivinLOS]

23 hours ago, jackdd said:

You forget to add a remark to your quote: According to the interpretation of the law of a Bangkok Post reporter

This is only true if the internet based business is based in Thailand, not if it's a business abroad, that's at least what the actions of authorities in the past show. 

Thats not what every formal statement by labour officials has said.. 

 

Remove the lack of enforcement issue.. Why are BOI registered umbrella companies mushrooming up to provide exactly this service, if it isnt a legal need ?? 

[LivinLOS]

6 hours ago, JackThompson said:

A few different issues - "Taxable?" and "Need a Work Permit?" and "Legal to do as a tourist?"

On the taxable - if money earned in a year is remitted to Thailand in the same year earned, and the person in question spent over 180 days in Thailand in a year, then it is taxable per personal income-tax law. 
 

And if the work is performed, while the person is within the kingdom, it starts from day 1. 

 

The essential difference between active income (working) and passing income from prior work, residuals, etc.. As was very accurately broken down by the officer when discussing online ad revenue in the linked source I provided.