4 hours ago, Moonlover said:

I fail to see the relevance between my comment and your response. But I will answer it none the less.

 

What you're implying is that those who erstwhile have been abusing the embassy letters as a way of circumventing TI's fiscal requirements in order to obtain a visa extension will henceforth have to comply with those requirements.

 

Well, what a shame!

You were peddling the idea that there was a large contingent of back-pedallers retracting their caustic comments they were lobbing your way - I think you flatter yourself too much.

 

I'm not implying at all what you suggest, and given that agents letters remain intact, circumventing the fiscal rules remains alive and well, albeit now weighted entirely in favour of lining officials' pockets. The income requirements have in reality increased substantially for anyone who didn't need or wish to transfer 65000 baht of their income into a Thai bank account every month. Reasons for not doing so could be numerous - a wish to keep part of their income in their home country for investments; allowances or expenses relating to family there; insurance premiums for worldwide coverage paid in their own country. This was all perfectly legal and acceptable as far as immigration was concerned until late last year. Under the new rules, an expat who might have been living comfortably on 35000 a month (whilst fully meeting the income requirements in their home country) is obligated to almost double the amount of money they transfer in, leaving it to accumulate uselessly in a Thai bank at a miniscule rate of interest. 

 

We also now have a two tier system, where four major embassies have withdrawn income letters, but the rest are free to continue issuing them to their hearts content. This is shoddy treatment by the embassies who've buckled, and they should continue to be held to account as to why they are providing a lesser service to their citizens than the embassies of other countries. 

29 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

You were peddling the idea that there was a large contingent of back-pedallers retracting their caustic comments they were lobbing your way - I think you flatter yourself too much.

 

I'm not implying at all what you suggest, and given that agents letters remain intact, circumventing the fiscal rules remains alive and well, albeit now weighted entirely in favour of lining officials' pockets. The income requirements have in reality increased substantially for anyone who didn't need or wish to transfer 65000 baht of their income into a Thai bank account every month. Reasons for not doing so could be numerous - a wish to keep part of their income in their home country for investments; allowances or expenses relating to family there; insurance premiums for worldwide coverage paid in their own country. This was all perfectly legal and acceptable as far as immigration was concerned until late last year. Under the new rules, an expat who might have been living comfortably on 35000 a month (whilst fully meeting the income requirements in their home country) is obligated to almost double the amount of money they transfer in, leaving it to accumulate uselessly in a Thai bank at a miniscule rate of interest. 

 

We also now have a two tier system, where four major embassies have withdrawn income letters, but the rest are free to continue issuing them to their hearts content. This is shoddy treatment by the embassies who've buckled, and they should continue to be held to account as to why they are providing a lesser service to their citizens than the embassies of other countries. 

Regarding your last paragraph, ESPECIALLY in the case of the U.S. as doing research on other nation's retirement visa programs I discovered that the U.S. embassies in Colombia and Peru continue to issue some kind of income verification document based on showing government pension benefit letters that are accepted by the immigration offices of those two nations. Why can a similar service still exist in Colombia and Peru and not here. Americans that have been depending on these letters should rightfully be angry about this shoddy, damaging treatment by our own embassy.

15 hours ago, Vacuum said:

This is all good, but what about the meaningless 90 day reports?

Add to that TM 30 reports already covered at airport entry

Moi renewed his Retirement Extension yesterday w/absolutely no problems.

As long as you have the bank letter & the passbook, it's a piece of cake. ????

16 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Still, it's nice that BJ went on the record with a formal memo to his staff clarifying what should have been clear from the beginning

Too bad the IO's at individual offices will interpret this in their own way.....like they do with many forms/documents/signatures.

Two issues:

1) The UK pays state pensions on a 4 week or 13 week cycle.    Other countries and personal pensions probably do similarly.   To overcome this, shouldn't Thai Immigration be simply looking to see that a total of Baht 780,000 been deposited to the account during the previous 12 months.

2) It seems that most Thai banks do not indicate in the passbook that whether a deposit originated from outside Thailand or was made in-country.

Prior to this, the letter from the embassy included earnings in addition to ‘pension’ which appears all over this document in parentheses. Does that mean that only ‘pension’ is going to be considered?

The  sharks visa on the borders,

have much to say about that stupid 90 days report,,,

11 minutes ago, high plane drifter said:

The  sharks visa on the borders,

have much to say about that stupid 90 days report,,,

I am interested, what exactly do they say?

16 hours ago, Mister Fixit said:

12,900 if you know where to go ...

Is that for a multi-entry visa too?

18 minutes ago, AjarnMartin said:

Prior to this, the letter from the embassy included earnings in addition to ‘pension’ which appears all over this document in parentheses. Does that mean that only ‘pension’ is going to be considered?

My embassy income letter simply listed income, and was more than sufficient for immigration. Given that the qualifying age is 50, countless people who are here on non o and o/a extensions are not in receipt of a pension. 

Nothing about bank statements showing foreign transfers. My SCB account shows transfers coming from TransferWise as "ATS = Automatic Transfer System".

Yesterday I did a Swift transfer direct from my UK bank and it's recorded on my bank statement as "FRCI = Foreign Remitance and Settlement" so all ok there. BUT, I'd have received some 1800 baht more if I'd used TransferWise. 21,600 baht over 12 months is a substantial sum which I'm not prepared to lose. I guess until something is sorted on this it'll (reluctantly) have to be the 4 or 800,000 deposit for me.

11 hours ago, Jane Dough said:

โดยอนุโลม 

doi anulome - the necessary changes having been made.

 

Rooster

Nice job, though I think the Latin is probably snappier... 

It is good that they sent the letter to the various immigration offices to clarify the 'leniency' until the end of 2019, although this is mainly for people already in the system.

 

My question, looking at the slightly bigger picture, is how this will affect newly weds and people retiring to Thailand from the end of 2019 onward? Does this mean that they will have to wait for a year before they can be eligible to apply for an extension to achieve the history required for transfers using the income method?

 

Are the banks going to be more friendly with regards to opening accounts to achieve this required history of transfers? How will visas work during the one year wait for the potential retiree (married people waiting not so much as they can get non-o's easier)?

 

While understanding planning is great, I also understand that not everything sticks to the plan, so people may have to get married in some circumstances before the planned dates and people can also make decisions for retirement earlier than expected due to favourable circumstances. It is these people I'm thinking about.

47 minutes ago, AjarnMartin said:

Prior to this, the letter from the embassy included earnings in addition to ‘pension’ which appears all over this document in parentheses. Does that mean that only ‘pension’ is going to be considered?

 

While the letter does refer to ‘pension’ in parentheses several times there is no suggestion in the letter that the officers are required to verify that the income is being transferred by a recognizable pension provider. They have to check bank certification letters and statements to verify income transferred from overseas monthly but there is no requirement to check the identity of the temitter. It looks like you will be good as long as you can establish regular monthly income from any source, including possibly yourself, although the latter may need to be confirmed by trial and error. I guess a lot of people get pensions paid into home country bank accounts and remit from there what they need to live on in Thailand.

1 hour ago, MrMo said:

Two issues:

1) The UK pays state pensions on a 4 week or 13 week cycle.    Other countries and personal pensions probably do similarly.   To overcome this, shouldn't Thai Immigration be simply looking to see that a total of Baht 780,000 been deposited to the account during the previous 12 months.

2) It seems that most Thai banks do not indicate in the passbook that whether a deposit originated from outside Thailand or was made in-country.

 

 

Australia as well.

31 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Nothing about bank statements showing foreign transfers. My SCB account shows transfers coming from TransferWise as "ATS = Automatic Transfer System".

Yesterday I did a Swift transfer direct from my UK bank and it's recorded on my bank statement as "FRCI = Foreign Remitance and Settlement" so all ok there. BUT, I'd have received some 1800 baht more if I'd used TransferWise. 21,600 baht over 12 months is a substantial sum which I'm not prepared to lose. I guess until something is sorted on this it'll (reluctantly) have to be the 4 or 800,000 deposit for me.

Not only the poorer exchange rate but the bank transfer fees of £20-25 each (monthly) transaction adding up to £300 per annum (12000 baht). 

Now this is an area in which clarification/leniency  would have been more valuable- but I doubt TI even understands this aspect,let alone address it.

17 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

Nothing stated for being a member of a Thai Family. Apparently Big J is either hearing the IO's complaints or is reading TV. 

Well it won't be the second possibility you mention, so it has to be the first.

 

I'm surprised he'd be factoring in the views of foreigners at all though, even at second-hand.

 

 

17 hours ago, webfact said:

have discretion to accept evidence

You've all missed this bit. They have discretion. Discretion: The freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation. So they might or might not show leniency. It's up to them.????

9 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

given that agents letters remain intact, circumventing the fiscal rules remains alive and well, albeit now weighted entirely in favour of lining officials' pockets.

While that may be true as of today, I would personally not rest easy if my long-term stay in Thailand would be contingent upon it remaining so. If others can, up to them.

34 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Nothing about bank statements showing foreign transfers. My SCB account shows transfers coming from TransferWise as "ATS = Automatic Transfer System".

Yesterday I did a Swift transfer direct from my UK bank and it's recorded on my bank statement as "FRCI = Foreign Remitance and Settlement" so all ok there. BUT, I'd have received some 1800 baht more if I'd used TransferWise. 21,600 baht over 12 months is a substantial sum which I'm not prepared to lose. I guess until something is sorted on this it'll (reluctantly) have to be the 4 or 800,000 deposit for me.

Bangkok bank show my transfers coming in from TransferWise as FTT (Foreign Transfer Transaction).

11 minutes ago, chrisinth said:

It is good that they sent the letter to the various immigration offices to clarify the 'leniency' until the end of 2019, although this is mainly for people already in the system.

 

My question, looking at the slightly bigger picture, is how this will affect newly weds and people retiring to Thailand from the end of 2019 onward? Does this mean that they will have to wait for a year before they can be eligible to apply for an extension to achieve the history required for transfers using the income method?

 

Are the banks going to be more friendly with regards to opening accounts to achieve this required history of transfers? How will visas work during the one year wait for the potential retiree (married people waiting not so much as they can get non-o's easier)?

 

While understanding planning is great, I also understand that not everything sticks to the plan, so people may have to get married in some circumstances before the planned dates and people can also make decisions for retirement earlier than expected due to favourable circumstances. It is these people I'm thinking about.

Thai banks will remain Thai banks which are basically set up to provide retail banking services to Thai people. They won’t change their account opening criteria because of a new Immigration rule. You may still need to shop around to find a bank or branch to open an account for you, if you are a foreigner without a work permit or permanent residence. These problems were started by the money laundering regulations which in typical style were vague enough to permit different interpretations by different banks and within banks. I was once told to close my account by a junior bank officer who refused to give me a new bank book because I didn’t have a work permit, even though I had permanent residence books with me. Luckily head aoffice disagreed with her on appeal.

51 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Nothing about bank statements showing foreign transfers. My SCB account shows transfers coming from TransferWise as "ATS = Automatic Transfer System".

Yesterday I did a Swift transfer direct from my UK bank and it's recorded on my bank statement as "FRCI = Foreign Remitance and Settlement" so all ok there. BUT, I'd have received some 1800 baht more if I'd used TransferWise. 21,600 baht over 12 months is a substantial sum which I'm not prepared to lose. I guess until something is sorted on this it'll (reluctantly) have to be the 4 or 800,000 deposit for me.

 

That is why they need a separate letter from the bank to certify that the remittances were from overseas. The statements or passbook copy will be used to cross check that the amounts came into your account monthly.

17 hours ago, Vacuum said:

This is all good, but what about the meaningless 90 day reports?

We parolees have to report.  It's part of our sentence!

18 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

the back peddling has begun.

I doubt that they are going to back pedal on this, but to be honest it is the only half decent thing that they SHOULD DO, it is just common sense that everyone will not have all of this in place at this time. Next year will be the time to watch, I see no leniency when that time comes around. They might however come good on the rumours about a 10 year retirement extension and the rescinding of the damned useless 90 day reports as some sort of tit for tat / sweetener.

Does the 800k in a Thai bank account for several months still suffice, instead of the monthly transfers?

3 minutes ago, nicolas65 said:

Does the 800k in a Thai bank account for several months still suffice, instead of the monthly transfers?

For the 6317 times it has been posted YES IT DOES

1 hour ago, jesimps said:

Nothing about bank statements showing foreign transfers. My SCB account shows transfers coming from TransferWise as "ATS = Automatic Transfer System".

Yesterday I did a Swift transfer direct from my UK bank and it's recorded on my bank statement as "FRCI = Foreign Remitance and Settlement" so all ok there. BUT, I'd have received some 1800 baht more if I'd used TransferWise. 21,600 baht over 12 months is a substantial sum which I'm not prepared to lose. I guess until something is sorted on this it'll (reluctantly) have to be the 4 or 800,000 deposit for me.

Jesimps, I agree it’s a mess! I too transfer about £2000 per month from my UK bank every month via TransferWise but to meet immigration’s requirements, the audit trail is onerous because the monies firstly go to a ‘borderless’ account in sterling, get changed to ThB and THEN transferred to my SCB or Bangkok Bank accounts. My income and pension letter previously indicated more than adequate funds for my retirement extension. I have absolutely no intention of depositing either 400 or 800 in a Thai bank when it earns no interest! It looks as though I’m being forced into making another life-changing decision after 11 happy years in the LoS... ???? My extension of stay is not due until the end of September so I’m going to raise the issue with local immigration during my 90-day report next month and see what paperwork is acceptable. Ho hum!

18 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

How do you say mutatis mutandis in Thai?

Envelope brown! Kao jai mai?

18 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

the back peddling has begun.

Not back peddling, the change of pension/income verification letters given by embassies changed during the latter part of 2018. Thus not giving some a full 12 months notice.

Some people like me have now changed the method of payment of pension from their home countries due to these changes.

When I renew my retirement visa this July I will have accumulated 9 months of 65,000 baht to my Thai bank account, this is where the leniency will help during the first year.