BREAKING NEWS Foreigners now need to keep 800k in Thai bank for three months AFTER retirement extension is granted

[flexomike]

On 2/8/2019 at 3:19 AM, EVENKEEL said:

( or are you referring to how to get 2 years from an OA ? )  Yes, How exactly does the 2nd year kick in? 

You just have to do a border crossing before your visa expires, you will get one year from the date you reenter Thailand

[TiffDerek]

abused????

[PST]

27 minutes ago, wayned said:

All that the freaking letter certifies is that they have received the documents, it in no way certifies that the documents are true.  The US Embassy would never look at any documentation, you had to put the amount that you received on the form and come in in person and raise your hand under threat of purgery that the information was true.  Which is better?  Neither country certified that the actual amount that you were receiving and it would be doubtful that any other country's embassy does a check either as it would take a long time to verify private pensions and other sources even if it were legal in those countries.

when you submit your 'proof' of income to the UK embassy, you have to send them bank statements which obviously contains your account number and sort code, your atm card then contains your name and the same account number and sort code, so how could they be false?

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, Spidey said:

Fact: Every other embassy using the same method of verification as BE, continues to produce their letters and shows no sign of stopping them.

 

Which of these facts do you dispute?

 

 

I am not disputing this, but:

 

1. How do you know which of the 75 embassies in Thailand use the same method of verification as the BE?

 

2. How do you know that all of the embassies that do use the same method of verification as the BE are continuing to produce their letters and are showing no sign of stopping them?

 

3. How long did it take you (or your staff) to canvas all 75 embassies to collect and confirm the data?

 

Again, I am not disputing your facts, but without clear answers to the above question, I consider them suspect.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, PST said:

when you submit your 'proof' of income to the UK embassy, you have to send them bank statements which obviously contains your account number and sort code, your atm card then contains your name and the same account number and sort code, so how could they be false?

I understand how unbelivable this must seem, but most anyone can download a bank statment as  PDF, open it in Acrobat and edit most any of the entries, print it, submit it and anyone looking at the document would not know the difference.

 

 

[PST]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I understand how unbelivable this must seem, but most anyone can download a bank statment as  PDF, open it in Acrobat and edit most any of the entries, print it, submit it and anyone looking at the document would not know the difference.

 

 

So what then happens when they use this income letter with 'false' info as proof on it to apply for an extension at immigration, and the IO wants to see the back up proof(edited statement) and then the bank card that corresponds to the details on the statement?, oh, and the atm receipts too for the transactions in Thailand.

Edited February 20, 2019 by PST

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

What after probably redeploying staff to alternative positions, you expect them to resume service as normal because TI got their nickers in a twist. TI quickly announced an alternatively acceptable method as proof of income through a Thai bank, something the Embassies maintained had always been an alternative.

 

If you were submitting genuine proof of income to the Embassy, then it shouldn't be a problem to provide that proof through a Thai bank account.

Unless you didn't transfer 65K of the required income to Thailand monthly.  Anyone with expenses elsewhere in the world - including those who don't live here year round - are now facing a very, very different qualification regime.  Many will not be renewing / spending less time and money in Thailand, or using agents (immigration's preferred way to apply).

 

25 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

3 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

No other Embassy, carrying out the same level of processing as the BE has withdrawn their letters.

 

Is that because they don't?

Some do, some don't.  Someone reported the French are still issuing stat-doc letters (no documentation).  This may be because Immigration has shifted enough expats (who formerly qualified, but cannot meet the moved-goalposts) over to the agents to satiate their appetite for under-the-table money for awhile. 

[007 RED]

1 hour ago, wayned said:

.......  The US Embassy would never look at any documentation, you had to put the amount that you received on the form and come in in person and raise your hand under threat of purgery that the information was true.

FYI.... The UK has the Perjury Act 1911 (as amended).  Although it's dated 1911, it has been revised may times over the years and was last updated in 2018.  To commit perjury you don't necessarily have give false information under oath, submitting false information to a Government Official with the intent of gaining advantage is also covered by the Act.  A breach of this Act can result in a fine and/or imprisonment.

 

[Tanoshi]

16 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Unless you didn't transfer 65K of the required income to Thailand monthly.  Anyone with expenses elsewhere in the world - including those who don't live here year round - are now facing a very, very different qualification regime. 

Absolutely correct Jack.

Embassy letters only confirm that you had declared an income to meet the financial requirements.

There is still no requirement to prove those incomes are being transferred to Thailand if you can still obtain an Embassy letter.

In the original order however I believe the intention was that you were transferring such funds for living expenses.

I know many expats who live very comfortably on 40-50K per month.

[Yellowtail]

44 minutes ago, PST said:

 

So what then happens when they use this income letter with 'false' info as proof on it to apply for an extension at immigration, and the IO wants to see the back up proof(edited statement) and then the bank card that corresponds to the details on the statement?, oh, and the atm receipts too for the transactions in Thailand.

 

I thought we were discussing supporting documentation to obtain an income letters from an embassy, no?

 

In any event, if you got an income letter from your embassy using a falsified statement, I would assume the falsified statement would work as "back up proof" at immigration, why wouldn’t it?

 

As far as I know, Immigration will not accept bank statements from other countries as evidence, be they authentic or falsified.

 

Regarding the "bank card", I was assuming one would be editing a statement from their own account, sorry if that was not clear.

 

ATM receipts for what exactly? I am not aware of any “ATM transactions in Thailand” requirement, please explain.

[007 RED]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I understand how unbelivable this must seem, but most anyone can download a bank statment as  PDF, open it in Acrobat and edit most any of the entries, print it, submit it and anyone looking at the document would not know the difference.

 

 

Absolutely correct and can be done within a few minutes if you have access to the right software.

 

1 hour ago, PST said:

So what then happens when they use this income letter with 'false' info as proof on it to apply for an extension at immigration, and the IO wants to see the back up proof(edited statement) and then the bank card that corresponds to the details on the statement?, oh, and the atm receipts too for the transactions in Thailand.

The Embassy returns the documentation you submitted with their letter so you still have the false copy.  The only part of the bank statement that would need to be altered would be the deposit, withdrawal and balance amounts.  The account holders name, address and account details will remain unchanged and he/she should be able to produce the ATM card if ever asked to do so (which is unlikely).

 

It would be almost impossible for an IO to tell that a the statement had been changed unless they have access to your online account which is possible but highly unlikely. 

Edited February 20, 2019 by 007 RED
Typo

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

FYI.... The UK has the Perjury Act 1911 (as amended).  Although it's dated 1911, it has been revised may times over the years and was last updated in 2018.  To commit perjury you don't necessarily have give false information under oath, submitting false information to a Government Official with the intent of gaining advantage is also covered by the Act.  A breach of this Act can result in a fine and/or imprisonment.

 

 

Unless you've committed some crime that the government decides to investigate, everyone knows nothing will ever happen.

 

For example, if you were trafficking drugs and they couldn’t get you for anything else, they could prosecute you for perjury and at the very least deport you.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Absolutely correct and can be done within a few minutes if you have access to the right software.

 

The Embassy returns the documentation you submitted with their letter so you still have the false copy.  The only part of the bank statement that would need to be altered would be the deposits, withdrawal and balance amounts.  The account holders name, address and account details will remain unchanged and he/she should be able to produce the ATM if ever asked to do so (which is unlikely).

 

It would be almost impossible for an IO to tell that a the statement had been changed unless they have access to your online account which is possible but highly unlikely. 

 

Even if they kept the phony statement, you could just print another one.

 

Right, the only way they could get access to your accout (without your permission) is with a court order.

[balo]

I stopped by one of the agents here in Pattaya and one of the staff told me they had seen an increase of around 30% visitors in January. Most of them are on retirement. So as expected it will be good business for the agents in 2019.

[007 RED]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Unless you've committed some crime that the government decides to investigate, everyone knows nothing will ever happen.

 

 

For example, if you were trafficking drugs and they couldn’t get you for anything else, they could prosecute you for perjury and at the very least deport you.

 

I think that you may have misinterpreted my post.... The Perjury Act 1911 is a piece of UK legislation not Thai legislation.  If a British National submits false information to the BE in Bangkok and they discovered it that individual could potentially be prosecuted for Perjury in a British Court. 

 

That said, such an event is highly unlikely unless it was an extremely serious matter that warranted getting the individual extradited back to the Uk and a greater that 80% chance of a conviction.

 

No doubt there is a similar piece of legislation in Thai Law.

[007 RED]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Right, the only way they could get access to your accout (without your permission) is with a court order.

Remember.... This is Thailand.....  Normal logic and conventions do not always apply ????

[elliss]

On 2/6/2019 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Dwyer said:

 

This last sentence sort of sums it up !!

BJ is trying to get rid of the dodgy agents ( as opposed to the ones giving an honest service ) but really needs to weed out the “right “ immigration officers.
Without those guys facilitating these actions we wouldn’t be in the predicament we are facing right now!!

 

 

           Along with  the  right  Bank official.

           Why change a  winning team ,  everybody happy ..

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by elliss

[Yellowtail]

18 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Absolutely correct Jack.

Embassy letters only confirm that you had declared an income to meet the financial requirements.

There is still no requirement to prove those incomes are being transferred to Thailand if you can still obtain an Embassy letter.

In the original order however I believe the intention was that you were transferring such funds for living expenses.

I know many expats who live very comfortably on 40-50K per month.

 

I doubt the original intent was to show that you were transferring the money to Thailand, but rather to prove you had the money required to support yourself in Thailand. 

 

As we no longer have a way to prove we have the money to support ourselves in Thailand, a workaround was developed whereby we can transfer 65K per month into our Thai bank account, show the statement and letter from the bank.

 

This does represent a significant increase in the financial requirement in that:

a.     The money needs to be transferred into Thailand, which has a cost associated with it.

b.     Previously pre-tax income could be used

c.     Any expenses incurred in the home county were part of stated income

 

Realistically:

a.     Most people must transfer money anyway, so this cost should not be significant

b.     Most people with an income level such that they are required to pay income taxes can likely afford to transfer 65K a month

c.     Most people that are indeed retired and living in Thailand full time, would likely not have significant expenses in their home countries

 

[ubonjoe]

A inflammatory post has been removed.

[Yellowtail]

52 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Remember.... This is Thailand.....  Normal logic and conventions do not always apply ????

At the US Embassy?

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, rott said:

17 hours ago, elviajero said:

No I haven’t. 

Yes you have.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Show me one post of mine in which I call any permit to stay a visa.

 

5 hours ago, rott said:

Quote

Yes I defend it’s use because, agents, lawyers, immigration, reporters, virtually every expat you'll ever meet, call it a visa. In immigration terms a permit is a form of visa.

What goes in the passport does not say retirement visa. That is what counts.

Correct. It's a permit. Which in immigration terms can be justifiably described as a visa.

 

Permit;

an official document giving someone authorization to do something.

synonyms: authorisation, licence, pass, voucher, ticket, warrant, document, certification;

passport, visa; 

 

5 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

5 hours ago, rott said:

But I said "in the past". I feel that he was worn down by the know nothings who insisted on calling it a visa so he got fed up educating them.

Same reason Immigration, lawyers, agents, call it a Retirement Visa because they can't be bothered explaining the differences to foreigners whom they regard as to ignorant to understand regardless of an explanation.

Or maybe they call the permit a visa because it is what everyone in the world considers anything in their passport giving permission to stay in a foreign country.

 

At the end of the day it's semantics. It wouldn't be so bad if the pedants actually described the permit correctly themselves when correcting all those "ignorant foreigners". 

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, 007 RED said:

3 hours ago, wayned said:

.......  The US Embassy would never look at any documentation, you had to put the amount that you received on the form and come in in person and raise your hand under threat of purgery that the information was true.

FYI.... The UK has the Perjury Act 1911 (as amended).  Although it's dated 1911, it has been revised may times over the years and was last updated in 2018.  To commit perjury you don't necessarily have give false information under oath, submitting false information to a Government Official with the intent of gaining advantage is also covered by the Act.  A breach of this Act can result in a fine and/or imprisonment.

And the reality is that the Embassies probably don't give a stuff if the person is perjuring themselves to a foreign government; and the IO's processing the applications are happy as long as the letter/affidavit confirms the income. 

 

Perjury must have been committed hundreds (maybe thousands) of times over the years with these affidavits, and as far as I'm aware no one has ever been 'caught out' because no one checks. It's been a big loophole in the system that is closing/closed.

[Yellowtail]

39 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Show me one post of mine in which I call any permit to stay a visa.

 

Correct. It's a permit. Which in immigration terms can be justifiably described as a visa.

 

Permit;

an official document giving someone authorization to do something.

synonyms: authorisation, licence, pass, voucher, ticket, warrant, document, certification;

passport, visa; 

 

Or maybe they call the permit a visa because it is what everyone in the world considers anything in their passport giving permission to stay in a foreign country.

 

At the end of the day it's semantics. It wouldn't be so bad if the pedants actually described the permit correctly themselves when correcting all those "ignorant foreigners". 

 

The permits are also stamped on the "Visa" pages of US passports...

[Tanoshi]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

Or maybe they call the permit a visa because it is what everyone in the world considers anything in their passport giving permission to stay in a foreign country.

Except conditions of Visas are Country specific.

visa

an endorsement on a passport indicating that the holder is allowed to enter, leave, or stay for a specified period of time in a country.

 

A Visa for the UK typically allows you to enter, leave or stay within the validity of the Visa.

 

A Visa for Thailand typically allows you to enter or leave, but the permission to stay is granted by the entry clearance officer.

 

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

At the end of the day it's semantics. It wouldn't be so bad if the pedants actually described the permit correctly themselves when correcting all those "ignorant foreigners". 

It's not semantics, a permit to stay and a Visa have very separate conditions.

Different Visas also have their own conditions.

Agree, the Visa or Permit should be described as it is.

 

Retirement Visa is the most confusing incorrect term used on here.

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

This topic went from being a thread to being a spool of thread. 

[Olmate]

39 minutes ago, Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere said:

This topic went from being a thread to being a spool of thread. 

Yep,lately hijacked by the old visa/extension BS,once more!

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

Except conditions of Visas are Country specific.

visa

an endorsement on a passport indicating that the holder is allowed to enter, leave, or stay for a specified period of time in a country.

 

A Visa for the UK typically allows you to enter, leave or stay within the validity of the Visa.

Can you explain how my wife managed to enter the UK without a visa; having applied for a visa using an online application to apply for a visa? What should she call the 'sticker' in her passport that isn't called a visa or permit? Or the card she's been issued telling her how long she can stay?

 

Visa is a generic word. And calling a permit a visa fits exactly with the definition you've given. It is the function of the visa/permit that is important, not arguing whether or not a permit is or isn't a visa.

 

Quote

A Visa for Thailand typically allows you to enter or leave, but the permission to stay is granted by the entry clearance officer.

 

It's not semantics, a permit to stay and a Visa have very separate conditions.

Different Visas also have their own conditions.

Agree, the Visa or Permit should be described as it is.

 

Retirement Visa is the most confusing incorrect term used on here.

It's not confusing if you expect the person asking the question is referring to the generic term for an extension of stay issued on the basis of retirement. And in most cases the content/context of the question tells you whether or not they are asking about an entry visa or the subsequent permit to stay/extension.

 

Saying; "you don't have a retirement visa, you have an extension of stay" is arguably as confusing and wrong to the enquirer. They do have a visa otherwise they wouldn't have a permit to stay to extend!

 

What they actually have is a permit (form of visa); what the permit does is grant an extension of the permission to stay that was granted on entry, for the reason of retirement, and based on the type of visa presented to the "entry clearance officer". Colloquially known as a "Retirement Visa".

 

My point is always that it doesn't matter what the enquirer calls it. Given what it is/does the colloquial term fits, and the advice is the same once we've ascertained what the enquiry is. And no 'education' by a few on TVF is going to change what the enquirer will call their permit once they're back in the bar, or talking to their family/friends. The 'education' seems more about ego and bragging rights than genuine help.

 

Explaining to them the correct terminology is fine, telling them they don't have a "Retirement Visa" when the rest of the world tells them they do, is pointless.

Edited February 20, 2019 by elviajero

[rott]

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Show me one post of mine in which I call any permit to stay a visa.

 

Correct. It's a permit. Which in immigration terms can be justifiably described as a visa.

 

Permit;

an official document giving someone authorization to do something.

synonyms: authorisation, licence, pass, voucher, ticket, warrant, document, certification;

passport, visa; 

 

Or maybe they call the permit a visa because it is what everyone in the world considers anything in their passport giving permission to stay in a foreign country.

 

At the end of the day it's semantics. It wouldn't be so bad if the pedants actually described the permit correctly themselves when correcting all those "ignorant foreigners". 

Nobody is calling anyone ignorant, just saying it is not a visa, and no need to complain when somebody says so.

[elviajero]

9 minutes ago, rott said:

Nobody is calling anyone ignorant,

Note the quotes.

 

9 minutes ago, rott said:

just saying it is not a visa, and no need to complain when somebody says so.

In your opinion it's not a visa. In the opinion of the rest of the world it is.

 

I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out the justification for the colloquial term, and the futility of trying to change it; and in particular the pointless practice of telling them they don't have something everyone else tells them they have.

[Khaeng Mak]

I just video conferenced with a Thai visa agent in Pattaya. The contact was provided to me by another expat. When I questioned what is going to happened over the next few months she said she has no idea and that immigration have no idea as well...