Using the transfer-B65k-each-month method, and repatriating the funds

[FritsSikkink]

15 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Given how much more prone to fraud the new system is, than an embassy letter was (no passport-country crime involved for the fakers), it is possible that that the current system was designed to be abused - setting the table for "bad guys" to be blamed for canceling the income-option all together.

So the abusers are not responsible? Any reality sense at all?

[Kenny202]

15 minutes ago, elviajero said:

For those they keep 800K all year there is no change.

 

For those that drawdown all or part of the 800K it just means transferring a little more than before when they first start. From the second year onwards nothing has changed.

 

Currently in the first 15 months from arriving in the country you need to maintain 800K for 5/15 months. Now it’s 7/15.

 

It really is a fuss about nothing.

Agreed. For the guys complaining about the extra funds required I assume they were comfortable before with 800k in the bank for three months prior to application. For those guys I would suggest simply deposit your 65k a month. Still only totals 800k for the year in staggering increments. If its more than you need simply send some back home after a few months.

 

I still find it hard to believe they Imm will not be adding conditions to some of these very broad terms. I guess we will soon know, then will have to deal with each offices, indeed each officers interpretation of the new rules

[Kenny202]

52 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

People looking for a way to cheat the system again. That will could finally result the income way to be cancelled later too.

who is cheating what? What specifically are you talking about

[Jingthing]

For those they keep 800K all year there is no change.  

For those that drawdown all or part of the 800K it just means transferring a little more than before when they first start. From the second year onwards nothing has changed.

 

Currently in the first 15 months from arriving in the country you need to maintain 800K for 5/15 months. Now it’s 7/15.

 

It really is a fuss about nothing.

 

Incorrect. It's a lot more than nothing. Current seasoning is 2 months before the first extension and three for subsequent.

 

There was never a 5. People doing conversion to O in Thailand never needed any seasoning for that first step.

 

You conveniently fail to mention the virtual 400k all year bond. One baht under for one day in the year and you're screwed.

 

Please stop trying to deceive people that this is nothing.

 

Also why are compliant people up till now being punished? To crack down on corruption we are told?

 

Now we have word that the corrupt agents already have a plan for this.

 

So what was the point exactly?

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

[Kenny202]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

For the 65k the main issues are:

 

1. New requirement that the funds come into Thailand from abroad (previously just had to have the income).  Those whose actual needs are well below 65k/month -- especially if they have bills they have to pay back in their home country --  now have to do two way transfers with the  associated costs and hassle. Also, documenting that fund transfers have come from abroad within a Thai bank statement - which is seemingly the only documentation  that will fly -- is proving to much harder  than you'd think, if you follow the various threads on this. 

 

2. Requirement that the transfers be every single month and at least that amount (as opposed to averaging that amount, which would at least leave some leeway for bringing in amounts based on need) . The every month aspect is inefficient and unnecessarily costly in terms of transfer fees (especially since people  will have to shift from current money transfer systems to costlier ones in order to have it show on bank statement as being from abroad, see above). It is also problematic for those with income streams that don't pay out monthly.

 

Both are new requirements and they definitely make life a bit harder for people using this method.  Before they only had to have an average income of 65K/month.  It was up to them how much of that to bring into the country and how often, and they could avail of lower cost transfer services to do it.

 

Btu these inconveniences pale in comparison to the hurdles that have unexpectedly arisen for the lump sum method.

By the way, has there been any discussion on how they will assess the 65k per month? For example the new laws come into effect 1st March. My extension renewal August. I was previously using the 800k method but want to go to the monthly deposit method. Are they going to accept less than a full year of 65k deposits in the first year as clearly I don't have a full year to make 12 monthly deposits?

Edited February 5, 2019 by Kenny202

[Kenny202]

27 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Given how much more prone to fraud the new system is, than an embassy letter was (no passport-country crime involved for the fakers), it is possible that that the current system was designed to be abused - setting the table for "bad guys" to be blamed for canceling the income-option all together.

I don't think they are as bad or malicious as some of us think. Whenever I get peeved with something here and often think about how things would be much more inflexible back home, particularly with immigration. I don't think Thais generally think in terms of "setting things up" to catch people. Lets face it if they really wanted to toughen things up or make things hard for expats they certainly could. 

[Lacessit]

If the OP can save 40,000 baht/month out of the 65,000 baht/month, good luck to him. Given the strength of the Thai baht, IMHO he would be better off leaving it here, or buying gold as a currency hedge. Fees and exchange rates transferring back and forth are going to eat up some of the funds, and Immigration officers are not idiots. The money is supposed to be spent here, not repatriated. That would raise red flags with them.

[Kenny202]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Incorrect. It's a lot more than nothing.

Current seasoning is 2 months before the first extension and three for subsequent.

 

There was never a 5. People doing conversion to O in Thailand never needed any seasoning for that first step.

 

You conveniently fail to mention the virtual 400k all year bond. One baht under for one day in the year and you're screwed.

 

Please stop trying to deceive people that this is nothing.

 

Also why are compliant people up till now being punished? To crack down on corruption.

 

Now we have word that the corrupt agents already have a plan for this.

 

So what was the point exactly?

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

Why not just deposit 65k a month?

 

I keep hearing about corrupt agents. Do you guys know how the agent process works?

I doubt what the agents are doing is even illegal? They are simply depositing money on someone else's behalf. Unless they are falsifying supporting documents the illegalities are happening further down the food chain.

[farangx]

50 minutes ago, Kenny202 said:

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Given how much more prone to fraud the new system is, than an embassy letter was (no passport-country crime involved for the fakers), it is possible that that the current system was designed to be abused - setting the table for "bad guys" to be blamed for canceling the income-option all together.

I don't think they are as bad or malicious as some of us think. Whenever I get peeved with something here and often think about how things would be much more inflexible back home, particularly with immigration. I don't think Thais generally think in terms of "setting things up" to catch people. Lets face it if they really wanted to toughen things up or make things hard for expats they certainly could. 

The usual fearmongers in the forum like immigration is getting people for this and that, because they been here for years on 1 year extensions thus giving them a false sense of permanence. Given the short duration of 12 months, immigration can throw some of them out by refusing their extension.  That saying immigration is making it tough for them to remain here is just feeding their own self-importance.

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Kenny202 said:

Why not just deposit 65k a month?

 

I keep hearing about corrupt agents. Do you guys know how the agent process works?

I doubt what the agents are doing is even illegal? They are simply depositing money on someone else's behalf. Unless they are falsifying supporting documents the illegalities are happening further down the food chain.

We're talking about the bank method when we're talking about agents.

Agents don't deal with the income method.

Corrupt agents / corrupt IOs / corrupt applicants -- all in the same bag. Don't act like you don't get that.

So these new onerous rules about BANK METHOD supposedly imposed to crack down and kick out "bad guy" foreign cheaters.

So what's the result? More corruption. Bigger fees for the players, bigger costs for the customers. More actual legal foreign compliers pressured into the corruption pool, to comply with new onerous rules, or pushed out entirely. 

Again, what was the point? You can't answer that. The conspiracy theories that it's about making bigger fees for the corruption racket don't sound all that crazy now that we've heard that the corruption cycle will continue even before the new onerous seasoning rules go into effect. Amazing indeed. 

So what's next? 800K minimum all year? 1.2 minimum all year? To supposedly ferret out cheaters? 

If they are serious about that surely there are better ways that don't mostly and unfairly punish foreigners that have been legally complying for years without being sucked into the corruption pool. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Jingthing

[Pattaya46]

37 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

// So what's the result? More corruption. Bigger fees for the players, bigger costs for the customers. More actual legal foreign compliers pressured into the corruption pool, to comply with new onerous rules, or pushed out entirely. //

As you said to others in several post, nobody knows yet about the exact procedure for the balance history checking.

So nobody knows if/how agent may adapt and if it will make bigger fees or not.

All that is just speculation. We must wait to see how it will really works.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Pattaya46 said:

As you said to others in several post, nobody knows yet about the exact procedure for the balance history checking.

So nobody knows if/how agent may adapt and if it will make bigger fees or not.

All that is just speculation. We must wait to see how it will really works.

Already a report from a major agent saying fees will be MUCH higher. 

I agree of course nobody knows exactly what will happen yet. I wouldn't even be shocked if they call the whole thing off. It's obviously a train wreck.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Jingthing

[Khaeng Mak]

33 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Already a report from a major agent saying fees will be MUCH higher. 

I agree of course nobody knows exactly what will happen yet. I wouldn't even be shocked if they call the whole thing off. It's obviously a train wreck.

The timing of this is no coincidence, just before the election. Trying to win electoral brownie points for sticking to them evil foreigners. So no they can't call the whole thing off, too much loss of face, and certainly not before the election, which is set for next month, but may never occur as well.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Khaeng Mak

[chickenslegs]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

If the OP can save 40,000 baht/month out of the 65,000 baht/month, good luck to him. Given the strength of the Thai baht, IMHO he would be better off leaving it here, or buying gold as a currency hedge. Fees and exchange rates transferring back and forth are going to eat up some of the funds, and Immigration officers are not idiots. The money is supposed to be spent here, not repatriated. That would raise red flags with them.

Not sure how it could raise red flags.

If I transfer 65k from my UK bank to my Blue bank account every month, using Transferwise, then withdraw any unspent cash at the end of each month, deposit it in my Yellow bank account then send it back to the UK, using Dee Money, how would anyone know?

BTW - I transfer a bit more than 65k each month, and I wish there was a bit left over at the end of the month, but there never is.

[wpcoe]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

If the OP can save 40,000 baht/month out of the 65,000 baht/month, good luck to him. Given the strength of the Thai baht, IMHO he would be better off leaving it here, or buying gold as a currency hedge. Fees and exchange rates transferring back and forth are going to eat up some of the funds, and Immigration officers are not idiots. The money is supposed to be spent here, not repatriated. That would raise red flags with them.

Oh?  I'm supposed to double my spending here just to qualify for a retirement extension.  Right.  Got it.

 

5 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Check with Dee Money to see if there is a maximum to how much they can transfer at a time and be guided by that.

Sadly, neither of my US financial institutions -- my credit union nor Fidelity Investments -- are on their list.  Quite surprised about Fidelity.

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Incorrect. It's a lot more than nothing. Current seasoning is 2 months before the first extension and three for subsequent.

People are, generally, overreacting to a small change. It's the usual knee-jerk reaction.

 

Currently it's 2 & 3 seasoning which is changing to 2 & 2. That's 1 month less. They are then insisting that 800K is maintained for a further 3 months, and a minimum balance of 400K for another 7 months before you top up again to a minimum of 800K.

 

The reality of that is that someone drawing down 40K pm only needs to start with an extra 120K to cover an extra 3 months income. At that income level they will maintain a balance over 400K anyway.

 

And someone drawing down 65K pm only needs to start with an extra 195K to meet the requirements if they want to fund their income from day one.

 

OR people just transfer 800K and send extra funds when they need them.

 

I did an analysis in this thread: https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1082306-retirement-extension-using-800k-new-v-old-rule-comparison/

 

Quote

There was never a 5. People doing conversion to O in Thailand never needed any seasoning for that first step.

Yes they have. You don't need seasoned funds to get the visa, but you need to season the funds for 60 days before applying for the first extension.

 

Quote

You conveniently fail to mention the virtual 400k all year bond. One baht under for one day in the year and you're screwed.

 

Please stop trying to deceive people that this is nothing.

And you/others fail to appreciate that the balance will be over 400K anyway.

 

Quote

Also why are compliant people up till now being punished? To crack down on corruption we are told?

 

Now we have word that the corrupt agents already have a plan for this.

 

So what was the point exactly?

We will have to wait and see if they go after the agents/corrupt IO's too. But I believe this change is to stop people being able to borrow 800K for 2/3 months to get an extension.

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by elviajero

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

People are, generally, overreacting to a small change. It's the usual knee-jerk reaction.

 

Currently it's 2 & 3 seasoning which is changing to 2 & 2. That's 1 month less. They are then insisting that 800K is maintained for a further 3 months, and a minimum balance of 400K for another 7 months before you top up again to a minimum of 800K.

 

The reality of that is that someone drawing down 40K pm only needs to start with an extra 120K to cover an extra 3 months income. At that income level they will maintain a balance over 400K anyway.

 

And someone drawing down 65K pm only needs to start with an extra 195K to meet the requirements if they want to fund their income from day one.

 

OR people just transfer 800K and send extra funds when they need them.

 

I did an analysis in this thread: https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1082306-retirement-extension-using-800k-new-v-old-rule-comparison/

 

Yes they have. You don't need seasoned funds to get the visa, but you need to season the funds for 60 days before applying for the first extension.

 

And you/others fail to appreciate that the balance will be over 400K anyway.

 

We will have to wait and see if they go after the agents/corrupt IO's too. But I believe this change is to stop people being able to borrow 800K for 2/3 months to get an extension.

 

Again, the changes are not nothing. They are objectively very significant. People have been seeing the 800K account as a buffer for a rainy day but now if you have a rainy day going under 400K you become an illegal alien. That's really quite a SOMETHING. The LONG seasoning AFTER is a RADICALLY significant change. 

 

As people can read with their own eyes that these changes are significant to play some kind of mind game trying to tell people that what they see with their own eyes isn't real is a sort of GASLIGHTING. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Jingthing

[onera1961]

13 hours ago, wpcoe said:

Sending it back in one hit refines my original query:  how soon and how often?  I suspect that nobody knows, but thought I'd submit it to the forum hive mind to see if anybody had any insight.  Also, I wanted to confirm that with the B65k/month method there was no minimum amount required to remain in the account untouched.

If you're accumulating 40K a month, send it every three months or at your convenience. Not a big deal. You can also send bank every month. Just transfer it to a different account (in the same bank or to a different bank) and use DeeMoney mobile app to send it back. 

[jacko45k]

9 hours ago, Kenny202 said:

By the way, has there been any discussion on how they will assess the 65k per month? For example the new laws come into effect 1st March. My extension renewal August. I was previously using the 800k method but want to go to the monthly deposit method. Are they going to accept less than a full year of 65k deposits in the first year as clearly I don't have a full year to make 12 monthly deposits?

This has all been addressed on TV but is buried in a serious number of posts. From my memory...????

The 65,000 per month from overseas is required to be proven by a Thai bank statement showing them, accompanied by a bank letter. It is not sure if a special letter is required or the usual one confirming the account and balance at the time will suffice. This was defined in early January, as a knee jerk reaction/ accommodation to some Embassies stopping their letters.

The new regs coming into effect March 1st apply to money in the bank  extensions. As you previously used. 

There was also a letter issued using the word 'leniency'.  In the first year, ie 2019, applications for extensions based on 65k/month income could be granted with partial proof. In your case monthly deposits from January 2019 to August. 

Good luck.

Edited February 6, 2019 by jacko45k

[mikebell]

Using Transferwise - to transfer 65K baht per month @ 40 baht to UKP = 13,440 per annum in bank charges. + Bank letter + photo copies of relevant pages of BKK bank book.

[Kenny202]

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

We're talking about the bank method when we're talking about agents.

Agents don't deal with the income method.

Corrupt agents / corrupt IOs / corrupt applicants -- all in the same bag. Don't act like you don't get that.

So these new onerous rules about BANK METHOD supposedly imposed to crack down and kick out "bad guy" foreign cheaters.

So what's the result? More corruption. Bigger fees for the players, bigger costs for the customers. More actual legal foreign compliers pressured into the corruption pool, to comply with new onerous rules, or pushed out entirely. 

Again, what was the point? You can't answer that. The conspiracy theories that it's about making bigger fees for the corruption racket don't sound all that crazy now that we've heard that the corruption cycle will continue even before the new onerous seasoning rules go into effect. Amazing indeed. 

So what's next? 800K minimum all year? 1.2 minimum all year? To supposedly ferret out cheaters? 

If they are serious about that surely there are better ways that don't mostly and unfairly punish foreigners that have been legally complying for years without being sucked into the corruption pool. 

Why do you keep making rhetorical, negative, pontificating and combative remarks? Best we all debate and discuss this rationally. We're all only theorising here at this point. I will spell it out for you as I see it...and to be honest I am sure I have missed something as the changes to me on the surface seem to be to everyones advantage.

 

No need for agents anymore for the people who do not have the required 800k lump sum. And this may be the target of the Immigration people, not the evil foreigners. They're hopefully  just trying to rid the system of corrupt officials and agents. The purpose of the whole exercise from immigrations point of view is to ensure you have funds to live here. They want people who will enrich the country not burden it.

 

So if someone has 65k at their disposal. Transfer it over and transfer it back again for use next month. Live on your 40k a month pension. You have invested 65k in the year just sitting around but you will still have most of it left minus transfer fees which can be minimised.

Better than paying agents huge bucks. From our perspective immigration have created a win win. They can see every month you have at least a months spending money to live here (the whole point of the exercise) and they have made it unattractive to use agents. They've done us a favour. On the surface of it with the broad terms of the 65k per month rule being touted this is perfectly legal and acceptable. The major stumbling block here I can see, and I cringe when I think of it is the statement and "letter" from the bank. I remember last time imm asked me for a "retter" from the bank, but they couldn't tell me what they wanted documented in the letter. The lady at imm kept saying a retter, a retter and shaking her head looking at her friend like I was an idiot. Then I got the same thing from the bank 5555. What retter?

 

For the others who are going to struggle to maintain 800 then 400k in the bank all year around simply use the monthly transfer system. 65k a month transferred over. You will need some or most or all of that to live here anyway. It's a no brainer from where I sit. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Kenny202

[SooKee]

Using Transferwise - to transfer 65K baht per month @ 40 baht to UKP = 13,440 per annum in bank charges. + Bank letter + photo copies of relevant pages of BKK bank book.

I might be missing something here but how do you get 13,440 baht in transfer fees from TW at 65k baht per month? A single transfer currently would be £10.34. For 12 transfers it would be under 5,000 baht at current rates.


Posted using Tapatalk

[JackThompson]

12 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

So the abusers are not responsible? Any reality sense at all?

If you purposely leave 10K Baht in cash sitting on a street corner, and someone takes it, you can correctly say the person who took it is a thief.  If you have a hidden-camera set up, you can catch them in the act.

 

You can also say the person who left it there was acting with intent to intice / entrap someone into doing something illegal.  Given the context, a jury (in our passport-countries) might refuse to convict the thief for anything but a minor-offense, or the case might be thrown out entirely, based on entrapment statutes.

 

In this case, setting up an "easy to abuse" system of "demonstrating income" might be "bait" used to justify shutting down the income-method entirely.  There are other possible explanations for this and other recent changes (bank interests, insurance company interests etc) - and many have historical precedents.  But, these are all just conjecture, unless someone can release a hidden recording or documents as proof of such intents.

Edited February 6, 2019 by JackThompson

[JackThompson]

12 hours ago, Kenny202 said:

I don't think they are as bad or malicious as some of us think. Whenever I get peeved with something here and often think about how things would be much more inflexible back home, particularly with immigration.

"Inflexible" meaning "by the book" and straightforward.  Chang Wattana used to be like that (but not for marriage-based extensions, any more).   In other offices, it is only worse - rarely better for the foreigner.

 

A Thai wife going with her husband to the West may have a more difficult process (depending on the case/country), but with automatic PR / work-permission for higher-paying jobs, a path to citizenship, and a lifetime of social-safety net as the reward.

 

Quote

I don't think Thais generally think in terms of "setting things up" to catch people.

In the case of immigration (not all Thais), "Setting things up to maximize side-money," is more like it. 

 

Quote

Lets face it if they really wanted to toughen things up or make things hard for expats they certainly could. 

By doing it incrementally, there is less blowback - including from the Thais incrementally losing jobs with each tightening of the screws.

Edited February 6, 2019 by JackThompson

[FritsSikkink]

6 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

In this case, setting up an "easy to abuse" system of "demonstrating income" might be "bait" used to justify shutting down the income-method entirely.  

You really lost the plot now.

[Kenny202]

4 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

If you purposely leave 10K Baht in cash sitting on a street corner, and someone takes it, you can correctly say the person who took it is a thief.  If you have a hidden-camera set up, you can catch them in the act.

 

You can also say the person who left it there was acting with intent to intice / entrap someone into doing something illegal.  Given the context, a jury (in our passport-countries) might refuse to convict the thief for anything but a minor-offense, or the case might be thrown out entirely, based on entrapment statutes.

 

In this case, setting up an "easy to abuse" system of "demonstrating income" might be "bait" used to justify shutting down the income-method entirely.  There are other possible explanations for this and other recent changes (ban interests, insurance company interests etc) - and many have historical precedents.  But, these are all just conjecture, unless someone can release a hidden recording or documents as proof of such intents.

Anything in this world "might be". I might win the lottery next week but its not on the cards. Why would you think Thailand would need to bait people or find excuses to change things? They have just made many changes to immigration rules as is Thailand or any other countries sovereign right. 

 

As far as who is right and wrong and precedents and intents etc. Who cares? Maybe all parties at fault and liable. Need to stop filling up these threads with negatives, rhetorical and ill informed throw away one liners, conspiracy theories and pure waffle. Look for negatives in the system sure.. and be aware of pitfalls but we should all be looking for the benefits of the new system. 

[JackThompson]

29 minutes ago, SooKee said:

2 hours ago, mikebell said:

Using Transferwise - to transfer 65K baht per month @ 40 baht to UKP = 13,440 per annum in bank charges. + Bank letter + photo copies of relevant pages of BKK bank book.

I might be missing something here but how do you get 13,440 baht in transfer fees from TW at 65k baht per month? A single transfer currently would be £10.34. For 12 transfers it would be under 5,000 baht at current rates.

Using transferwise, if the deposits don't show up as foreign-origin in one's bank-statement, it might be (don't know for sure) all for nothing come extension-time. 

[Kenny202]

3 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

In the case of immigration (not all Thais), "Setting things up to maximize side-money," is more like it. 

 

A lot of us here criticize the tea money thing, and yes fundamentally not right or good for the country. But I know several here who changed their tune when the Thai authorities were "flexible" enough to allow them to settle an issue with money, rather than do time or be deported. And this doesn't mean only criminals. You go out on your motorbike this morning. You are normally very careful but you make an honest mistake that unfortunately results in the death of a couple of other riders. Are you happy to settle this with the family or would you rather go to court for careless driving resulting in death?

 

I think some of you guys need to focus on some of the benefits we have here, and not criticize them. Its not an us and them situation. Many frustrations living here but be thankful for what you have. 

[JackThompson]

4 minutes ago, Kenny202 said:

Anything in this world "might be". I might win the lottery next week but its not on the cards. Why would you think Thailand would need to bait people or find excuses to change things? They have just made many changes to immigration rules as is Thailand or any other countries sovereign right.  

Most countries would provide a decent notice period  of such changes and/or a grandfathering-clause for those who were encouraged to "retire" here under an existing set of rules.

 

4 minutes ago, Kenny202 said:

As far as who is right and wrong and precedents and intents etc. Who cares? Maybe all parties at fault and liable. Need to stop filling up these threads with negatives, rhetorical and ill informed throw away one liners, conspiracy theories and pure waffle. Look for negatives in the system sure.. and be aware of pitfalls but we should all be looking for the benefits of the new system. 

The history of changes for expats by immigration show previous crackdowns increased "income on the side" schemes, while doing nothing to stop actual "bad guys" from getting their extensions.  The "new rules" were always designed to "not" stop the activity in question - and steps that actually would do this were not taken. 

 

It's not a "conspiracy theory" to assume a repeat-criminal with access to a victim just might be a logical suspect in a recent crime.  It's deductive reasoning.  Of course, the repeat-criminal might be innocent, and another criminal - maybe a first-time criminal - did the deed in this particular case - but that possibility doesn't preclude ignoring history.

[wgdanson]

14 hours ago, Kenny202 said:

I got the same thing last year when I did my extension. Year before that I took copy of my updated passbook. No good need a letter from the bank. Bangkok Bank looked at me like I was from outer space but I knew someone there pretty well and they eventually did what I needed. Got a letter again the next year from the bank...same drama. This time immigration said not needed...sent me back to get copies of my passbook stamped and signed 5555.

Im sure they just do this sh#t to amuse themselves.

 

I think generally you will find Bangkok bank will resist giving out any non form letters and particularly putting a stamp on it. it's against their policy.

I went to Bkk Bank in P'lok yesterday to update my passbook. One entry was a CMB (Combined) entry because I had not updated after 30 transactions. Now I know to do it monthly. I asked for a print out of a statement of the account, which then showed all the separate transactions, in and out, and the CMB one showed Bht40,000 as an FTT. They stamped and initially the print-out. 

Thank you Bkk Bank.