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

[jacko45k]

19 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

You really lost the plot now.

Let me get my tin-foil hat on!

[wgdanson]

20 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

How much would you spend not using your visa card (one of most wasteful methods). Surely much more than 20k even given your zero rent.. Think your over complicating things. If over time it acculates too much, then send it back in one hit. 

I wish that there was some left over after 65k per month. After living expenses, health insurance for me (71 Aetna) and wife & kids (40k per year), a savings policy for the Mrs when I kick it (50k per year), car insurance & road tax (20k), there is F All to send back.

[JackThompson]

21 minutes ago, Kenny202 said:

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.

This may be valid, in some cases.  A couple hundred baht (no receipt) for a residence certificate comes to mind.  "Shut up and pay, already," is my take on that. 

 

But, when "tea-money" morphs into "10x+ the official fee", and it becomes a nightmare to try to do it honestly and in-person due to "unpublished requirements," then, it is something quite different.

 

23 minutes ago, Kenny202 said:

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

Many are looking at possibly losing their ability to stay where they "retired to" years ago - to spite being able then and now to comply with the rules as existed when they came.  Others are concerned they may become unable to remain with their Thai families.  The noose being arbitrarily and progressively tightened around our necks for no sane reason (only corrupt reasons make any logical-sense) is the source of frustration.

[JackThompson]

19 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Let me get my tin-foil hat on!

Immigration involved in corruption?  What a crazy theory.  Everything's on the "up and up," and "nothing to see here".  "Move along."

[wgdanson]

3 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.

To transfer £1616 today via Transferwise  (= Bht 65,005.50) will cost £10.82 which x 12 = £130 or about Bht 5200. Where's your 13440 from please.

Bank letter, Bht 100, photo copies??? Bht 5 or 10 each, unless you do them yourself.

[JLCrab]

41 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

49 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.

No -- he lost the plot when he said that if you give say 20K baht to an agent for an extension, if you are not in the room when the agent gives any money to a friendly IMM official, how are you the farang supposed to know anything is amiss?

[wpcoe]

 

3 hours ago, Kenny202 said:

So if someone has 65k at their disposal. Transfer it over and transfer it back again for use next month.

Where did you read/hear that it will be acceptable to Thai Immigrations to transfer in B65k and transfer it back every month?

[JLCrab]

I get a kick on this and other topics when someone says of IMM:

 

"But how could they prove (fill in the blank) ?"

 

IMM is not a court of law with rules of evidence. Just as with a Thai citizen going for a US Visa at the US Embassy, if they suspect anything is wrong, it is up to YOU to prove otherwise.

[poohy]

3 hours ago, Kenny202 said:

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

Possibly the best option BUT There is also the issue of currency spreads which will also eat away at funds in addition to transfer fees

[jacko45k]

21 minutes ago, wpcoe said:

 

Where did you read/hear that it will be acceptable to Thai Immigrations to transfer in B65k and transfer it back every month?

It wouldn't be acceptable, but as the rules are written, would not break the  stipulations. I might get a twitching eye, or something, as an IO reviewed a bank statement with something so obvious there. 

[Kenny202]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

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.

 

I initially thought this too. I know many blokes here who have assets, families...their whole lives invested here. And if the rules had changed with little notice that would force these people to move away it would be a travesty. I just don't think this is the case here. I can't see how anyone with the multitude of previous options would be put in a position where they could not stay here. Maybe a few more inconveniences for some, maybe some advantages for others.

 

Most of us who have been here a while would recognise that the Thais aren't stupid (apart from on the road ???? ) They are a country that has been surrounded by turmoil and occupation for years yet remained a sovereign land. They just do things a little differently and it's not always that obvious. But usually designed to save face. I think if you read into this a little deeper they are targeting a group that is not the agents or the cheaters. They are just going about it a different way. Supply and demand. They may well be cutting off the demand.

 

I think many of us should be a little more careful what we say too. Throwing the C word around and making extremely derogatory remarks on the public record about people who have ultimate power over whether we can live here or not is foolish at best and you may find yourself in a worse position than the bloke trying to scrape up the extra money to stay here under the new terms. 

[Kenny202]

40 minutes ago, wpcoe said:

 

Where did you read/hear that it will be acceptable to Thai Immigrations to transfer in B65k and transfer it back every month?

I think the less about this the better. I am sorry I mentioned it. Acceptable I am not sure but as the rules stand now or what we know of them there is no reason why it can not be done.

 

As mentioned before I seriously doubt their wont be conditions on many of these broad terms when it all comes out in the wash, and then there will be the interpretation of each office and each officer. Imm probably issued the document, and are now sitting back cacking themselves laughing correcting any possible loop holes or flaws we ourselves are outlining ???? That's Thai style

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

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. 

Yes, this is one of the main problems with the new income method rules. Not only TW but a number of other  remittances into Thailand from abroad do not show up on one's bank statement as a foreign transfer,  due to the use of correspondent banks etc, and the only way one can prove the funds came from abroad involve showing the IO other documentation from the funding source i.e. not from your Thai Bank but from the sending bank or firm   or the pension provider  etc. These are not listed in the guidance to IOs on documentation and also may not be easy for IOs to understand.  There is no quarantee at all that they will therefore accept them.

 

It remains to be seen how this will play out. I very much doubt this issue occurred to TI when the guidelines were issued, they simply assumed bank statements would have all the needed info.  Indeed most of us might have assumed the ame, it is only now that people are looking into it that all these issues have emerged,

 

The other big problem is the complete lack of clarity on how the combo method now works, the language in the latest directive is totally unclear and multiple (and very different) interpretations are possible. So basically no one can go forward with the combo method with any assurrance of doing it correctly.

 

BTW, reverting to the original issue of sending money back, I do not think Dee Money transfers show in your bank statement as foreign transfers. They do not in mine, anyhow, and the way it works, it is a payment to Dee Money in Thailand and they then somehow arrange for an equivalent deposit in the account you are sending to  abroad. How, I don't know but likely similar to what TW does .

[Kenny202]

21 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

It wouldn't be acceptable, but as the rules are written, would not break the  stipulations. I might get a twitching eye, or something, as an IO reviewed a bank statement with something so obvious there. 

We all need money to live here each month right? Withdraw it in cash, same as you would withdraw your monthly expenses. If you wanted to send funds back home take it to another bank or institution...There are so many options here for everyone. Previously mentioned I think they have done us all a favour even the cheaters. No need to find the 25k every year now or sweat it out all the time worrying you have done something illegal. 

[Kenny202]

29 minutes ago, poohy said:

Possibly the best option BUT There is also the issue of currency spreads which will also eat away at funds in addition to transfer fees

The money you will lose of tfers and ex rates etc will be no where near an agents fee of

20-40k.

[JLCrab]

35 minutes ago, Kenny202 said:

The money you will lose of tfers and ex rates etc will be no where near an agents fee of 20-40k.

Whether as of today repatriating funds violates the letter of the law, it would seem to violate the spirit of the law. I personally will not be doing it but, if I needed to, I might avoid doing that routine for the first year or so until I saw that those who were in fact doing the revolving door routine were having no problems with their respective IMM offices.

[Pib]

1 hour ago, Kenny202 said:

The money you will lose of tfers and ex rates etc will be no where near an agents fee of

20-40k.

Doing some quick math considering "exchange rate loss and fees" in sending money to Thailand via Transferwise and immediately sending it back to the UK via DeeMoney, total Transferwise+DeeMoney loss/fees would be real close 2.5% for the "round trip." 

 

So, if you were sending Bt65K worth of pounds and then sending it back monthly, Bt65K times 2.5% = Bt1,625 per monthly round trip.  If during 12 such round trips transfers then that comes to Bt19,500 per year.   

 

Of course this assumes a very stable exchange rate over those 12 months....losses could be more or less depending on exchange rate and how often/when you send back.  You could lower losses/fees by little if not sending back every month....maybe every 3 or 6 months for example.

 

Probably just easier to remember a person sending pounds and baht back and forth between the UK and Thailand worth Bt65K on a monthly basis using TW & DeeMoney will incur approx Bt20K (500 pounds) in losses/fees over one year. 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Pib

[Kenny202]

31 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Whether as of today repatriating funds violates the letter of the law, it would seem to violate the spirit of the law. I personally will not be doing it but, if I needed to, I might avoid doing that routine for the first year or so until I saw that those who were in fact doing the revolving door routine were having no problems with their respective IMM offices.

I don't know that you could even assume it violates the spirit of the law? Under the old terms it would. I think many on here are confusing the old system or requirements with the new. The new rules may not be an amendment or continuation of the old or in spirit with the old. Governments don't put laws in place which are open to interpretation or where they are hoping people will "do the right thing". The law is the law. Ie: The object of immigration should be to insure you have enough funds to live here. They only issue a retirement extension for a year. You bring 65k in per month, or show the 800k in the bank, irrespective of what you do with it after demonstrates you have an income. I could never understand why they accepted only pensions as income and not other sources or savings back home. I could understand requiring a pension ie a guaranteed income for the term of the rest of your life if you had been given PR or something. 

 

Government and new laws here move slowly and they haven't just pulled this out of their backside in the last 2 months. There would have been much thought put into it and I doubt very much the broad details we see now will not have a host of terms and conditions

[phuketrichard]

17 hours ago, Sheryl said:

It reads like like that on the website but I emailed them right at the beginning and they readily offered a means for me to register by email.

i contacted them about what i need to do as live in Phuket, they will get back to me they said.

[Christophers200]

It is impossible to recycle the same 65K as each transfer involves fees which are deducted. The continual repatriation of cash would also show on Thai bank statements/account books which would prompt questions about what was being used to support daily living costs.

[poohy]

1 hour ago, Kenny202 said:

The money you will lose of tfers and ex rates etc will be no where near an agents fee of

20-40k.

Probably about 500 GBP 20000THB a year (fees and spread) using this revolving door method  against Agency fees of 25 k ish i would assume 

[digbeth]

their assumption would be that nobody is stupid enough to send money back and paying the fees and lose out on the exchange rate twice.

Doing it yourself with transferwise mean at least  you get to save almost half when sending back home, but probably had to still pay what the bank charge for SWIFT to get papertrail of the money coming in to Thailand.

 

Maybe the 65k needs to be 'spent' in a convincing manner ie being drawn out over smaller amounts rather than the whole 65k in and 65k disappeared out too.

[jacko45k]

2 minutes ago, digbeth said:

Doing it yourself with transferwise mean at least  you get to save almost half when sending back home, but probably had to still pay what the bank charge for SWIFT to get papertrail of the money coming in to Thailand.

You cannot yet use Transferwise to send money out of Thailand.

[Sheryl]

3 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

You cannot yet use Transferwise to send money out of Thailand.

 

Correct. But you can use Dee Money. Which does not show as a foreign transfer but rather a domestic one.

 

Even so I agree that a single transfer of the entire amount to anywhere would raise questions. In my mind as well - one has to be living in something. But assuming it is just transfer of part of the money, with the rest drawn down in multiple transactions (ATM withdrawal etc)  should not be a problem.

 

Dee Money transfer fees are reasonable.

 

But yes, no doubt there will be losses incurred in doing all this, from the transfer fees in each direction plus the two way currency conversion.

 

Just as there will be significant losses in terms of interest/dividends in parking 800k here.

[JLCrab]

1 hour ago, Kenny202 said:

2 hours ago, JLCrab said:

 

I don't know that you could even assume it violates the spirit of the law?

The spirit of the law is that you have 65K+ baht each month to spend in Thailand. 

[Sheryl]

18 hours ago, Kenny202 said:

I just checked. I can't do an online statement as such but the screen transaction list says "international transfer". The online transaction list is printable, but I know for a fact Bangkok bank wont put a stamp on it as legit, even if Imm would accept it.

 

Whether this would print out as an international transfer on a passbook or not I am not sure.

What are immigration asking for? Bank statements or passbook? I have tried to get my bank to stamp and copy statement copies they themselves printed out before and they wouldn't do it. Still charged me 100 baht for it though!

 

 

The problem is that not all banks show it like this.  This is clear enough and if all your transfers show this way (in either bank book or statement or both) you should be fine. but some banks use varying codes instead which are nto easily apparent in meaning. And then there are all the transfers that go through a Thai correspondent bank, with any bank this will appear as domestic transfers.

 

Imm won't accept a printed download from you, but your bank can issue  you a stamped statement  and they will certainly accept that.  Though if I read you right you are saying your bank refuses to do this? (seems odd).

[JLCrab]

1 hour ago, Kenny202 said:

Government and new laws here move slowly and they haven't just pulled this out of their backside in the last 2 months. There would have been much thought put into it and I doubt very much the broad details we see now will not have a host of terms and conditions

I was informed by a US Vice Consul that the US Embassy would be discontinuing its income affidavit for extension of stay service in June 2018.

[Pib]

1 hour ago, Christophers200 said:

It is impossible to recycle the same 65K as each transfer involves fees which are deducted. The continual repatriation of cash would also show on Thai bank statements/account books which would prompt questions about what was being used to support daily living costs.

There will be nothing on your Thai bank statement/account showing "repatriation/international transfer" of funds if using DeeMoney.    For example, when I use DeeMoney to transfer funds and I fund the transfer from my Bangkok Bank account in appears on the Bangkok Bank statement as "Payment of Goods/Services" which is the exact same description given when I pay my electric bill, my mobile phone bill, my internet bill, just any bill I use my Thai ibanking for.   The funding from Bangkok Bank to DeeMoney was just another domestic payment. 

 

And when I did a SWIFT transfer from my Krungsri Ibanking to my US bank, it appeared with just a 10 digit number for a  description and "TW" coding....which just means a Withdrawal via Transfer.  And this exact same type of description and coding appears when I do a domestic transfer from my Krungsri to Bangkok Bank account which I do occasionally

 

And if you walk into a Thai bank to do an international transfer with cash in hand,  then nothing appears on your account with that bank since you are not transferring from that account as you used cash in hand.

  

 

 

 

 

[JLCrab]

1 hour ago, Pib said:

There will be nothing on your Thai bank statement/account showing "repatriation/international transfer" of funds if using DeeMoney

Why should it make any difference if there is or there isn't? Why should you or anyone else have any concern that it may be obvious to the IMM folks that you are repatriating funds? Why the need to transfer or move cash between accounts to leave an obfuscating trail that would lead one to believe that you are not doing what you are actually doing?

[Pib]

3 hours ago, Christophers200 said:

It is impossible to recycle the same 65K as each transfer involves fees which are deducted. The continual repatriation of cash would also show on Thai bank statements/account books which would prompt questions about what was being used to support daily living costs.

 

24 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Why should it make any difference if there is or there isn't? Why should you or anyone else have any concern that it may be obvious to the IMM folks that you are repatriating funds? Why the need to transfer or move cash between accounts to leave an obfuscating trail that would lead one to believe that you are not doing what you are actually doing?

Just pointing out how Christophers200 post at the top was incorrect.....about it being impossible....leaving a trail. 

 

The withdrawal(s) from your account to send back would appear as any other withdrawal/transfer you are doing to pay day-to-day living costs. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Pib