Consequences of illegally using 800K for retirement extension after March 1, 2019

[JackThompson]

15 minutes ago, jonwilly said:

Folk are already explaining their way that they will keep a sum in play by moving  out then in again, what they will live on is beyond me. 

They would "send back" the excess beyond what they actually need to live here, to return the next month(s), I assume.

 

15 minutes ago, jonwilly said:

I will suggest that the Immigration Police are aware of this board and will be reading and will be well prepared for folk who in their opinion are not Playing the Game.

No changes are yet announced which would block the ongoing immigration-agent-partner scheme.  No doubt they resented those who avoiding paying them through their partners via embassy-letters or loaned/shared money.  But quite another thing to suggest they dislike the biggest scam of all, of which they are an integral part and primary-beneficiary.

 

19 minutes ago, jonwilly said:

This is because the nameless, faceless ones had found way to cheat the requirements laid down in Thai Law.

Not nameless or faceless at all.  Immigration's agent-partners advertise their services - complete with providing the money - all over the place.

[mogandave]

... and, do all the other things the IO demands, which are not in the law or published rules, some of which may be impossible, and are designed by immigration to encourage/force agent-use - having No Other Logical/Useful Purpose.

I hear this type rhetoric repeatedly, yet I not any of the people a
I actually know ever experience it.

Wonder why that is?

[lamyai3]

8 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I hear this type rhetoric repeatedly, yet I not any of the people a
I actually know ever experience it.

Wonder why that is?

 

Personally I wonder why they didn't go the easy and obvious route, and simply refuse any agent applications that seek to bypass seasoning?

 

And for that matter, why they didn't insist on the new rules on income letters to apply across the board, rather than for the four embassies they've had a beef with... 

[jonwilly]

"Not nameless or faceless at all."

It's the frangs who are Nameless Faceless, the law know the agents and has has been shown are now starting to hunt them down.

It really is Folk who will not play the game as required by Thai law that are making things more difficult for the 'Honest' ones.

 

john

[frodo77]

28 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Personally I wonder why they didn't go the easy and obvious route, and simply refuse any agent applications that seek to bypass seasoning?

 

And for that matter, why they didn't insist on the new rules on income letters to apply across the board, rather than for the four embassies they've had a beef with... 

There are no new rules for income letters. The 4 Embassies in question just stopped issuing them. All the other Embassies are still issuing them, and long may it continue.

[lamyai3]

3 minutes ago, frodo77 said:

There are no new rules for income letters. The 4 Embassies in question just stopped issuing them. All the other Embassies are still issuing them, and long may it continue.

And why were they singled out? More thorough verification procedures would easily have been possible, even if these were to incur extra cost or be outsourced. The whole thing smells like sanctions against those who've upset the authorities.

 

Very sad that those from countries who've yet to be penalised are singing so enthusiastically from immigration's hymn sheet. 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, lamyai3 said:

Personally I wonder why they didn't go the easy and obvious route, and simply refuse any agent applications that seek to bypass seasoning?
 
And for that matter, why they didn't insist on the new rules on income letters to apply across the board, rather than for the four embassies they've had a beef with... 

As I understand it, they did insist that all embassies comply, and that only four refused.

 

[mogandave]

59 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

And why were they singled out? More thorough verification procedures would easily have been possible, even if these were to incur extra cost or be outsourced. The whole thing smells like sanctions against those who've upset the authorities.
 
Very sad that those from countries who've yet to be penalised are singing so enthusiastically from immigration's hymn sheet. 

How would an embassy easily verify a citizen’s income statement?

 

[ubonjoe]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

As I understand it, they did insist that all embassies comply, and that only four refused.

 

I don't think they refused to comply. It was more of a matter of not being able to comply due to their countries laws and/or regulations would not allow them to comply.

[Olmate]

19 minutes ago, mogandave said:

How would an embassy easily verify a citizen’s income statement?

 

Probably the same “acceptable” way the remaining ones do.Where there is a will it’s doable. Clearly the 4 don,t give two hoots for its expats although US did at least show some degree of concern. Oz on the other hand did sweet! 

[tgeezer]

23 hours ago, Olmate said:

If they loan for 5/6 months it’s seemingly quite legal,therefore immigration won’t get their sling, can,t think that would be encouraged, do you?

Everyone who can’t meet the requirements thinks that the regs are aimed at them and I think that they are aimed at making sure that ‘Immigration won’t get their sling” or rather aimed at agents who we assume pay someone in Immigration.
The real problem is that it means more to us than to anyone else. As I pointed out, the existence of a rule which reduces the amount from 500,000 to 200,000 for some people who came before 1998 shows
that nobody is paying attention. We are where we are, a mishmash of interpretations.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ubonjoe]

5 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

 As I pointed out, the existence of a rule which reduces the amount from 500,000 to 200,000 for some people who came before 1998 shows that nobody is paying attention. We are where we are, a mishmash of interpretations.

That was not a change to the rules. it has been in every police order since that rule went into effect.

Many people were not aware of it since they had never read the police order before or even what is shown on the immigration website.

[luckyluke]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

It was more of a matter of not being able to comply due to their countries laws and/or regulations would not allow them to comply.

Maybe, some however consider that it is only a minority who may falsify their income, and that the majority should not suffer for the eventually wrong doing of a minority.

 

The Austrian Consulate in Pattaya, which Austrians, Belgians, Dutch, French, Germans can use, even now include the words " we certify that MrX has an income of xxxxxx" ;

this to accommodate T.I., even if they can not / not take the time to, or whatever, verify that the incomes are correct.

 

They trust the citizen and believe the documents he present are genuine, they may refuse or ask additional proof if they have any doubt.

 

Also the T.I. officer can always ask for additional documents if he has any suspicion.

 

Doing ca. 15 years extensions at T.I. in Pattaya, later Jomtien, my experience is that the officers are very happy when they see a L.o I.. 

 

It always took and still take ca. 5 minutes to the officer to check my documents ( no questions, no additional documents ) and grant me another year.

[mogandave]

I don't think they refused to comply. It was more of a matter of not being able to comply due to their countries laws and/or regulations would not allow them to comply.

I did phrase that poorly.

To clarify, I believe the four embassies understood they were not in compliance, and that there was nothing they could do with the resources they have to comply.

I think we agree.

[Sheryl]

I don't think they refused to comply. It was more of a matter of not being able to comply due to their countries laws and/or regulations would not allow them to comply.

Yes. And also the type of incomes involved.

Not all countries provide generous old age pensions. In some it is fully expected that people will provide for their own old age through private investments etc and people do. The result is multiple income streams from nongovernmental sources. No way an Embassy can verify this.

In another thread we heard from a German poster that his Embassy verifies only government pensions...which was a problem for him as he did not get have one and was living on private investments/savings.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[mogandave]

Probably the same “acceptable” way the remaining ones do.Where there is a will it’s doable. Clearly the 4 don,t give two hoots for its expats although US did at least show some degree of concern. Oz on the other hand did sweet! 

If you don’t know, just say you don’t know, don’t go on a rant about something you apparently know little about.

I don’t believe the the embassies are equipped to verify income statements, and as a citizen, I don’t think they should.

If someone else’s embassy wants to put the full faith of their country behind the unsubstantiated claims of their individual citizens is not my concern.

[brianthainess]

On 2/7/2019 at 10:03 PM, Liverpudlian said:

You think too mutt.

Sirtop tinking 

[Olmate]

2 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Yes. And also the type of incomes involved.

Not all countries provide generous old age pensions. In some it is fully expected that people will provide for their own old age through private investments etc and people do. The result is multiple income streams from nongovernmental sources. No way an Embassy can verify this.

In another thread we heard from a German poster that his Embassy verifies only government pensions...which was a problem for him as he did not get have one and was living on private investments/savings.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Generous or not,Australians expats certainly do receive aged pensions, easily verifiable, and if not meeting the full 65K would still provide proof of income that could be used in support of a combo method extension application.No attempt at all to assist its citizens . 

[Olmate]

13 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

If you don’t know, just say you don’t know, don’t go on a rant about something you apparently know little about.

I don’t believe the the embassies are equipped to verify income statements, and as a citizen, I don’t think they should.

If someone else’s embassy wants to put the full faith of their country behind the unsubstantiated claims of their individual citizens is not my concern.

 

What’s the I don,t know? Not sure how you think (rant)is more valid than mine  Your level of concern is certainly reflected in your reply.Claims can be verified if a country has the will to assist its citizens..very simply if they are aged pensions in the case of Australia.

[mogandave]

What’s the I don,t know? Not sure how you think (rant)is more valid than mine  Your level of concern is certainly reflected in your reply.Claims can be verified if a country has the will to assist its citizens..very simply if they are aged pensions in the case of Australia.

I understand how confusing this must be, but we were discussing how the embassies could easily verify their citizen’s incomes.

[luckyluke]

Maybe a Danish member can confirm this or deny it. 

 

I read on a Belgian or Dutch forum that the Danish embassy have adapt their decision. 

 

It seems they still issue a L. o.I., in case of a state pension. 

[rott]

5 hours ago, jonwilly said:

"Not nameless or faceless at all."

It's the frangs who are Nameless Faceless, the law know the agents and has has been shown are now starting to hunt them down.

It really is Folk who will not play the game as required by Thai law that are making things more difficult for the 'Honest' ones.

 

john

There is no need to hunt them down, they visit the office regularly with passports and cash.

[luckyluke]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

If someone else’s embassy wants to put the full faith of their country behind the unsubstantiated claims of their individual citizens

It depends what the embassy consider as unsubstantiated or not. 

 

I suppose this is something different from one country to another, the laws of the country, the personal power of decision an Embassador/Consul has. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sheryl]

26 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Maybe a Danish member can confirm this or deny it. 

 

I read on a Belgian or Dutch forum that the Danish embassy have adapt their decision. 

 

It seems they still issue a L. o.I., in case of a state pension. 

That sounds like what one TV member reported to be the case for German Embassy as well.

 

I think it is clear that TI has told Embassies they only want income letters issued that have been verified. 

 

It is possible Embassies of some countries have access to databases that could confirm a state pension. (US Emb definitely does not have access to SS database, no one does outside of SSA, but this may differ from country to country). 

 

There is no way an Embassy can access data of private banks, companies, investment firms etc so it is not unreasonable. given what TI has said, that they would limit their letters to state pensions.

 

They can review documents showing private income sources and it sounds like some Embassies are doing that and issuing statements with qualifying clauses. Whether TI will find that acceptable remains to be seen.

 

Personally I doubt many people are coming up with realistic looking counterfeit documentation of incomes. I think where people without the required amount of funds were getting by was (1) the statuatory declarations and (2) agents. Avenue  #1 has been cut off but #2 remains.

 

 

 

 

[nrasmussen]

Maybe a Danish member can confirm this or deny it. 

 

I read on a Belgian or Dutch forum that the Danish embassy have adapt their decision. 

 

It seems they still issue a L. o.I., in case of a state pension. 

That seems to be correct.

 

I just checked the Danish Embassy's website and it says that although they cannot issue any guarantees for future income, they can, however, issue a letter in English containing a summary of the content of documents that they have verified coming from relevant Danish authorities or pension fund institutions.

 

[luckyluke]

Which means that now the embassies, which don't issue any kind of L. o. I. at all, is reduced to 3.

[mogandave]

Which means that now the embassies, which don't issue any kind of L. o. I. at all, is reduced to 3.

How do you know what all 75 embassies in Thailand offer?

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

How do you know what all 75 embassies in Thailand offer?

I don't know.

 

I read here on T.V., and on other fora, that 4 embassies don't issue L.o.I. anymore { Australia-Denmark-United K. - U.S.A. ).

 

As apparently the Danish Embassy is still issuing a L.o.I. under some conditions,

 

I deducted, on mathematic ground, there are 3 left. 

[tgeezer]

That was not a change to the rules. it has been in every police order since that rule went into effect.
Many people were not aware of it since they had never read the police order before or even what is shown on the immigration website.

That is the point it should have been removed because everyone who was retired in 1998 by now, is over 60, first paragraph, 200,000/ 20,000 per month, this includes people in the second paragraph who were 'grandfathered' at 500,000 /50,000 per month!
What don't I understand?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tabarin]

On 2/8/2019 at 8:16 AM, Longcut said:

What if you plan on leaving Thailand in a year after your next extension. How is one to draw down their 800K over the year? It is almost impossible to transfer funds out of Thailand unless you use a service like DeeMoney.com. Will there be a penalty if one gets caught living on the 800K? If I were leaving, I would not want to be bringing more money into the country when I already have 800K in the bank. At one point possibly midyear, I would be dipping below the 400K baht threshold. How is someone suppose to draw down their funds before leaving?

This is really easy, first you can reserve the max cash allowance of around 10k USD to fly with, then a few K in gold coins. The remaining you spend in Pattaya.

Edited February 24, 2019 by tabarin