1 minute ago, AAArdvark said:

Look, I am sure that each of these embassies had many people that had gotten verification letters and then got into financial trouble.  The embassies would have eventually been asked why they verified these people when they had nowhere near the required income.  The embassies would have had to admit that they really never verified anything.  This was admitted to me by the US consulate.

How many years did the 4 embassies issue those letters with no trouble? 

1 hour ago, billsmart said:

The US Embassy did not require any documentation. You could tell them you get a million a month, and you'd still get the letter. It was just what we call a "notarized" letter. All that the notary attests to is that you are who you say you are, and that you did swear what you wrote was true. They don't check on it, and the notary is no guarantee that it's true.

Agreed. 

Just now, marcusarelus said:

How many years did the 4 embassies issue those letters with no trouble? 

Not sure but it was several years at the least.  The issue is that at some time they would be caught out and no longer wanted to be responsible.

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

The British Embassy did require documentation. The same as the embassies tat continue to provide embassy letters.

But they didn’t check the validity of the documents, which is the issue. A document on it’s own proves nothing.

 

They also would accept pretty much anything you offer as proof. Making forging documents to get the letter very easy for some.

I have a simple easy to answer question.  What are the exact requirements going to be in 2 years, when I would need to worry about it?  ???????? 

19 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

Look, I am sure that each of these embassies had many people that had gotten verification letters and then got into financial trouble.  The embassies would have eventually been asked why they verified these people when they had nowhere near the required income.  The embassies would have had to admit that they really never verified anything.  This was admitted to me by the US consulate.

You "are si

40 minutes ago, D3030 said:

I'm not even sure anything from the U.S. Embassy is valid anymore...

 

If an income affidavit will not be accepted because it apparently cannot be trusted to be proof of actual income. Then why would any other document the Embassies issue that pertains to any type of affidavit be accepted?

 

Makes no sense!

the affidavit is a document devised by the state department to meet the requirements of countries with a fondness for seals and stamps.  it could in the past be used for almost anything to meet the demands of host country bureaucracies that made demands of us citizens that would be impossible or prohibitively expensive.

 

you can write anything in the comments section, put your passport information in the id section.  sign the bottom and the notary affirms you are the person identified in the first section.  doesn't matter whether you provide documentation or not, or even whether they review it.  the affidavit itself states the embassy does not make any affirmations about the content of the affidavit.

 

it's been used for income statements, police checks and diploma certifications in various countries.  other countries are tightening up as well.  china for example is no longer accepting affidavits in employment applications.

First up to be honest I don't use income method. I feel a bit for those that do. All I read about in the many threads is "pension letters" and "social security" etc. I realize USA and UK and others use the word "pension" a lot. In oz pension means old age pension. Its available to folk with not much. Many have life long superannuation and rental investments etc etc. Don't type back I'm bragging...far from it, most of my au retired friends are more wealthy than me. If wanted to use "income method" what would I show. Rental statements from agents or the subsequent transfers from them into au bank. Stop there many many incomes such as shares, dividends would be difficult to demonstrate to io. Embassy also could not verify. Xpats on government pensions ain't the only ones here. Or stuff it at 65 I want sell everything and stick in my super fund and just draw what I need.

16 minutes ago, elviajero said:

But they didn’t check the validity of the documents, which is the issue. A document on it’s own proves nothing.

 

They also would accept pretty much anything you offer as proof. Making forging documents to get the letter very easy for some.

Not as easy as you make out. Never heard of a Brit forging documents to send to the British Embassy. Brits in that situation always use a dodgy visa agent IME.

 

BE checked the validity of the documents in the same way as the embassies that continue to issue income letters.

22 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

Look, I am sure that each of these embassies had many people that had gotten verification letters and then got into financial trouble.  The embassies would have eventually been asked why they verified these people when they had nowhere near the required income.  The embassies would have had to admit that they really never verified anything.  This was admitted to me by the US consulate.

So you "are sure" that "many people" who had false affidavits caused problems.

 

Well if you cannot state how many people and the monetary damage they caused (with proof) sorry but it does not matter how "sure" you are.

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

Please do. I’m dying for some good farang food ????????

Khunpa restaurant, San Kamphaeng. Alpaca cafe, 1317 between the first superhighway and the 121. Third is in the Muslim quarter on Charoen Prathet Road.

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

The  US Embassy could have easily had an applicant present their pension letter; disability payment letter; or other documentation  which matched what they were claiming. A few moments to review. The applicant then swears an Oath (under penalty of perjury)  The letter would to this day be accepted by Thai Immigration.

 

I have no idea why the US Embassy refuses to comply when there are other Embassies that see no problem  with this letter. I don't know of any Embassy that has the ability to go back to their home country and view the document at source.

 

 

The US is composed of 50 independent states and many private enterprises, and the US federal embassy can not attest to the accuracy of most documents that people receive in an official capacity. The US embassy can not even certify a birth certificate, a document that confers US citizenship. They would only be able to do what they are already doing...stating that the applicant has certified under penalty of perjury he is telling the truth. The Thai government wants the Embassy to take responsibility for the accuracy of those documents. There is simply no mechanism in the US federated system that would make this possible. Even US government departments often times can't share information due to regulations.

 

The embassy was already doing everything they legally could. Your suggestion above would offer no significant difference to the existing system, and the Thais already said that was unacceptable. Hence, they can no longer issue the letters.

 

Other Embassies aren't representative of countries made of independent states, each with their own laws.

35 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Not as easy as you make out. Never heard of a Brit forging documents to send to the British Embassy. Brits in that situation always use a dodgy visa agent IME.

 

BE checked the validity of the documents in the same way as the embassies that continue to issue income letters.

A friend of mine got a letter out of the BE with a simple letter from a rental management company confirming the income from his rental properties. Easily faked/forged.

 

Sorry, but the BE never validated documents. To do that they would have to contact the source of the income.

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

But they didn’t check the validity of the documents, which is the issue. A document on it’s own proves nothing.

 

They also would accept pretty much anything you offer as proof. Making forging documents to get the letter very easy for some.

very easy for a professional money forger perhaps,

but i cant and i definitely dont think i know anyone with that sort of skill required either.

come to think of it i would save myself a lot of money if i could, i sure got the time ????

Its now 10000 posts about supposition, give it a rest. 

5 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

does this mean the other embassies actually require documentation to prove monthly income?

No, some do not at all (France, according to some posters) - or they certify whatever is presented that "looks authentic" (see "photoshop"), but do not independently-verify amounts with the funds-sources. 

 

5 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

  if so, then letting retirees from four countries get by with just transfers would be a reward for their embassies not providing the required certification.  you could simply recycle the same funds (minus expenses) every month. 

The costs of doing that are comparable to lower-end agent-fees, which pay immigration to skip the financials, so hardly worth the trouble.  But, if they plan to raise agent-rates/payoffs (as rumored), the "recycled money" issue would then become more tempting to some.

 

4 hours ago, billsmart said:

The US Embassy did not require any documentation. You could tell them you get a million a month, and you'd still get the letter. It was just what we call a "notarized" letter. All that the notary attests to is that you are who you say you are, and that you did swear what you wrote was true. They don't check on it, and the notary is no guarantee that it's true.

If immigration reported obvious lying folks, they'd go to prison, though.  Same with Aussies.  It would only take a few "examples" to put a stop to such activity.

Folks, there's really no point in rehashing here the already well hashed Embassy income letters/affidavits subject. It's water under the bridge at this point, and not really on point to the subject of the OP's post.

 

The U.S., UK, Aussie and Danish embassies are out of the income letters/affidavits business. The other countries' embassies are continuing to issue them to the best of everyone's knowledge.

 

That's likely going to continue to be the case, whether the OP's info re the future of monthly Thai bank deposits and their acceptance by Thai Immigration is or is not correct.

 

18 hours ago, billsmart said:

glegolo, What I have written above is the official announcement from Immigrations. I've attached a copy of the letter they gave me... 

 

Retirement Visa Rules 2020.pdf 640.14 kB · 98 downloads

What police order number is that from as all you have shown is a copy of a page from some source?

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

A friend of mine got a letter out of the BE with a simple letter from a rental management company confirming the income from his rental properties. Easily faked/forged.

 

Sorry, but the BE never validated documents. To do that they would have to contact the source of the income.

And how do all the other embassies do it who haven't ceased the income letters?

10 hours ago, billsmart said:

The US Embassy did not require any documentation. You could tell them you get a million a month, and you'd still get the letter. It was just what we call a "notarized" letter. All that the notary attests to is that you are who you say you are, and that you did swear what you wrote was true. They don't check on it, and the notary is no guarantee that it's true.

And it's always been my assertion that, in the meeting with embassy staff, in May, TI asking for "greater verification" (we don't know exactly what was said) was probably aimed solely at the US and Australian Embassies. Subsequent to the meeting some IOs (notably CM) started asking some US citizens for documentary backup to their income affidavits when presenting them for obtaining their visa extensions. AFAIAA, this practice was exclusively reserved for US citizens.

 

To have satisfied immigration, and prevent all this brew ha ha, all that was required, was for the Australian and US embassies to change their requirement for the issuance of income letters and ask their citizens for documentary evidence of income. They could actually still do this.

 

But no, 4 embassies decided to poke the sleeping tiger, for their own reasons, and we are where we are today.

 

Cheers!

40 minutes ago, Spidey said:

And how do all the other embassies do it who haven't ceased the income letters?

Through dishonesty. They do not verify the income.

The four embassies that have stopped issuing the letters are the honest ones.....

13 hours ago, Psimbo said:

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!! Will it NEVER end!!!!

 

............................................................ and its NOT a Retirement VISA it a PERMIT!!!!!

Haha, you have to learn to live with it. I recently sat through a presentation by a Visa 'expert' and agent where he only and constantly referred to it as 'a Visa'. It's a little like constantly calling your dog a cat, it makes no difference to him, confuses people around you and makes you look daft!

9 hours ago, AAArdvark said:

Not sure but it was several years at the least.  The issue is that at some time they would be caught out and no longer wanted to be responsible.

Your issue.  Not the issue. 

31 minutes ago, Spidey said:

And it's always been my assertion that, in the meeting with embassy staff, in May, TI asking for "greater verification" (we don't know exactly what was said) was probably aimed solely at the US and Australian Embassies. Subsequent to the meeting some IOs (notably CM) started asking some US citizens for documentary backup to their income affidavits when presenting them for obtaining their visa extensions. AFAIAA, this practice was exclusively reserved for US citizens.

 

To have satisfied immigration, and prevent all this brew ha ha, all that was required, was for the Australian and US embassies to change their requirement for the issuance of income letters and ask their citizens for documentary evidence of income. They could actually still do this.

 

But no, 4 embassies decided to poke the sleeping tiger, for their own reasons, and we are where we are today.

 

Cheers!

Important words, "for their own reasons" to the detriment of their citizens who they don't give a flip about. 

21 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Haha, you have to learn to live with it. I recently sat through a presentation by a Visa 'expert' and agent where he only and constantly referred to it as 'a Visa'. It's a little like constantly calling your dog a cat, it makes no difference to him, confuses people around you and makes you look daft!

Fully agree.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is k...WRONG. The blind man with the biggest mouth is king, because people can relate to him.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is best off keeping his mouth shut and getting on with it.

 

5 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Important words, "for their own reasons" to the detriment of their citizens who they don't give a flip about. 

It's particularly significant with the British embassy in that, if you accept my assertion, had no reason to stop the letters as the advice from TI wasn't aimed at them, although they were the first to jump on the bandwagon. Their decision was not made by the embassy but as a result of a Foreign Office audit.

 

I know not the reason for the audit but surely it's more than a coincidence that they are about to move into a new much smaller embassy. The cessation of the letters will mean that they require less office space and less Thai ancillary staff. The processing of the letters was performed solely by a team of Thai ancillary workers. My last letter was even signed by a Thai on behalf of the vice consul.

53 minutes ago, Spidey said:

And it's always been my assertion that, in the meeting with embassy staff, in May, TI asking for "greater verification" (we don't know exactly what was said) was probably aimed solely at the US and Australian Embassies. 

Why then did the UK embassy (who've never provided sworn affidavits, but asked for proof of income) announce this first, making reference to the meeting in May? There's no obvious rhyme or reason to it other than BJs boss (who had several axes to grind) tightening the screws. And don't forget May 2018 was the same month Yingluck got her ten year visa from the UK, must've seemed like they were seriously taking the pi$$... 

Just now, lamyai3 said:

Why then did the UK embassy (who've never provided sworn affidavits, but asked for proof of income) announce this first, making reference to the meeting in May? There's no obvious rhyme or reason to it other than BJs boss (who had several axes to grind) tightening the screws. And don't forget May 2018 was the same month Yingluck got her ten year visa from the UK, must've seemed like they were seriously taking the pi$$... 

See the post above yours.

1 hour ago, a977 said:

What police order number is that from as all you have shown is a copy of a page from some source?

It's a document which was given to me at my local Thai Immigrations Office. Although I don't read Thai, I've been told it shows it's a copy of a letter and memo from Thai Immigrations Bangkok dated 28 Jan and 18 Jan respectively. The last two pages appear to be summations of the rules for extensions for O-A visas based on retirement. I don't know who or where these were made, but everything looks legit to me.

And, as I said, these were given to me by the officers at my local immigration office, and I was asked to initial a roster (like a sign-in sheet) that acknowledged I had been briefed on these new rules and had received these papers.

 

You can scoff at these all you want. I have what I believe is a very good relationship with my local immigration officers and don't believe they'd knowingly give me wrong information or would make something up. I'm taking them seriously and making my future plans accordingly. I'd suggest anyone who may be affected to go down to their local immigration office and ask for themselves.

11 minutes ago, billsmart said:

The last two pages appear to be summations of the rules for extensions for O-A visas based on retirement.

You can't get an O-A visa in Thailand.