Sorry to bore everyone with the ongoing saga but after a previous post i made on this topic i had many replies saying there will be no checks on financial status at 90 reports for a retirement extension. If this is the case ( for those depositing 800 k ) i can only assume you would be refused the following year for a new extension if your funds dropped below the required minimum.

Ok what happens if annually you open a new bank ac with 800 k 2 months before new renewal and close and destroy existing bank ac ?

And while you're at it, move provinces to really shake them off your tail.

9 minutes ago, rumbo1 said:

Ok what happens if annually you open a new bank ac with 800 k 2 months before new renewal and close and destroy existing bank ac ?

This can only happen if every application is treated as a new application. You may have to move out of Thailand at least for more than 6-months when your extension ends. If you turn around and come back with a tourist visa to start the process, immigration may still deny you. Of ocurse, if you keep 400K in the bank, you may have to show an income of approx. $35K/month. So basically a person needs around $12K USD in savings and a pension payment of $1200/month to live in Thailand. I think this is the cheapest one can use to legally retire in Thailand unless currency drops to 20 baht/USD, then most people have to say good bye to Thailand. 

Edited February 18, 20197 yr by onera1961

Unless you keep the minimum balances required during the year before the renewal — it appears — you will not be able to renew on the basis of 800K in the bank.

 

In ‘theory’ you could leave the country and let the extension end, get a new non immigrant visa, re-enter and start the extension process from scratch.

 

Quote

Ok what happens if annually you open a new bank ac with 800 k 2 months before new renewal and close and destroy existing bank ac ?

Close one account and open another account on the same day with all funds rolled into the new account would be acceptable.   That's going to occur especially with fixed savings accounts where one matures and you close it/roll the funds over to a new fixed account....I've done that before and Chaengwattana Immigration didn't have a problem with that.

 

However, if you destroy evidence regarding the closed account, well, I can only assume you like to "self-inflict" pain.  OR, you didn't really have 800K in the closed bank account for X-period of time (if you even had an account) although you did round up 800K for the new account.  Immigration if probably going to think you are trying fool them.

19 hours ago, rumbo1 said:

what happens if annually you open a new bank ac with 800 k 2 months before new renewal and close and destroy existing bank ac ?

If you used 800,000 in the bank for your current extension (after March 1st or whenever), when you go in to renew they would have a record of the account you used and be looking for proof that you maintained at least that amount for 3 months and kept at least 400,000 for the rest of the year. If you destroy any record of that account and only have a record for the new account for a few months, you'd be unable to provide the evidence they require for the renewal.

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how the plan you put forward could meet the requirements for your next renewal.

20 hours ago, rumbo1 said:

Ok what happens if annually you open a new bank ac with 800 k 2 months before new renewal and close and destroy existing bank ac ?

Your passport and data will show you had a previous extension of stay on your last Non-immigrant O visa. You'll a new Non-immigrant O visa, as you start on a fresh term, which might mean that you need to leave the nation without a re-entry permit to terminate your old extension of stay, and thereafter apply for a new visa.

How dare they change the rules to try and stop people from getting around the old ones!

 

Now, how can I best get around these new ones?

I heard that for those people who have stayed in Thailand for more than 20 years only 200k baht is required. Any truth at all in this ?

Just now, Thingamabob said:

I heard that for those people who have stayed in Thailand for more than 20 years only 200k baht is required. Any truth at all in this ?

Pre 1998 retirees can grandfather old income levels.

39 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Pre 1998 retirees can grandfather old income levels.

As long as they have continually been on extensions based on retirement from that time, pre 1998.

22 hours ago, rumbo1 said:

Ok what happens if annually you open a new bank ac with 800 k 2 months before new renewal and close and destroy existing bank ac ?

why you would want to do this?

Why does everyone make such a mystery out of this?

 

i think it’s only the people that are here on a shoestring and don’t have the money that whine and complain about it.

 

To me it’s crazy.........they won’t put money in the bank but have the money and time to leave the country and play all kinds of games to avoid it.

 

I have complied with it for 13 yrs and never had a problem

6 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

If you used 800,000 in the bank for your current extension (after March 1st or whenever), when you go in to renew they would have a record of the account you used and be looking for proof that you maintained at least that amount for 3 months and kept at least 400,000 for the rest of the year. If you destroy any record of that account and only have a record for the new account for a few months, you'd be unable to provide the evidence they require for the renewal.

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how the plan you put forward could meet the requirements for your next renewal.

correct, and highlights the stupidity of this thread

6 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

On 2/18/2019 at 4:39 PM, rumbo1 said:

Ok what happens if annually you open a new bank ac with 800 k 2 months before new renewal and close and destroy existing bank ac ?

why you would want to do this?

That indeed is a mystery. Can't see anyway that immigrations would agree to it and it would be an unending hassle anyway.

 

The attempts to come up with ways to avoid compliance are laughable and the people who concoct them seem to make the erroneous assumption that they are so very clever  ... which is one of the reasons that immigrations seems to be intent on making the rules more onerous for everyone. 

 

 

Edited February 19, 20197 yr by Suradit69

"A possible way around the remaining 400 k balance for retirement extension ?"

It is exactly why the "rules" keep changing... people who try to find loopholes every time, to have a "way around" clear and simple rules...

 

17 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

If you used 800,000 in the bank for your current extension (after March 1st or whenever), when you go in to renew they would have a record of the account you used and be looking for proof that you maintained at least that amount for 3 months and kept at least 400,000 for the rest of the year. If you destroy any record of that account and only have a record for the new account for a few months, you'd be unable to provide the evidence they require for the renewal.

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how the plan you put forward could meet the requirements for your next renewal.

Why bother, why not get a single entry non immigrant O which give you 4 by three month periods and you have to cross the border to renew each 3 month period.

Then you can extend it for 60 days and you don't need money in the bank.

I obtain these from the Thai consulate in NZ and as I am married to a Thai and have a dependent Thai son they only ask for these documents and never asked for proof of income.

 

I also understand the Thai immigration will accept proof of income from your bank/ the inland revenue department and the pension office instead of a embassy letter.

If you need to get a NON O then you would have to go home and get it from the Thai consulate in your home land.

6 hours ago, kiwikeith said:

Why bother, why not get a single entry non immigrant O which give you 4 by three month periods

Oh no it don't!!

Or (and here's a crazy idea) actually follow the regulations so that we won't have to experience any more crackdowns and harsher rules in regard to renewing our extensions. It's people abusing "loopholes", agents and other crap that's causing them to make stricter rules.

23 hours ago, ballpoint said:

Now, how can I best get around these new ones?

22 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

why you would want to do this?

A good question for those who could qualify legally before (w/o using an agent), but cannot do so any more.   Perhaps when the OP retired here, he didn't plan on immigration pulling a fast-one, and changing the rules w/o grandfathering-in those already retired here.

 

Many times, over years, when rumors of changes surfaced, many assurances were drawn from, "But, they grandfathered in the last change."

 

15 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

The attempts to come up with ways to avoid compliance are laughable and the people who concoct them seem to make the erroneous assumption that they are so very clever  ... which is one of the reasons that immigrations seems to be intent on making the rules more onerous for everyone.

23 hours ago, ballpoint said:

How dare they change the rules to try and stop people from getting around the old ones!

15 hours ago, Ratt Thai said:

It is exactly why the "rules" keep changing... people who try to find loopholes every time, to have a "way around" clear and simple rules...

12 minutes ago, Myran said:

Or (and here's a crazy idea) actually follow the regulations so that we won't have to experience any more crackdowns and harsher rules in regard to renewing our extensions. It's people abusing "loopholes", agents and other crap that's causing them to make stricter rules.

I am amazed people buy into the cover-story / public-relations spin.  Why is the following not crystal-clear?

 

Agents only put the money in for a few hours.  The new seasoning will be likewise ignored.

 

If the rule-changes were intended to stop the corruption, they could simply stop waiving the existing seasoning rules of 3-mo prior to subsequent extensions for agent-submitted applications. 

 

The only likely result of this will be higher agent-fees (more "loot") and a higher % of agent-applicants than before (many of those being formerly honest, in person applicants).