kevbo

[Kevbo]

Apologies for yet another question about new rules guys

It's been stated on this forum that a bank letter is not needed for 90 day reporting and I'm sure they wouldn't ask for one when leaving the country, so surely the new seasoning rules only apply for repeat retirement visas.

In my case I have the 800k in the bank and will apply after 2 months, but I only plan to do it once then go home, and only come back for a few months at a time. So my question is what is to stop me accessing my money once retirement extension is given ?

[mfd101]

Nothing at all.

 

If you plan to leave Thailand permanently or longterm or visit in future only for short stays, then - once you have your latest extension - you can do whatever you like with your money.

 

But you can't change your mind half-way through ...

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, Kevbo said:

So my question is what is to stop me accessing my money once retirement extension is given ?

Nothing.

 

But if you want to renew the following year it could be denied if you haven’t maintained the minimum balances.

 

 

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, Kevbo said:

It's been stated on this forum that a bank letter is not needed for 90 day reporting

We had a one or a couple reports of office(s) re-setting 90-day reporting and saying to bring the bank-book for the report - even on extensions issued before the new rules were supposed to go into effect.  But no idea if that was just an aberrant case.  We will know more when applications under the new rules begin, and reports come back.

 

From my reading of the rules, as soon as you go below the minimums, your extension would be void, just as anyone with a work-based extension who loses their job, or a marriage-based extension in case of divorce.  A future interaction with immigration in those cases (work and marriage) results in overstay charges, and potential banning. 

Thus far, there has been No Official Word on how these new "money in the bank" changes will be enforced.  I am making no predictions.

Edited February 27, 2019 by JackThompson

[DrJack54]

54 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

We had a one or a couple reports of office(s) re-setting 90-day reporting and saying to bring the bank-book for the report - even on extensions issued before the new rules were supposed to go into effect.  But no idea if that was just an aberrant case.  We will know more when applications under the new rules begin, and reports come back.

 

From my reading of the rules, as soon as you go below the minimums, your extension would be void, just as anyone with a work-based extension who loses their job, or a marriage-based extension in case of divorce.  A future interaction with immigration in those cases (work and marriage) results in overstay charges, and potential banning. 

Thus far, there has been No Official Word on how these new "money in the bank" changes will be enforced.  I am making no predictions.

Crazy. The new requirements 're minimum 800k three month after extension and the 400k after etc will be enforced extensions after March 1. 

To put it simply. Those with extensions granted prior will be subject to new regs for next extension. 90 day report connection to inspecting bank balances etc is nonsensical.

If your not making predictions why post. So as an example. My last extension was Nov 2018. I met requirements. Next obviously Nov 2019. AFTER I will need to follow new requirements. If for example I go below the 400k minimum etc then I would not be granted next extension applied for Nov 2020. Then I would need leave lis before my "until" date.  

Edited February 27, 2019 by DrJack54
Error

[JackThompson]

11 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Crazy. The new requirements 're minimum 800k three month after extension and the 400k after etc will be enforced extensions after March 1. 

To put it simply. Those with extensions granted prior will be subject to new regs for next extension.

A couple of reports where it was reportedly enforced effective-immediately.  I'm not saying this is "right" - just reported - and we know every office can do anything it wants w/o oversight, so ...

 

11 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

90 day report connection to inspecting bank balances etc is nonsensical.

I agree.

11 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

If your not making predictions why post.

Because of the first link above, where at least one office claimed they were going to do this.  Also because the rules indicate it is required, and they have not said how they will enforce it.  I think it would be better for folks to be prepared for the worst possible case, and then pleasantly surprised if it is "less bad."

 

11 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

So as an example. My last extension was Nov 2018. I met requirements. Next obviously Nov 2019. AFTER I will need to follow new requirements. If for example I go below the 400k minimum etc then I would not be granted next extension applied for Nov 2020. Then I would need leave lis before my "until" date.  

We shall see. And then how long before you can come in on a fresh Non-O and start over?  That doesn't make sense either.  The rules don't make sense / are unclear, which is the primary problem.

[DrJack54]

15 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

A couple of reports where it was reportedly enforced effective-immediately.  I'm not saying this is "right" - just reported - and we know every office can do anything it wants w/o oversight, so ...

 

I agree.

Because of the first link above, where at least one office claimed they were going to do this.  Also because the rules indicate it is required, and they have not said how they will enforce it.  I think it would be better for folks to be prepared for the worst possible case, and then pleasantly surprised if it is "less bad."

 

We shall see. And then how long before you can come in on a fresh Non-O and start over?  That doesn't make sense either.  The rules don't make sense / are unclear, which is the primary problem.

To be fair...you have a point. I have posted in other threads regarding income method...don't be surprised if people trot off to local im office with all their income "proof" to be told...." we no do...need show 800k bank...go away....Next"

Every imm office different. Can I wear T shirt "SAME SAME". Would it help. Rhetorical question

Edited February 27, 2019 by DrJack54
Error

[impulse]

53 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

We shall see.

 

Probably the most profound words that will make it into this discussion, whether on this thread or the dozens of others on the topic. 

 

Predicting what's going to happen in the future at Thai immigration has been the downfall of hundreds of long stay expats since 2014. 

 

Probably the best advice is to prep for the worst and not to take the risk that you'll get caught out if an IO at your particular location, on your particular day, in your particular situation, decides to interpret the rules differently than we all expect.

 

[jacko45k]

15 hours ago, JackThompson said:

From my reading of the rules, as soon as you go below the minimums, your extension would be void,

And you are immediately on overstay? That doesn't sound workable.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, jacko45k said:

And you are immediately on overstay? That doesn't sound workable.

I agree - but is is crazy for cases of work, also - not even a 15 or 30 day grace period.  Instead, one has to race to an immigration office the next day they are open just to pay 1900 Baht for a mere 7 days to leave (and a real bummer if you have severance pay or other issues that are not yet resolved). 

if they want a 400K "bond" of sorts, then the solution would be to allow folks to pay for this via some type of insurance or "self-fund" it with a locked-account of some type, with balance returned upon leaving the country. 

 

I don't see any logical rationale for the policy change - just seems like trying to make problems for expats for the sake of making their lives more difficult/complicated, absent any beneficial effect.

[jacko45k]

11 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

I don't see any logical rationale for the policy change - just seems like trying to make problems for expats for the sake of making their lives more difficult/complicated, absent any beneficial effect.

The concept of keeping the 800/400/800 and having it verified when applying for an extension renewal makes me think the idea of deliberately allowing the extension to expire would make some financial sense. Simply obtaining a visa waiver entry, and do the entry to non-O conversion, and then make a new extension surely would just require showing a few 65,000 baht transfers? (Or the 800k from overseas and then season for the 2 months required.... then free to spend it)

Edited February 28, 2019 by jacko45k

[smedly]

48 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

The concept of keeping the 800/400/800 and having it verified when applying for an extension renewal makes me think the idea of deliberately allowing the extension to expire would make some financial sense. Simply obtaining a visa waiver entry, and do the entry to non-O conversion, and then make a new extension surely would just require showing a few 65,000 baht transfers? (Or the 800k from overseas and then season for the 2 months required.... then free to spend it)

you are all wasting your time trying to make any sense or reason of these new rules or how they will be enforced

 

There is zero logic to any of it

 

If they wanted to wipe out agents paying a bribe to ignore seasoning then a simple bank balance check at any time post extension renewal would have clearly shown this

[ubonjoe]

A inflammatory off topic post and a off topic nonsensical post have been removed.