"New" Retirement extension rules

[bkk6060]

23 minutes ago, Graviton said:

800k 2 months before for extension and 3 months after.... 400k indefinitely in the bank.... First retirement 3 months before........

I think there are a couple of report s of offices requiring 3 months not 2 before the extension.

 

One thing I have learned about the rules here is to exaggerate your involvement.

IE:

2 months before, make it 4.

800, 000 b make it 850,000.

65,000 b a month make it 70,000.

On and on.

Give yourself a safety net.

[Graviton]

1 minute ago, bkk6060 said:

I think there are a couple of report s of offices requiring 3 months not 2 before the extension.

 

One thing I have learned about the rules here is to exaggerate your involvement.

IE:

2 months before, make it 4.

800, 000 b make it 850,000.

65,000 b a month make it 70,000.

On and on.

Give yourself a safety net.

Just leave the 800k in, that has to be the best solution? 

[malibukid]

3 hours ago, Vacuum said:

I think this is exactly what they want.

so worth it.  no headache.  everything taken care of.  everyone happy.  win win.  better things to do with my time.  can not keep up with the rules and everyone not same same, just too old for this.

Edited May 23, 2019 by malibukid

[malibukid]

1 hour ago, bkk6060 said:

False.

Immigration wants you to use an agent.  Millions of baht spread throughout the ranks.

Agents are going no place just the prices going up.

i saw my agent in Vegas last month????

[rocketdave]

I can not guess why immigration would want you to use the various agents around town!

Quote

 

 

[darrendsd]

1 hour ago, bkk6060 said:

They were as confused as most of us.

 

But, I can tell you everything is back to kosher they can take care of all the requirements just more expensive. I know several guys who are not even present for their 90 day agents take care of it all.

 

Sorry if this is discussing any illegal activity, but it is the truth.

I'm not denying that it goes on - that is not my point - my point is discussing it on a public forum is just plain stupidity

[Graviton]

3 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

I'm not denying that it goes on - that is not my point - my point is discussing it on a public forum is just plain stupidity

If you do things legally you should not be pushed to an agent. Bending the rules works both ways does it not though?

[khastan]

Posted 1 hour ago
23 minutes ago, Graviton said:
800k 2 months before for extension and 3 months after.... 400k indefinitely in the bank.... First retirement 3 months before........

I think there are a couple of report s of offices requiring 3 months not 2 before the extension.




Yes one of these offices who require 3 months seasoning before application is Nong Khai.

[jacko45k]

2 hours ago, Nowisee said:

Could a person put 800k in an account 2-3 months before their extension, get the extension, then use it up as they want.  3 months before their next extension, open a new account and start all over again?

I expect you could if you also had a brand new Non-Imm O entry. 

It might irritate them!

[joevanwyck]

2 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

I think there are a couple of report s of offices requiring 3 months not 2 before the extension.

 

One thing I have learned about the rules here is to exaggerate your involvement.

IE:

2 months before, make it 4.

800, 000 b make it 850,000.

65,000 b a month make it 70,000.

On and on.

Give yourself a safety net.

This is very good advice!

[edandpranee]

On 5/5/2019 at 9:13 AM, wimpy said:

Good info. Thanks.  My Bangkok Bank branch said they could print out the statement on the spot. Wonder if she was full of it.

 

[GalaxyMan]

15 hours ago, darrendsd said:

So 800k when you first apply - 800k must be in the bank 90 days later for your next extension and then 400k must remain in the bank for the 9 months after that - is that correct?

No, you will need the 800 in the bank for 3 months before and after going forward. You only have 6 months where it can be reduced to 400.

[Suradit69]

7 hours ago, yodsak said:

Only for O-A.  So doesn't apply.  

Please supply a link to the definitive exclusion of people on retirement extensions now and going forward ... and I don't mean the ambiguous initial announcement.

[IAMHERE]

10 hours ago, yodsak said:

Only for O-A.  So doesn't apply.  

For now.  ????

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

Please supply a link to the definitive exclusion of people on retirement extensions now and going forward ... and I don't mean the ambiguous initial announcement.

Don't bother asking. It doesn't exist. But obviously no requirement now. Going forward nobody can really say.

[Suradit69]

37 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Don't bother asking. It doesn't exist. But obviously no requirement now. Going forward nobody can really say.

I didn't really expect a response since, as far as I knew, nothing definite has been said. The person I quoted seemed so certain that it applied only to O-A visa holders that I thought maybe I missed something.  

 

Given the usual uncertainty when some garbled announcement is made (like the issues regarding "income letters" and proof of monthly income) I figured some people would share their speculative expertise on this topic too and add to the confusion.

 

It seems the (alleged) Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times,"was aimed at retirees in Thailand, especially this past year or so.

 

 

[somo]

I did my retirement extension in Chayaphum on 5th May. Not a squeek about having to keep any money in my account for 3 months or whatever.

[rott]

13 hours ago, Kerryd said:

If they wanted people to use agents they would be making the rules easier, not harder. Years ago it was too easy for people to use an agent as they only needed to "borrow" the money for an hour (literally) in order to get a passbook update and bank letter. Then the money was returned to the agent along with a hefty fee.

 

Then Immigration changed the rules - to make it harder to use an agent - because the money had to be in the account for 3 months before applying. Very few people (or agents) want to lend that much money for that length of time, especially to someone that obviously would have a problem paying any of it back if they spent it.

 

However, it seems agents have found a way to get around that and still be able to provide passbooks/bank letters and make money relatively risk free.

 

So Immigration has (again) changed the rules to (again) make it harder to use an agent as the full amount now has to be in the bank for 5 full months and the other 400k has to stay in there permanently.

I doubt any agents are going to lend broke expats 400k for 12 months and another 400k for 5 months and even if they did, they'd charge so much that the broke expats that need agents wouldn't be able to afford the borrowing fees.

When Big Jok (or "Joke") took over Immigration one of the first things he said he was going to do was crack down on the Visa agents and these rules changes are a reflection of that.

I'd say it is significantly harder to use an agent to get around the financial requirements now than it was a couple years ago.

 

Well you have really got it sussed Kerry, you obviously know all about it. ????

[darrendsd]

14 hours ago, Kerryd said:

If they wanted people to use agents they would be making the rules easier, not harder. Years ago it was too easy for people to use an agent as they only needed to "borrow" the money for an hour (literally) in order to get a passbook update and bank letter. Then the money was returned to the agent along with a hefty fee.

 

Then Immigration changed the rules - to make it harder to use an agent - because the money had to be in the account for 3 months before applying. Very few people (or agents) want to lend that much money for that length of time, especially to someone that obviously would have a problem paying any of it back if they spent it.

 

However, it seems agents have found a way to get around that and still be able to provide passbooks/bank letters and make money relatively risk free.

 

So Immigration has (again) changed the rules to (again) make it harder to use an agent as the full amount now has to be in the bank for 5 full months and the other 400k has to stay in there permanently.

I doubt any agents are going to lend broke expats 400k for 12 months and another 400k for 5 months and even if they did, they'd charge so much that the broke expats that need agents wouldn't be able to afford the borrowing fees.

When Big Jok (or "Joke") took over Immigration one of the first things he said he was going to do was crack down on the Visa agents and these rules changes are a reflection of that.

I'd say it is significantly harder to use an agent to get around the financial requirements now than it was a couple years ago.

 

You obviously have no idea of how using the agents system works and how long the money they deposit is actually in the bank for - think hours not months

 

It's not harder than it was - it doesn't matter what ideas Top Brass come up with - agents and regional Immigration always work round them - there is millions of baht made every year at every regional Immigration Office - there is no way that this money would be given up easily

[Wake Up]

14 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

I know an American who renewed his ext stay/ret yesterday at Div. 1/CW using an Embassy Income Affidavit dated from the end of December 2018.

 

 

That is normal. The affidavits are good for 6 months from the date they are signed. 

[moontang]

11 hours ago, somo said:

I did my retirement extension in Chayaphum on 5th May. Not a squeek about having to keep any money in my account for 3 months or whatever.

I did mine in December, and have done two 90 day reports, without mention of my bank accounts.

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, moontang said:

I did mine in December, and have done two 90 day reports, without mention of my bank accounts.

The new rules only apply to those that got their extensions on or after March 1st when the rules went into effect.

[darrendsd]

A update about this

 

A friend of mine renewed his 1 year after March 1 - as I advised in my OP he was not told anything about having to keep the money in the bank for his first 90 day renewal

 

Yesterday he went to Hua Hin Immigration to ask about this - he was told that they have not received any directive or paperwork from Bangkok head office about this so at this time they will not be asking to see the money in the bank for the first renewals for everyone which by my calculations will be approx June  1

 

Her advice to him was keep the money in the bank to be on the safe side and see what happens when he makes his first 90 day renewal 

 

 

[zoza]

a few people have got a bit mixed up, the crackdown was aimed at the good guys, all the new rules made it harder for them, whilst for the agents it is business as usual, I replied to an ad on Facebook six weeks after this

took place.

Any visa at any immigration guaranteed two weeks but must have passport photo and passport , only thing that changed was the price near doubled.

now for people who did not have this fee it was or is a different story. all online bold as brass you just gave them your email address.

if you never sleep in the park and think doing things the right way is best

yeh it appears this crackdown was aimed at you, 

Edited May 25, 2019 by zoza

[ubonjoe]

40 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

Yesterday he went to Hua Hin Immigration to ask about this - he was told that they have not received any directive or paperwork from Bangkok head office about this so at this time they will not be asking to see the money in the bank for the first renewals for everyone which by my calculations will be approx June  1

The have certainly received the new rules that went into effect on March 1st.

I am certain they were referring to doing a check that the money is still in the bank when a person does their 90 day report which is not in any rule.

There is nothing in new the rules about immigration checking the money is still in the bank at any time. Some offices have told people it would be checked when they apply for their next extension.

[darrendsd]

Just now, ubonjoe said:

The have certainly received the new rules that went into effect on March 1st.

I am certain they were referring to doing a check that the money is still in the bank when a person does their 90 day report which is not in any rule.

There nothing in new the rules about immigration checking the money is still in the bank at any time. Some offices have told people it would be checked when they apply for their next extension.

I didn't say that they would be checking if the money was in at any time Joe - I was referring to his first 90 day report - I would assume that that's when people will be checked?

 

He was told that they have not received any directive to check

 

By "they" do you mean Hua Hin Immigration? I know the rules are obviously nationwide however HH Immigration have not received any confirmation to check according to what my friend wad told yesterday

[ubonjoe]

1 minute ago, darrendsd said:

I didn't say that they would be checking if the money was in at any time Joe - I was referring to his first 90 day report - I would assume that that's when people will be checked?

You assumed wrong.

As I wrote there is nothing in the rules that went into effect on March 1st stating a check would be done.

If no such rule exists Hua Hin would not be able to know about.

[darrendsd]

17 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

You assumed wrong.

As I wrote there is nothing in the rules that went into effect on March 1st stating a check would be done.

If no such rule exists Hua Hin would not be able to know about.

Well that contradicts what you said earlier in this thread

 

For retirement the 800k baht has to remain in the bank the for 3 months and that went into effect on March 1st. After 3 months 400k baht has to remain in the bank until you top up your account for the next extension.

[ubonjoe]

1 minute ago, darrendsd said:

Well that contradicts what you said earlier in this thread

I did not say the money did not have to stay in bank. Only that there is nothing in that police order that states a check will be done that it is still there.

[darrendsd]

8 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

I did not say the money did not have to stay in bank. Only that there is nothing in that police order that states a check will be done that it is still there.

So the "new" rules are basically meaningless regarding the money still has to be in the bank 90 days later? Because if they are not checking then in reality it means it doesn't need to be in there