Embassy stat dec with pension information not accepted by immigration office

[OJAS]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

Interestingly enough the Thai Embassy in Singapore has an online system which allows for uploading of docs and also allows for a Non O ME for those married to Thai citizens as long as the applicant is from a G20 country- 

 

45 minutes ago, UKresonant said:

That's interesting, I'll have a look at that ????. (along with HCMC)

But if @BritTim's comments in the following thread (and he is usually a reliable source of information on here) are to be believed, this may not turn out to be a smooth process:-

 

 

[bigginhill]

If I were in the OP's situation I would call the helpline, can't hurt to try. 

 

[OJAS]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

As far as the Embassy Letters- if one shows the Embassy a letter from an Income source as proof and then swears under Oath it is true per penalty of perjury- which if lying is the commission of a crime- is enough to satisfy court and Government issues in our home countries, and the Thai Immigration police order. 

 

That the 3 Embassies in question refuse to do what is asked (for whatever spurious reason they state) and the other 80 or so Embassies still issue the letters and are mostly still accepted proves that the 3 Embassies are  blowing smoke.

Agree 100%. Verification, certification, whatever you like to call it, is merely a question of semantics IMHO. What it seems to boil down to is that the Immigration Bureau are - not unreasonably IMHO - seeking some corroboration of pension figures included in Embassy letters/affidavits, which should be easy-peasy for embassies to provide. In the case of the British Embassy, for instance, they should be capable of corroborating occupational pension figures contained in the P60 certificates which we receive from our pension providers after the end of each tax year within a matter of seconds merely by tapping our NI numbers into a secure intra-governmental link with HMRC from whom these figures were originally sourced. Ditto with DWP in the case of the State Pension. And any data protection constraints which were felt to exist to this course of action could easily be overcome, I would have thought, through our signature on a suitably-worded consent form.

[lopburi3]

38 minutes ago, OJAS said:

 

But if @BritTim's comments in the following thread (and he is usually a reliable source of information on here) are to be believed, this may not turn out to be a smooth process:-

 

 

Off-topic but for Thai wife multi entry O visas the current local locations not needing financials are Savannakhet and HCMC.  Much information in visa section about them.

[Tanoshi]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

While technically correct= for retirement- one has to now keep 800K in a Thai bank for 5 months and 400K forever- therefore it will cost more as one has to have added income to live on.

 

The whole purpose of the 800K was to provide sufficient funds for the year- not to serve as some type of security bond.    Thai Imm has tried to merge 2 things together- proof of income and money in the bank. It's a completely unfair system. The Police Order gives 3 choices- Money in the bank or 65K/40K per month OR the Embassy Letter.  One or the other not both.

IMHO they made a real mess of the proof of funds in the bank method, but that isn't the issue under discussion, which is income.

 

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

As far as the Embassy Letters- if one shows the Embassy a letter from an Income source as proof and then swears under Oath it is true per penalty of perjury- which if lying is the commission of a crime- is enough to satisfy court and Government issues in our home countries, and the Thai Immigration police order. 

Well the whole scenario was kicked of by CM Immigration becoming suspicious of some of the declared amounts of income on the Embassy Income letters and when secondary proof to support the declarations couldn't be provided, it opened a can of worms that led to the current situation.

There are those that obviously lied and committed perjury but did you hear or read of any being prosecuted as such!

This was the first instance to my knowledge where TI started requesting secondary supporting documentary evidence to the previously accepted Embassy Income statements.

 

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

That the 3 Embassies in question refuse to do what is asked (for whatever spurious reason they state) and the other 80 or so Embassies still issue the letters and are mostly still accepted proves that the 3 Embassies are  blowing smoke.

This has been explained to you before, but you still refuse to acknowledge or understand the legally implied differences between the process of 'verification' and certification'.

TI were under the impression Embassies 'verified' declared incomes, which the Embassies suspected was the case, but due to Data Protection laws the Embassies were never able to verify anything.

It was because of TI's continual insistence that the Embassies now 'verify' incomes, which was and still is legally impossible, that the Embassies withdrew the service.

Then 21st Dec 2018, TI issue an amended order, which didn't become public knowledge until early Jan 2019, after 4 Embassies ceased the service, that stated acceptance of;

Quote

3. Income certification certified by the Embassy or Consular

That's a massive U turn from their insistence of 'verification' throughout the negotiations and what the Embassies were already doing and what other Embassies continue to do to this day.

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Why should someone who is working abroad and visits his family in Thailand several times per year be forced to obtain a Non O Visa single entry each time.  The proper Visa is a Non O  and the ME is the proper for,mat.  

That wasn't the question, but for the type of person you mention, that is the exact purpose the Non Imm O ME was meant for, not to constantly remain in Thailand, with no proof of funds, divorced or separated.

Another case of expats abusing the system and spoiling it for the genuine one's.

[Tanoshi]

5 hours ago, Thaidream said:

How do I support my wife?  I simply go to a Thai ATM and withdraw between 70-100K each month- save the ATM slips-copy them before they fade.  The ATM location shows on my US Bank Statement along with the  exact location of the ATm and amounts.  All this matches my pension letters.  Pretty hard to forge ATM receipts and ATM cards and at one time CW Immigration accepted this as secondary proof and I believe would accept today if asked,

 

Last year as secondary proof of income perhaps.

This year and going forward, it's proof of overseas transfers into a Thai bank account, if requested in support of an Embassy statement.

[Tanoshi]

5 hours ago, emptypockets said:

And he could be working perfectly legally.  

 

He could, then he'd be able to provide his tax receipts as proof of income.

[Tanoshi]

4 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

If Thailand made ridiculous demands why did only 3 embassies take notice of it?  No I think on close examination the changes were initiated by the embassies and not Thailand - proof that only 3 have eliminated letters.  

They would have all withdrawn the service, but after the biggest 3 stopped the service TI changed the request from 'verification' to 'certification' in an amended order.

I believe it was an attempt they hoped the big 3 Embassies would reinstate the service.

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, chilly07 said:

Also an expat can sign a waiver on data protection! 

Ridiculous statement.

Complying with the requirements of General Data Protection Regulations is not optional and people can not waive their rights to protection under GDPR.

https://socialoptic.com/gdpr/

 

[Thingamabob]

Go the 800k route and make life easier for yourself as advised time and time again in these columns.

[Thaidream]

37 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

his has been explained to you before, but you still refuse to acknowledge or understand the legally implied differences between the process of 'verification' and certification'.

TI were under the impression Embassies 'verified' declared incomes, which the Embassies suspected was the case, but due to Data Protection laws the Embassies were never able to verify anything.

It was because of TI's continual insistence that the Embassies now 'verify' incomes, which was and still is legally impossible, that the Embassies withdrew the service.

Then 21st Dec 2018, TI issue an amended order, which didn't become public knowledge until early Jan 2019, after 4 Embassies ceased the service, that stated acceptance of;

I am quite aware of the difference between verification and certification, but I would agree that this may have been the issue that caused the 3 Embassies to initially withdraw the letters.  It's a question of semantics but it is obvious that since the other 80 Embassies continue to do it and it is accepted- that there is no logical reason for the 3 Embassies to deny the service unless they were looking for an 'excuse  to stop it.  

 

That excuse no longer exists since Thai Imm will accept letters from everyone (except for a few rogue offices.  The 3 Embassies could restart their letters if they so desired and they would be accepted.  In fact- the letters could include the term certify/

 

Interestingly, the Us Embassy=Columbia actually has an 'Income Letter'-  that has both the terms 'verification; and 'certification' in its description.   You can view it by going to US Embassy/Citizen Services/Notarials/Income Letter/  It appears to me that what  the Embassies refuse to do in Bangkok is being done in Bogota.

 

A month ago- I used my final (maybe) Embassy Letter from the US Embassy at Jomtien. It was over 5 months old and readily accepted with smiles. No secondary evidence asked for but I had it.

 

I do have  a few plans  involving my next extension planned so will see how that goes.

[NZAMBOY]

On 7/8/2019 at 7:48 PM, wtfracing said:

New Zealand embassy stat dec certified by MFA only 4 days old and Saraburi immigration 

hope you don't mind me asking...just wondering what the NZ embassy required in order to do the income affidavit and who/what is MFA...thanks 

[UKresonant]

21 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Ridiculous statement.

Complying with the requirements of General Data Protection Regulations is not optional and people can not waive their rights to protection under GDPR.

https://socialoptic.com/gdpr/

 

I wonder how the statement on page 18 of the E-Visa manual measure up? ...disclosure of your personal info, including but not limited to, VISA system and law enforcement for immigration purposes... ( can't cut and paste it, sorry)...

[Thaidream]

38 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Last year as secondary proof of income perhaps.

This year and going forward, it's proof of overseas transfers into a Thai bank account, if requested in support of an Embassy statement.

As I have said and firmly believe- there is nothing to support  that Thai Immigration would request as secondary proof what you are still stating.  As I mentioned this is primary proof.  If a person was transferring funds each month- technically an Embassy Letter would  not be needed- except there are some IOs who are making applicants from countries who  can get Embassy Letters go and get them and will not accept the transfer proof.

 

The Police Order is clear-  It  says money in the bank OR funds transfer  OR Embassy Letter NOT both or 2 out of 3.

 

Secondary Proof would be letters from a pension provider or other

 

Tertiary Proof-  a foreign or Thai Bank statement showing a direct deposit in the same exact amount that is on the letter from the pension provider.

 

Added Proof-  The foreign bank statement  section that shows the  amounts withdrawn-dates of withdrawal and the location of the ATM (Thailand)

 

Further Proof-  The actual withdrawal slips from the Thai ATM and the actual ATM cards- The ATM slips will have the 4 digit code from the ATM card on the slip and the ATM cards can be confirmed on the bank statement.

 

The use of the Embassy Letter and its acceptance tells Thai Immigration that the individual actually has enough income to bring in 65K each month or more. It is assumed that the applicant is using the funds to support self or family and since the Secondary; tertiary and added 'proof'  completely supports this- I am confident it will continue to be accepted.

 

This is the 21st Century- transfers of funds is not the only way to get one's income into Thailand/

[UKresonant]

11 minutes ago, NZAMBOY said:

hope you don't mind me asking...just wondering what the NZ embassy required in order to do the income affidavit and who/what is MFA...thanks 

Ministry of Foriegn Affairs (Chaing Wattana in Bangkok, and the  Embassies/consulates) very efficient part of the Thai Gov. They do legalisation of documents and stuff like that.

[wtfracing]

5 minutes ago, NZAMBOY said:

hope you don't mind me asking...just wondering what the NZ embassy required in order to do the income affidavit and who/what is MFA...thanks 

For a statuary declaration at the NZ embassy what their actual requirements are I'm not sure as every year I have always supplied my bank statements showing pension deposits and Thailand atm withdrawals every 2 weeks and then sign and swear under oath on the statuary declaration. 

Cost is 900 baht and 500baht for certified passport page.

MFA is Thailand ministry of foreign affairs.

[Tanoshi]

6 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I am quite aware of the difference between verification and certification, but I would agree that this may have been the issue that caused the 3 Embassies to initially withdraw the letters.  It's a question of semantics but it is obvious that since the other 80 Embassies continue to do it and it is accepted- that there is no logical reason for the 3 Embassies to deny the service unless they were looking for an 'excuse  to stop it.  

The difference between 'verification' and 'certification' is not semantics.

 

How's this for logic.

Oct 2018 - Embassies announce cessation of the service because they are unable to comply with TI's request to verify incomes.

Dec 2018 - Embassies issue last Income statements.

Jan 2019 - TI announce acceptance of 'certified' Embassy Income letters.

 

Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, jeez!

 

 

[Tanoshi]

10 minutes ago, UKresonant said:

I wonder how the statement on page 18 of the E-Visa manual measure up? ...disclosure of your personal info, including but not limited to, VISA system and law enforcement for immigration purposes... ( can't cut and paste it, sorry)...

You can disclose any personal information you want to any authority.

 

However any authority in possession of your personal details is bound by Data Protection law not to disclose it to another authority

[luckyluke]

13 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Jan 2019 - TI announce acceptance of 'certified' Embassy Income letters.

Since 15 years I use the Letter of Income issued by the Austrian Consulate in Pattaya. 

 

This year the Consulate added the words "It is hereby certified that..." in the letter. 

 

As usual it took 5 minutes(waiting time not included) to the Immigration officer to grant me another year of extension based on retirement. 

[Tanoshi]

10 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

As I have said and firmly believe- there is nothing to support  that Thai Immigration would request as secondary proof what you are still stating.  As I mentioned this is primary proof.  If a person was transferring funds each month- technically an Embassy Letter would  not be needed- except there are some IOs who are making applicants from countries who  can get Embassy Letters go and get them and will not accept the transfer proof.

Until last year I never heard of TI requesting secondary proof of income when providing an Embassy Income letter because at that time they were accepted under the belief the Embassies verified the incomes.

 

TI also wrongly assumed that those obtaining Embassy Income letters were actually transferring sufficient funds to cover living expenses in Thailand, but again that wasn't the case.

 

Moving onto this year, although TI still accept Embassy Income letters, there is a general mistrust of the information provided. This has resulted in expats being asked to provide secondary supporting documentation. As to what they will accept in this respect is up to the IO, but from personal experience and from reports that evidence is transfers of income to a Thai bank.

The difference being they are not looking for 40 or 65K per month (as per the separate income method) but sufficient to cover living expenses in Thailand, albeit irregular, varying amounts.

[natway09]

A Stat Dec actually means nothing.

All it means is that the Embassy have certified that you wrote in front of them NOT 

that the contents are factual. Further proof is now required as has been abused

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, OJAS said:

Agree 100%. Verification, certification, whatever you like to call it, is merely a question of semantics IMHO.

They have completely different definitions by law.

 

Verification is the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.

As in authentication of a bank statement, letter from Pension provider, Income tax receipt.

 

Certify is to attest or confirm in a formal statement.

As in the Embassy attest your signature made in front of the Consular office.

[OJAS]

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

You can disclose any personal information you want to any authority.

 

However any authority in possession of your personal details is bound by Data Protection law not to disclose it to another authority

But presumably there is no legal constraint on our giving permission to said authority in possession of our personal details to disclose these to another authority through (e.g.) our signature on a suitably-worded consent form, is there?

 

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

They have completely different definitions by law.

 

Verification is the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.

As in authentication of a bank statement, letter from Pension provider, Income tax receipt.

 

Certify is to attest or confirm in a formal statement.

As in the Embassy attest your signature made in front of the Consular office.

OK, so given that "verification" is, for better or worse, the word which the British Embassy used in their IMHO thoroughly unconvincing justification of the decision to discontinue their income confirmation service, you might be interested in the following text of a further email I sent to Sarah Peth a few weeks ago - and to which, possibly tellingly, I have yet to receive any reply:-

 

"Whilst I accept that it is almost certainly impossible, in practice, for the Embassy to verify UK property rental income in accordance with the Immigration Bureau’s requirements, I remain in some difficulty in understanding why the Embassy apparently concluded that this was also an insurmountable task for them in the case of pension payments.

 

"As you probably know, we pensioners are issued with P60 certificates at the end of each tax year by our occupational pension providers back in the UK. Since the figures contained in these certificates originate from HMRC, I would have thought it perfectly feasible for the Embassy to verify them online without incurring disproportionate effort via a secure link with HMRC, which could be accessed with our NI number.

 

"Likewise, State Pension amounts claimed could, I would have thought, have been verifiable online by the Embassy via a similar secure link with the IPC.

 

"Furthermore, any constraints to such courses of action which were felt to arise from the General Data Protection Regulation could, I would have thought, have been capable of being overcome by the Embassy through requiring our signature on a suitably-worded consent form.

 

"I should therefore be grateful if you could let me know whether, in advance of making its decision to withdraw its income confirmation service, the Embassy gave due consideration to the possibility of devising intra-governmental online pension verification procedures as I have described; and, if so, why they were ruled out."
 

[Tanoshi]

34 minutes ago, OJAS said:

OK, so given that "verification" is, for better or worse, the word which the British Embassy used in their IMHO thoroughly unconvincing justification of the decision to discontinue their income confirmation service, you might be interested in the following text of a further email I sent to Sarah Peth a few weeks ago - and to which, possibly tellingly, I have yet to receive any reply:-

They couldn't confirm your income, that's the point.

They discontinued the service due to the legal implications that it could have led to had they continued under the false pretence they verified the incomes.

[Lenny Jones]

On 7/8/2019 at 6:22 PM, wtfracing said:

Secondary proof was provided as per every other year with pension details but was not even looked at.

Stat. Decs. are out.  Immigration FINALLY learned to trust their own Thai banks.  All you need now is a signed statement from your local bank manager showing you get 65,000 baht/month for the last year if you are getting an extension.

[OJAS]

30 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

They couldn't confirm your income, that's the point.

They discontinued the service due to the legal implications that it could have led to had they continued under the false pretence they verified the incomes.

Makes one wonder what an earth the Embassy were up to between May 2018 (when the Immigration Bureau first raised this issue with embassies) and October 2018 (when they announced the withdrawal of their income confirmation service) then. They could IMHO have easily set up a bona fide online verification service in consultation with HMRC and the IPC over this 5-month period (and hence allowed the income confirmation service to continue), instead of sitting on their hands doing sweet FA, which, I think that it is reasonable to infer, they chose to do instead.

[rhodie]

41 minutes ago, Lenny Jones said:

Stat. Decs. are out.  Immigration FINALLY learned to trust their own Thai banks.  All you need now is a signed statement from your local bank manager showing you get 65,000 baht/month for the last year if you are getting an extension.

Incorrect. Some offices will not accept this unless you are from the UK, US, AUS and DEN.

[Matzzon]

On 7/8/2019 at 3:46 PM, marcusarelus said:

The secondary proof they wanted was a Thai bank statement for 12 months. 

Yes, or if they show leniency at least 7 month back in time.

[soalbundy]

On 7/8/2019 at 2:39 PM, jacko45k said:

UK, Oz and USA no longer issue Embassy letters and any old one will be beyond 6 months old and not accepted.

Which nationality are you?

I believe letters from other Embassies are still being accepted ALTHOUGH there was rumour of one or two IOs had misinterpreted the situation early this year to say no Embassy letters were being accepted, Phuket may be one I think of. So which IO do you use?

 

When I did my extension in December I showed the Isaan IO my German embassy letter, I offered him my bank book but he didn't want to see it, extension done in 15 minutes.