Jump to content

Bangkok Bank, no need to have 400K for extension of stay


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Kadilo said:

......and  yours is illlegal  whether thousands do it or not. 

So, you are saying that the individual power of discretion does not exist?

If you deny that, then it will not be illegal.

Sorry, but regarding the position I just put you in, you have no option but to deny.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BritTim said:

There are many agents who arrange extensions without financial proof. The extensions, when granted are valid. However, the agent is making a fraudulent application on your behalf using friendly officials. This is all very typical third world corruption through an intermediary, and you need to decide whether to go with it or not.

and you need to decide whether to go with it or not......And IF You have NO Other Choice !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Satcommlee said:

Your agent has an insider in Bangkok Bank that will help him produce the fraudulent paperwork you require to get your fraudulent visa.

My feeling is the same however, this agent openly advertises this in a document which they send out to people at the 1st point of contact. Not saying this makes it legitimate of course.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kadilo said:

......and  yours is illlegal  whether thousands do it or not. 

You are arguing with Darrendsd because you clearly stated a reference to a "bank manager", which is what Darrendsd responded to.

 

So you were implying that somebody in the bank was creating a fraudulent document that was then presented to immigration as proof of funds. This manager most certainly does not have a right to commit fraud. 

 

Darrendsd was pointing out that it's more likely that the agent is persuading somebody in immigration to overlook the lack of funds. The IO authority may have such discretion. 

 

It was not necessary or likely that both were occurring. 

 

Why can't you just admit that you mistated your intent or that your comment was illogical? 

 

Being a jerk about his reply was your second mistake. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a case recently where someone got their extention last year but dipped below the minimum amount within the time period where the money had to stay untouched in the account. When they went to renew this year, they were told their visa was invalid from the day the funds were short. In effect they were on overstay. What I'm getting at is, if someone decides to look back on the applicant's finances then those who never had sufficient funds in the first place might have some answering to do.

 

PS, as I read this again I wonder how they got through their 90 day reporting if the visa was null and void. Anyway, I read the original story on here so don't blame me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, a10ams said:

There was a case recently where someone got their extention last year but dipped below the minimum amount within the time period where the money had to stay untouched in the account. When they went to renew this year, they were told their visa was invalid from the day the funds were short. In effect they were on overstay. What I'm getting at is, if someone decides to look back on the applicant's finances then those who never had sufficient funds in the first place might have some answering to do.

 

PS, as I read this again I wonder how they got through their 90 day reporting if the visa was null and void. Anyway, I read the original story on here so don't blame me.

 

Getting past the morality of participating in the national sport of corruption, those are the real questions. 

 

Is it possible, how much will it cost, what are the potential consequences if I do get caught out, and what are the odds of that happening?

 

I'd contend that hiring a dodgy (or not) agent to expedite your visa is like buying sausage.  I don't really want to know the exact process.  I just want to know if I'll be happy with the end result.  And am I likely to regret eating the sausage.

 

 

Edited by impulse
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RocketDog said:

You are arguing with Darrendsd because you clearly stated a reference to a "bank manager", which is what Darrendsd responded to.

 

So you were implying that somebody in the bank was creating a fraudulent document that was then presented to immigration as proof of funds. This manager most certainly does not have a right to commit fraud. 

 

Darrendsd was pointing out that it's more likely that the agent is persuading somebody in immigration to overlook the lack of funds. The IO authority may have such discretion. 

 

It was not necessary or likely that both were occurring. 

 

Why can't you just admit that you mistated your intent or that your comment was illogical? 

 

Being a jerk about his reply was your second mistake. 

There is no persuading involved - it's actively encouraged by Immigration and you don't need to be a member of Mensa to know why

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While explaining how an agent could have an ‘inside’ line on immigration overlooking financial requirements, none of the discussion so far entertains how any of this could be specifically related to ‘Bangkok Bank’....

 

I have no idea how [the 400k omission could be related to Bangkok Bank] and can only assume its a clumsy ‘translation thing'... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

While explaining how an agent could have an ‘inside’ line on immigration overlooking financial requirements, none of the discussion so far entertains how any of this could be specifically related to ‘Bangkok Bank’....

 

I have no idea how [the 400k omission could be related to Bangkok Bank] and can only assume its a clumsy ‘translation thing'... 

Not just Phuket and not necessarily an agent. I heard it was specific to Bangkok Bank or Kasikorn, the fee is 15K.

I know someone who does it, the stupid thing being he doesn't have to, can't be bothered with doing it himself. This is not new but probably brought to the surface by the amnesty, the more visible the more likely there will be problems in due course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...