Retirement Ext: New rule for 800K/400K proof?

[tonray]

1 minute ago, Old Croc said:

I guess having to report your bank balance after 3 months is no big problem for many, but if you live hundreds of kms from your IO it can be very inconvenient and annoying.

 

Even if you live nearby...means maybe 100 Baht for bank statement since I don't update my book regularly and another 300 baht taxi fare...along with wasted 2 hours of my time back and forth. Pain in the #$%%%

[Tanoshi]

35 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes. We know that not everyone has been given the required demand paper. Its a bit of a mystery as to why. An error on their part?

 

You gotta love their consistent inconsistencies.

[Robin]

Just seen this thread.  Last week dDid my TM30 with wife, after return from UK and ASQ,.  Here on Retirement visa.  Phayao I/O gave me standard 90 slip in passport, with no mention of Bank account or proof of funds.

Have to see what happens when I do the 90 day. 

[Tanoshi]

3 minutes ago, Robin said:

^{Just seen this thread.  Last week dDid my TM30 with wife, after return from UK and ASQ,.  Here on Retirement visa.  Phayao I/O gave me standard 90 slip in passport, with no mention of Bank account or proof of funds.}

^{Have to see what happens when I do the 90 day.} 

No longer a requirement to file a new TM30 when returning from an overseas trip and returning to the same address as already registered with your IO.

A retirement Visa you certainly don't have (non existent). It appears you have a permit to stay for 1 year based on retirement and you had a re-entry permit to re-enter.

 

If using the 800K funds in the bank to obtain your annual extensions, not all IO's are requesting to provide proof of funds after obtaining the extension, just a minority.

[Baerboxer]

17 hours ago, Stevemercer said:

 

My guess is we will see more IOs requiring proof of funds at the 60 day and 90 day points.

 

Most IOs do the check retrospectively (e'g. when you apply for the next years extension) but this could be problematic if a person is found to be retrospectively non-compliant. What will the IO do? Refuse an extension and give the person 7 days to leave?

 

Presumably the person is non-compliant from the date their balance slipped below the required amount, but was only picked up when the IO did the retrospective check? Legally, it would be difficult to apply a penalty retrospectively? And maybe the IO could be seen as being at fault since they let the person go into non-compliance at the time by not checking in a more timely way?

 

Whatever ,it could be a difficult situation for all concerned.

 

I believe you are wrong. Keeping the required 800k and then 400k minimum is both a condition of your permission to extend your stay and your responsibility to adhere to. Those offices checking after 3 months are being diligent. Other offices prefer not to check but usually remind recipients that it will be checked when applying for the next extension.

 

The wording is such that if you don't maintain the balances then the extension is cancelled. You are therefore here without a valid visa extension and are effectively on overstay. The onus would be on you to leave within the permitted 7 days, or go to Immigration and try and find an alternative way.

 

There is no requirement on the IO's to police this as you suggest. Otherwise you would need to visit monthly to prove the 400k was there. The requirement is simple enough; as are the remedies should someone not satisfy them.

 

I wouldn't recommend anyone relying on arguing that Immigration hadn't checked as a point of law! Or even thinking Thai Law is the same as "back home". 

 

Last year I remember the officer who processed my application and the superior who signed off both nicely explaining this requirement and making sure recipients were fully aware. 

[Baerboxer]

39 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

No longer a requirement to file a new TM30 when returning from an overseas trip and returning to the same address as already registered with your IO.

A retirement Visa you certainly don't have (non existent). It appears you have a permit to stay for 1 year based on retirement and you had a re-entry permit to re-enter.

 

If using the 800K funds in the bank to obtain your annual extensions, not all IO's are requesting to provide proof of funds after obtaining the extension, just a minority.

 

Agree that offices approach things differently. Mine want to see the balance is maintained after 3 months, copy of passport, relevant extension stamp, and bank book taken. 

 

Those that don't, ? majority, will however no doubt check the appropriate balances have been maintained at the next extension application. It is also worth remembering that not maintaining the required funds for the required durations cancels the extension granted. 

 

 

[Jingthing]

25 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I believe you are wrong. Keeping the required 800k and then 400k minimum is both a condition of your permission to extend your stay and your responsibility to adhere to. Those offices checking after 3 months are being diligent. Other offices prefer not to check but usually remind recipients that it will be checked when applying for the next extension.

 

The wording is such that if you don't maintain the balances then the extension is cancelled. You are therefore here without a valid visa extension and are effectively on overstay. The onus would be on you to leave within the permitted 7 days, or go to Immigration and try and find an alternative way.

 

There is no requirement on the IO's to police this as you suggest. Otherwise you would need to visit monthly to prove the 400k was there. The requirement is simple enough; as are the remedies should someone not satisfy them.

 

I wouldn't recommend anyone relying on arguing that Immigration hadn't checked as a point of law! Or even thinking Thai Law is the same as "back home". 

 

Last year I remember the officer who processed my application and the superior who signed off both nicely explaining this requirement and making sure recipients were fully aware. 

You bring up an interesting issue.

Supposing you fail to report for a required bank check and then show up later for your next extension showing non compliance. Or the same but no required three month bank check. 

 

It is my understanding that we've had some cases of that and I think the consequences are only rejection of the next extension application. 

 

In other words in practice non compliance isn't canceling the current extension. 

 

That said its my impression that we have no reports of someone showing up for a three month bank check in non compliance. Why would they show up? I do think if you do show up for a three month bank check in that case they would boot you out. But unless someone is crazy enough to report like that we can't know.

 

Hopefully Ubonjoe can confirm or deny my assumptions. 

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You bring up an interesting issue.

Supposing you fail to report for a required bank check and then show up later for your next extension showing non compliance. Or the same but no required three month bank check. 

 

It is my understanding that we've had some cases of that and I think the consequences are only rejection of the next extension application. 

 

In other words in practice non compliance isn't canceling the current extension. 

 

That said its my impression that we have no reports of someone showing up for a three month bank check in non compliance. Why would they show up?

 

Hopefully Ubonjoe can confirm or deny my assumptions. 

 

Will be very interesting to read Ubonjoe's opinions on this.

 

From memory, and mine's not brilliant these days!, the cases I've read about, were as you comment. They didn't maintain the 400k, usually by some simple mistake rather than intention, and had problems when trying to obtain a new extension.

 

But I'm sure I read somewhere in the blurb that an extension based on retirement is conditional on the 800/400k balances being maintained. If you dip below it's no longer valid.

 

I guess anyone who intentionally / knowingly went below the 800k for the 3 months wouldn't show up - but ought to be planning to leaving, should the worst happen. I got the feeling that the 3 month check was a look at the bank book statement balance and that the copies were filed 'somewhere" rather than a system update. So maybe no one would notice in practice until the next application. 

 

My assumption, right or wrong, is that they could say the extension was cancelled, if they wanted to for some reason. A bit like cancelling your marriage extension if you divorce. I don't like leaving these things to chance - it's bad enough with each officer have their own interpretations!

[Tanoshi]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

It is also worth remembering that not maintaining the required funds for the required durations cancels the extension granted.

Does it!

In that case you'd automatically be on a 1 year overstay.

[david555]

53 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Does it!

In that case you'd automatically be on a 1 year overstay.

And what if you plan to end the existing ret ext . at his end date .......you can not take your  money out of bank ?...., and if so allowed ...when ?

 

I know not a very common practice , leaving Th..., as it  seems you all stay up to death  here in Thailand (excuses to be sarcastic ) .... but anyway for some a  fact ?

 

And for those who use agent  also not a worry ...as they even have that money on bank ...

[Tanoshi]

15 minutes ago, david555 said:

And what if you plan to end the existing ret ext . at his end date .......you can not take your  money out of bank ?...., and if so allowed ...when ?

I know of a couple who had no intention of renewing their extensions, rather planning to relocate, but due to the Covid currently enable to.

They ran their funds down using them for living expenses. Since their 1 year extensions expired they've been getting Covid extensions. They simply explained they intended to leave and not renew their 1 year extensions.

[david555]

30 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

I know of a couple who had no intention of renewing their extensions, rather planning to relocate, but due to the Covid currently enable to.

They ran their funds down using them for living expenses. Since their 1 year extensions expired they've been getting Covid extensions. They simply explained they intended to leave and not renew their 1 year extensions.

That is reasonable ..., but my case is i shall not be running down of money , i am just leaving as planned , only  immigration could see it 2 ways ....

 

first way   if only taking out after 3 months 90 days the allowed for 7 month's , and just not filling up at the 2 months prior because not renewing ext ...... no hassle if immigration just accept i am a leaver ....

 

Second way .... they could see not filling up as a breach of the running ext. ....?????

 

Solution  if keep the needed remaining sum 400K  just complete up to 59 days before final end date   , should be also 100% legally for it ...then transfer it and leave ....

(but i go just be a naughty boy for the last 1 & 3/4 month's ????????

 

It all depends how Immigration would see it ..., i think even they never considered or thought  of that possibility .... as not frequent 

 

 

[DrJack54]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Those offices checking after 3 months are being diligent.

Nothing of the sort. As posted many times this return after 3 months to show funds nonsense  is done by a handful of rogue immigration offices. There are ~ 80 offices in Thailand. 

[Tanoshi]

13 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

There are ~ 80 offices in Thailand. 

Aah, but can you name them Jack  

[DrJack54]

15 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Aah, but can you name them Jack  

Not sure that it's this thread, however I have asked folk to add to the list if their office follows this practice. Someone added Rayong to the list. Wasn't aware of that io.

It's only a guess but I'm thinking less than 10.

Could be completely wrong.

[Tanoshi]

2 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Not sure that it's this thread, however I have asked folk to add to the list if their office follows this practice. Someone added Rayong to the list. Wasn't aware of that io.

It's only a guess but I'm thinking less than 10.

Could be completely wrong.

No Jack, I meant the  ~ 80 offices in Thailand. 

 

On second thoughts ..... 

[ubonjoe]

1 minute ago, Tanoshi said:

No Jack, I meant the  ~ 80 offices in Thailand. 

One for each province plus some more where there is more than one office in a province.

[Tanoshi]

10 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

One for each province plus some more where there is more than one office in a province.

Yep, it was personal joke for Jack, but he didn't bite!

 

Interestingly enough Google maps lists 62 offices, but certain Provinces have additional sub office as you state. Thailand has 73 Provinces though.

[NE1]

I thought there were 76.

[Tanoshi]

1 hour ago, NE1 said:

I thought there were 76.

Yeah, 76 according to Wiki.

 

Only 62 Immigration offices on the Google maps, which to my knowledge is actually posted by Thai Visa.

www.thaivisa.com/forum
Map of Thai immigration offices, created with the help of information provided by

Thailand Immigration Offices - Google My Maps

 

I note Kalasin and Yasothon offices don't appear on the map.

[ThaidDown]

2 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Not sure that it's this thread, however I have asked folk to add to the list if their office follows this practice. Someone added Rayong to the list. Wasn't aware of that io.

It's only a guess but I'm thinking less than 10.

Could be completely wrong.

Do you know where this list is?

As for Rayong (Maptaput) I have NOT been asked to show funds 90 days after retirement extension has been granted.

 

 

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Only 62 Immigration offices on the Google maps, which to my knowledge is actually posted by Thai Visa.

That is out of date.

There is a immigration office in all provinces now as far as I know. Immigration put a lot of effort into having one in every province the last few years.

There are 5 provinces that have 2 immigration offices and Bangkok has 5 or 6 offices (that includes the migrant workers offices and the one stop center).

[Tanoshi]

3 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That is out of date.

There is a immigration office in all provinces now as far as I know. Immigration put a lot of effort into having one in every province the last few years.

There are 5 provinces that have 2 immigration offices and Bangkok has 5 or 6 offices (that includes the migrant workers offices and the one stop center).

Didn't one of Thai Visa admin used to update that map.

I can recall admin asking me for the grid references for Roi ET when that opened.

[ubonjoe]

Just now, Tanoshi said:

Didn't one of Thai Visa admin used to update that map.

Maestro was keeping it up to date.

[Tanoshi]

@Maestro

All is forgiven, you can continue to update the IO locations.

 

Also note shortly:  Roi Et Immigration - moving. - Isaan Forum - Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa      ????

[DrJack54]

22 minutes ago, ThaidDown said:

Do you know where this list is?

As for Rayong (Maptaput) I have NOT been asked to show funds 90 days after retirement extension has been granted.

 

 

I don't know if anyone has made a list. I just thought it might be interesting to know the total number. Some folk even think it's part of the police order because Jomtien stuck some bogus stamp on order. 

Re Rayong ..... That comment was made by @OJAS earlier in this thread.

Regarding "not being asked.....". There was a thread last year (think pre covid)  where several guys that deal with Jomtien were stating that they had to asked the io for their "return date slip" 

[david555]

15 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

I don't know if anyone has made a list. I just thought it might be interesting to know the total number. Some folk even think it's part of the police order because Jomtien stuck some bogus stamp on order. 

Re Rayong ..... That comment was made by @OJAS earlier in this thread.

Regarding "not being asked.....". There was a thread last year (think pre covid)  where several guys that deal with Jomtien were stating that they had to asked the io for their "return date slip" 

Hereby my Jomtien slip i received whiteout asking last ret. ext. .... i do not see any bogus stamp on it , and when bring  this proof of funds 90 day , i must sign this slip.

 

 remark : they adjusted now the date  by putting  "after" , as making clear in case of absence by travelling , you may come after returning to bring proof 

 

PS  as they may ask additional doc.   .... not much chance to make opposition on it , i have no problem with this as it is for me same as "a walk to the beach" as  living close ... ,

but would not like it  extended to the year round control ...

 

[DrJack54]

11 minutes ago, david555 said:

Hereby my Jomtien slip i received whiteout asking last ret. ext. .... i do not see any bogus stamp on it , and when bring  this proof of funds 90 day , i must sign this slip.

I should not have used the term "bogus stamp". My error.

What I meant was that that whole form is bogus. Just some rubbish that Jomtien concocted.

BTW your living close to immigration is good news for you. For many it's a far more onerous task.

[david555]

14 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

I should not have used the term "bogus stamp". My error.

What I meant was that that whole form is bogus. Just some rubbish that Jomtien concocted

 

14 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

I should not have used the term "bogus stamp". My error.

What I meant was that that whole form is bogus. Just some rubbish that Jomtien concocted

 as they may ask additional doc.   .... not much chance to make opposition on it....

 

Just showing Jomtien way ,....i have no problem with the word bogus ???? ...,

never had any problem to jump thru their hoops .....    some can not (or will not ).... same as i remember my army time some could not jump 50 cm high obstacle or climb the wall with rope ...????

[Seeall]

1 hour ago, david555 said:

Hereby my Jomtien slip i received whiteout asking last ret. ext. .... i do not see any bogus stamp on it , and when bring  this proof of funds 90 day , i must sign this slip.

 

 remark : they adjusted now the date  by putting  "after" , as making clear in case of absence by travelling , you may come after returning to bring proof 

 

PS  as they may ask additional doc.   .... not much chance to make opposition on it , i have no problem with this as it is for me same as "a walk to the beach" as  living close ... ,

but would not like it  extended to the year round control ...

 

Does anyone have the original in thai?  yes I am being lazy, thanks all..