Transition 800k Bank to 65k/month – Correct Procedure?

[Chai19]

Would appreciate any reliable experience with this stage of the moronic immigration procedure Visa Exempt > Non Immigrant O (Retirement) > 1^st Retirement Extension > 2^nd Retirement Extension

In particular: Local immigration tell me I must increase my current 400k Bank to 800k again for 3 months before my 2^st Non O Retirement extension (due 28 Sept 2023). That despite the fact that I have transferred over 65k every month since Jan 2022!

Seems they want it both ways for the transition year (to monthly  income method)

Can’t see anything clear in the Immigration rules as usual.

[scubascuba3]

Looks like they are wanting monthly 65k from Sep 23 to Sep 24, 22-23 was done on 800k method so want to see a year of that criteria

[BritTim]

If you have proof of 65k+ transferred into your account from overseas every month since Jan 2022, your Immigration office is being unreasonable. You should only need to show transfers for the 12 months prior to the extension (and possibly 800k in the account for three months after the last extension). Did the official misunderstand, and think the transfers only started in Jan 2023? If this is not a misunderstanding, it is very aggravating for you. You could ask to talk to the boss to try to sort it out.

[norbra]

You must comply with the rules for your existing extension, failure here can void your existing extension.

For your next extension you can  show 12 monthly x 65k international deposits which satisfy financial requirements

[DrJack54]

OP, so seems you are currently using money in bank method.

 

I previously thought that starting 65k transfers 2 months prior to new extension and also maintaining the 800k for those 2 months would be sufficient.

In this attached....I posted that idea.

Ubonjoe had different take on it and I suggest that you read his posts in this thread. 

 

[norbra]

6 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

OP, so seems you are currently using money in bank method.

 

I previously thought that starting 65k transfers 2 months prior to new extension and also maintaining the 800k for those 2 months would be sufficient.

In this attached....I posted that idea.

Ubonjoe had different take on it and I suggest that you read his posts in this thread. 

 

65k for 2 months prior to extension rule was implemented in 2020 to help those affected by Colid travel restrictions. 2021 saw the rule abolished and 12 monthly deposits reinstated.

[DrJack54]

3 minutes ago, norbra said:

65k for 2 months prior to extension rule was implemented in 2020 to help those affected by Colid travel restrictions. 2021 saw the rule abolished and 12 monthly deposits reinstated.

Thought that was for the folk that had been using ME non O one year visa and unable to obtain one due to closed borders and needed to obtain 12 month extension. 

[BritTim]

35 minutes ago, norbra said:

You must comply with the rules for your existing extension, failure here can void your existing extension.

For your next extension you can  show 12 monthly x 65k international deposits which satisfy financial requirements

He has 17 or 18 monthly 65k+ international deposits and counting. I agree that 12 should be enough.

[khunPer]

If changing from 800k baht deposit method to monthly transfers, you'll need 12 month of minimum 65k baht transferred each month.

 

Using 800k baht deposit method, you need 800k baht ion your deposit bank account two month before applying for extension of stay and three month after granted extension of stay. Thereafter the deposit can be lowered to not less than 400k baht, but must be topped up again to 800k baht two month before next application for extension of stay.

 

If the combination method is accepted by your local immigration office, the bank deposit shall be of at least 400k baht, while the remaining amount can be monthly transfers.

[BritTim]

27 minutes ago, khunPer said:

If changing from 800k baht deposit method to monthly transfers, you'll need 12 month of minimum 65k baht transferred each month.

So, what is the explanation for denying an extension with financial proof consisting of 17 months of minimum 65k baht transferred each month? Is my hypothesis that it is a misunderstanding plausible?

[owl sees all]

Only have 600k baht in the bank (for 12 months). Only have 50k baht a month coming in (have records).

 

Can the two be merged to satisfy Imm'?

 

[BritTim]

18 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Only have 600k baht in the bank (for 12 months). Only have 50k baht a month coming in (have records).

 

Can the two be merged to satisfy Imm'?

 

That will depend on your local immigration office but, unfortunately, regardless of what the written rules might seem to imply, most offices will only allow the combination method if income is via embassy letter. Ask your local office.

 

Even if allowed for extensions, you will need to figure3 out how to get the initial Non O visa. Combination can definitely not be used for the visa application.

[hotandsticky]

20 hours ago, BritTim said:

If you have proof of 65k+ transferred into your account from overseas every month since Jan 2022, your Immigration office is being unreasonable. You should only need to show transfers for the 12 months prior to the extension (and possibly 800k in the account for three months after the last extension). Did the official misunderstand, and think the transfers only started in Jan 2023? If this is not a misunderstanding, it is very aggravating for you. You could ask to talk to the boss to try to sort it out.

This is exactly what I did with Jomtien in last month.

 

I complied with the terms of 800k in the bank approval in June 22 (including 800k after 3 months) AND provided bank letter/statements from Kasikorn - plus their standard letter confirming 12 x 65k.

[lopburi3]

Requirement for 800k in bank retirement extension includes account requirements before and until next extension;  the 800k being in account after extension granted and again before next extension and never going below the 400k minimum so any violation of that provision would void extensions of stay.

 

So if you want to change methods it would be logical you would have to abide by original requirements to have a valid visa extension to extend it again.  Otherwise would have to exit country and start the non immigrant O visa process again.

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

Requirement for 800k in bank retirement extension includes account requirements before and until next extension;  the 800k being in account after extension granted and again before next extension and never going below the 400k minimum so any violation of that provision would void extensions of stay.

 

So if you want to change methods it would be logical you would have to abide by original requirements to have a valid visa extension to extend it again.  Otherwise would have to exit country and start the non immigrant O visa process again.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with part of the logic you are assuming. My own interpretation of the rules is that, for the existing extension to remain valid, you need to have been in compliance for the entirety of the following year.

 

To me, it is entirely logical that there should be an insistence of the 800k being kept in the bank for three months after the extension is granted. This requirement is largely to prevent people using short term loans to satisfy the 800k for two months prior to the application. However, it seems totally unreasonable that proof of 65k+ transferred from abroad every month since the last extension not be regarded as satisfying the ongoing requirement. Essentially, that implies that you must have a minimum of 24 months of 65k+ monthly transfers before you can switch to the income method.

 

You probably cannot overcome this even with a new Non O visa as (although initially after income letters were stopped for some nationalities, it was stated that only two to three months of transfers would be required for a first extension) the actual implementation has been different.

[Mike Teavee]

33 minutes ago, BritTim said:

My own interpretation of the rules is that, for the existing extension to remain valid, you need to have been in compliance for the entirety of the following year.

 

To me, it is entirely logical that there should be an insistence of the 800k being kept in the bank for three months after the extension is granted. This requirement is largely to prevent people using short term loans to satisfy the 800k for two months prior to the application. However, it seems totally unreasonable that proof of 65k+ transferred from abroad every month since the last extension not be regarded as satisfying the ongoing requirement. Essentially, that implies that you must have a minimum of 24 months of 65k+ monthly transfers before you can switch to the income method.

Technically the financial terms of an extension based on keeping 800K in the bank are:-

1. 800K in the bank for a minimum of 2 months before extension date
2. 800K in the bank for a minimum of 3 months after extension date
3. 400K in the bank for a minimum of a further 7 months
4. 800K in the bank for a minimum of 2 months before next extension date

Therefore it's not (Technically) unreasonable for the IO to ask for 800K to be in the account 2 months prior to your next extension even if you plan on using the income method for your next extension. 

 

I say "Technically" because those are the rules but you would hope that the IO would use their discretion to forgo point 4 if you can show > 12 months xfers of 65K+  

 

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Mike Teavee said:

Technically the financial terms of an extension based on keeping 800K in the bank are:-

1. 800K in the bank for a minimum of 2 months before extension date
2. 800K in the bank for a minimum of 3 months after extension date
3. 400K in the bank for a minimum of a further 7 months
4. 800K in the bank for a minimum of 2 months before next extension date

Therefore it's not (Technically) unreasonable for the IO to ask for 800K to be in the account 2 months prior to your next extension even if you plan on using the income method for your next extension. 

 

1 hour ago, Mike Teavee said:

 

I say "Technically" because those are the rules but you would hope that the IO would use their discretion to forgo point 4 if you can show > 12 months xfers of 65K+  

 

It is true that the rules can be interpreted that way. However, I do not think that was the intended meaning. Number 4 is really intended as a condition to apply for the next extension. Suppose you leave Thailand 11 months after your last extension, and did not have 800k baht in your account for months 10 and 11. According to the logic that your extension is invalid if condition 4 has not been met, you would be on overstay from three months prior to the expiry of the permission to stay.

 

Further, if you apply for an extension early, the official will also insist that you top up the account to 800k early before accepting your application. That surely confirms that 4 is a condition for the next extension, not the last.

[Mike Teavee]

47 minutes ago, BritTim said:

 

It is true that the rules can be interpreted that way. However, I do not think that was the intended meaning. Number 4 is really intended as a condition to apply for the next extension. Suppose you leave Thailand 11 months after your last extension, and did not have 800k baht in your account for months 10 and 11. According to the logic that your extension is invalid if condition 4 has not been met, you would be on overstay from three months prior to the expiry of the permission to stay.

 

Further, if you apply for an extension early, the official will also insist that you top up the account to 800k early before accepting your application. That surely confirms that 4 is a condition for the next extension, not the last.

I agree that #4 should be a condition of your next extension but in this case it seems the IO is interpreting it to mean that it applies to the current extension & you can see how somebody could argue that is the case.  

 

As an aside, I don't believe if you fail to put the 800K in the bank 2 months before extending (or fail to keep 400K in the bank for the 7 months in between) would result in you being on an overstay, at worse I think they would cancel your extension & give you 7 days to leave the country. I've never heard of this happening, guys who have dipped below the 400K just report that they weren't able to get a new extension (Which adds to the argument that the 400K / 800K is more about your next extension than your current one).

 

 

 

 

Re: the last part about the 800K in the bank prior to getting your new extension, is it the case that you have to top your account up  2 months before applying (e.g. Mine is due Sept 26th, If I wanted to extend August 26th I would have to top-up by June 26th) or is it 2 months before it expires (e.g. July 26th in my case) - I've never thought about it before as I leave the 800K untouched all year round but had always assumed it needed to be there 2 months before the current extension expires irrespective of how early you did you extension. 

 

 

 

[BritTim]

5 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

As an aside, I don't believe if you fail to put the 800K in the bank 2 months before extending (or fail to keep 400K in the bank for the 7 months in between) would result in you being on an overstay, at worse I think they would cancel your extension & give you 7 days to leave the country. I've never heard of this happening, guys who have dipped below the 400K just report that they weren't able to get a new extension (Which adds to the argument that the 400K / 800K is more about your next extension than your current one).

Absolutely, it has never happened (as far as I am aware) that an extension was automatically cancelled when you failed to have the requisite funds in the bank during the duration of your permission to stay from your previous extension. The fact is that Immigration themselves are confused about what the conditions really mean. Apparently, the rules do not determine whether you are in compliance with the rules for your current extension. My argument would be that, when applying for your next extension

• for money in the bank, you must have satisfied the conditions 1-4; but
• to qualify based on income, your must have 12 monthly transfers of 65k+.

I think it is totally absurd to say you do not need to comply with the rules during the term of your last extension, but cannot use income proof for your next extension unless you have met the optional compliance for money in the bank for your last extension.

[khunPer]

On 6/17/2023 at 7:23 AM, BritTim said:

So, what is the explanation for denying an extension with financial proof consisting of 17 months of minimum 65k baht transferred each month? Is my hypothesis that it is a misunderstanding plausible?

Yes, might well be.

[Chai19]

As the Op I aimed to see if there was any real clarity about this transition. Secondly I thought it may be helpful to others.

Thank you for all the replies, notably Dr Jack and his UbonJoe reference, and BritTim. Others too for showing what the “rules” mean (or don’t) if you have a few active brain cells, some decent education and apply some logic.

I submit the following which covers all the bases – allowing for WORST CASE Immigration offices/officers.

Procedure for arriving Visa Exempt and migrating to Non Immigrant O Retirement Visa then to Extensions eventually based on monthly “income” transfers to Thailand.

(Note: Indicative dates used for example. Actual dates of Immigration stamps need to be substituted and subsequent dates adjusted.)

1/1/22 Arrive Via Exempt

Within the first week (Say 7/1/22) …

Deposit 800k in a Thai Bank

Apply for a Non O Retirement Visa

Get the list of requirements for Non O Retirement Extensions at your Immigration office.

Keep the 800k in a Thai Bank

31/1/22 Receive Non O Retirement Visa (for 90 days to say 30/4/22)

1/2/22 to 30/4/22 Keep 800k in Thai Bank

1/4/22 Apply for 1^st Non O Retirement Extension (800k method)

1/4/22 Begin monthly “income”/transfers to the Thai Bank and continue every month.

30/4/22 Receive 1^st Non O Retirement Extension (1 year to say 30/4/23)

1/5/22 to 31/7/22 Keep 800k in Thai Bank then reduce to 400k

1/2/23 Increase 400k to 800k in the Thai Bank

1/4/23 Apply for 2^nd Non O Retirement Extension (Monthly “income”/transfers method)

30/4/23 Receive 2^nd Non O Retirement Extension (1 year to say 30/4/24)

1/5/23 Reclaim your 800k from the Thai bank if you wish.

1/5/23 Continue monthly “income”/transfers to the Thai Bank every month thereafter

 ---------------

In summary

800k deposit 7/1/22 to 31/7/22  (6 months)

400k deposit 31/7/22 to 1/2/23  (6 months)

800k deposit 1/2/23 to 1/5/23 (3 months)

AND 65k minimum monthly transfers 1/4/22 to 1/4/23 (12 months)

Procedure complete. Now continue 65k transfers every month.

---------------

After more than 20 years here (interrupted by a 2 year Covid exile) discovering all this has still been a pain!

To the many who claim Immigration rules are easy, I say pffffft!

To anyone who follows exchange rates during the captive 800k / 400k for 15 months it is like Lotto. At one point in my process I was down over 100k baht v’s my preferred currency deposits elsewhere. So it is impossible to say what these Thai visas really cost - especially if the THB weakens.

[fgmr]

On 6/18/2023 at 3:09 AM, lopburi3 said:

Requirement for 800k in bank retirement extension includes account requirements before and until next extension;  the 800k being in account after extension granted and again before next extension and never going below the 400k minimum so any violation of that provision would void extensions of stay.

 

So if you want to change methods it would be logical you would have to abide by original requirements to have a valid visa extension to extend it again.  Otherwise would have to exit country and start the non immigrant O visa process again.

How does the initial application for a O visa work regarding 800k deposit in bank. Given that one has only just entered the country on a 30 day  Exempt?

[lopburi3]

5 minutes ago, fgmr said:

How does the initial application for a O visa work regarding 800k deposit in bank. Given that one has only just entered the country on a 30 day  Exempt?

Just need in account when ask for the conversion to a 90 day O visa entry - you then extend during that 90 day stay.

[DrJack54]

9 minutes ago, fgmr said:

How does the initial application for a O visa work regarding 800k deposit in bank. Given that one has only just entered the country on a 30 day  Exempt?

Application for a non O retirement in Thailand requires the 800k in the Thai bank account on day of application.

That provides 90 day stamp.

That gives time to season (2 months) the funds for subsequent 12 month extension. 

[fgmr]

18 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Application for a non O retirement in Thailand requires the 800k in the Thai bank account on day of application.

That provides 90 day stamp.

That gives time to season (2 months) the funds for subsequent 12 month extension. 

Thanks Dr. J. I guess you have taken over the late Ubon Joe's Desk!

[BritTim]

29 minutes ago, fgmr said:

How does the initial application for a O visa work regarding 800k deposit in bank. Given that one has only just entered the country on a 30 day  Exempt?

Generally, Immigration wants to see proof that the 800k baht came from abroad (though most immigration offices will waive that proof if the money has been in the account for a few months). For the first extension, the money must have been in the bank at least two months. Income proof rules for the first extension are supposed to allow only two or three monthly extensions, but many (most?) offices are insisting on income letter from your embassy or money in the bank for a first extension.

[foreverlomsak]

On 6/16/2023 at 4:21 PM, Chai19 said:

Seems they want it both ways for the transition year (to monthly  income method)

Can’t see anything clear in the Immigration rules as usual.

My interpretation of the rules would be

1. They will want to know that you have complied with the financial requirements (that you agreed to) to obtain the existing extension, i.e.  800K for 3 months after, then 400k until required to increase to 800K 2 months before. Failure in this could mean that your existing extension requirements has not been met and your permission to stay could be cancelled, same as if you reduced below the 400K.

2. Now they will want to know what financial arrangements you are proposing for the new extension, i.e. 12 months of 65K deposits in the last year as proof of continuing income, this will be validated against your next application to make sure you complied.

 

Yes, it doubles up for the one year, but legally you are signing up to comply with something in the future, and they need to ensure you have actually complied.

[BritTim]

40 minutes ago, foreverlomsak said:

My interpretation of the rules would be

1. They will want to know that you have complied with the financial requirements (that you agreed to) to obtain the existing extension, i.e.  800K for 3 months after, then 400k until required to increase to 800K 2 months before. Failure in this could mean that your existing extension requirements has not been met and your permission to stay could be cancelled, same as if you reduced below the 400K.

2. Now they will want to know what financial arrangements you are proposing for the new extension, i.e. 12 months of 65K deposits in the last year as proof of continuing income, this will be validated against your next application to make sure you complied.

 

Yes, it doubles up for the one year, but legally you are signing up to comply with something in the future, and they need to ensure you have actually complied.

The problem with this interpretation (as I posted above) is that the rules about maintaining a balance in the bank are clearly not controlling whether your current extension is valid. You will not be considered as overstaying if the money in the bank falls below the prescribed levels. The top up to 800k is required for two months prior to the next application for a further extension and, if you apply early, you must top up your account balance early. It is clear that maintaining the appropriate balances is a condition for receiving your next extension based on money in the bank, and an alternative of income proof (whether by a letter from your embassy or 12+ monthly deposits of 65k+) should be an acceptable alternative.

[DrJack54]

This exact question has been asked previously several times times ending with vague outcomes.

Thinking this is one where you need to consult with your immigration office.

That can be more difficult for some.

 

I'm in exactly same boat as OP.

For years annual extensions based on retirement leaving 800k all year round.

At some point I would like to move to income method.

Reason is simple. To avoid having funds in Thai bank that my partner (not married) cannot access easily even with Will.

 

I always posted that to "change" maintain the funds in bank up till date of next extension.

Start 65k transfers 2 months prior to application.

I'm Oz so cannot provide embassy letter.

 

In those previous threads ubonjoe advised that I would need to show 12 months of transfers.

And that guy would be right.

However still thinking advice from the immigration office you deal with gives clear answer. 

 

[fgmr]

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

Generally, Immigration wants to see proof that the 800k baht came from abroad (though most immigration offices will waive that proof if the money has been in the account for a few months). For the first extension, the money must have been in the bank at least two months. Income proof rules for the first extension are supposed to allow only two or three monthly extensions, but many (most?) offices are insisting on income letter from your embassy or money in the bank for a first extension.

As I understand it,the UK Embassy has for many years stopped issuing affirmation of income letters.