Warning! New Retirement Visa Rules - Hope This Is Of Interest.

[JetsetBkk]

I am still not at all convinced that just seeing the transfer codes in your bank book won't be adequate for most applicants

I just checked my bank account "pass books". The old book used a code that identified the transfers as from abroad. My new book does not - it uses the code "CRT" which probably means "credit".

So maybe there has been a subtle change in the codes that has triggered this new request from immigration.

Does anyone else's book identify a recent transfer as from abroad?

[Jingthing]

This is getting out of hand.

Nobody, repeat, nobody has reported a requirement to transfer a fresh 800K EVERY year!

This new enforcement is clearly aimed at proving the source of the transfers.

I think it's a valid question, but I hope you're right. See the post before my previous one, by "lotus eater" - post no. 57 - where he writes about a "fresh 800,000".

It depends how the immigration officer interprets the new requirement, which I don't believe anyone has seen written down.

I think it is pure fantasy and speculation and doesn't really belong. Because the rules are in writing about the 800K being in the account, and the 800K being in the account 3 months prior, and being illegal to work in Thailand on that visa. So the proof of source of transfer is clearly related to stopping illegal workers. Which is really nothing new! Only a new way of enforcement. Again, there is no word whatsoever that there is a major new rule in force requiring a fresh 800K transferred in annually. This is how rumors are started. The reality is annoying enough without imagining new rulings that don't currently exist.

Also, this speculation isn't even logical. The people qualifying on pensions are not required to transfer in their entire pension or spend their entire pension or an 800K mininum.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Jingthing

[JetsetBkk]

I think it is pure fantasy and speculation and doesn't really belong. Because the rules are in writing about the 800K being in the account, and the 800K being in the account 3 months prior, and being illegal to work in Thailand on that visa. So the proof of source of transfer is clearly related to stopping illegal workers. <snip>

OK, fair enough, but if I was about to transfer, say, 700,000 for my "3 months in advance 800,000 bank balance", I might just add another 100,000 to be "safe rather than sorry". But, as you say, there's absolutely no word about any change in this area, so I'm sorry if I made anyone nervous.

[lopburi3]

I am still not at all convinced that just seeing the transfer codes in your bank book won't be adequate for most applicants

I just checked my bank account "pass books". The old book used a code that identified the transfers as from abroad. My new book does not - it uses the code "CRT" which probably means "credit".

So maybe there has been a subtle change in the codes that has triggered this new request from immigration.

Does anyone else's book identify a recent transfer as from abroad?

As of July Bangkok Bank still uses "FTT" Foreign Telex Transfer; but that code is no longer listed in there passbooks so have been expecting it to disappear for the last several years.

[RichardEllis]

This is getting out of hand.

Nobody, repeat, nobody has reported a requirement to transfer a fresh 800K EVERY year!

This new enforcement is clearly aimed at proving the source of the transfers.

Correct, in fact all the conversations have been on the basis of having to prove the original 800k came from overseas, even if that means getting the bank to certificate a transaction some years prior.

I have kept 800k in the bank for 3 years, without any transactions to speak of, all of my lliving is done from another account (which I also showed th em). In fact, the officer at Suan Phlu told me to keep the certificate because I would need it next year, which strongly suggests that keeping the dosh in an untouched account is fine with them.

Rich

[RichardEllis]

I think it is pure fantasy and speculation and doesn't really belong. Because the rules are in writing about the 800K being in the account, and the 800K being in the account 3 months prior, and being illegal to work in Thailand on that visa. So the proof of source of transfer is clearly related to stopping illegal workers. <snip>

OK, fair enough, but if I was about to transfer, say, 700,000 for my "3 months in advance 800,000 bank balance", I might just add another 100,000 to be "safe rather than sorry". But, as you say, there's absolutely no word about any change in this area, so I'm sorry if I made anyone nervous.

My understanding is (I thnk) the same as Jings. I believe they don't care if you spend it or not, only that it must have been here for at least 3 months when you apply, and that you can prove that it ALL came from outside of Thailand. In the case you describe, you would need 2 certificates, one for the original (of which there is 700k left) and another one for the top-up 100k, which must have been done at least 3 months prior.

Rich

[RichardEllis]

I am still not at all convinced that just seeing the transfer codes in your bank book won't be adequate for most applicants

I just checked my bank account "pass books". The old book used a code that identified the transfers as from abroad. My new book does not - it uses the code "CRT" which probably means "credit".

So maybe there has been a subtle change in the codes that has triggered this new request from immigration.

Does anyone else's book identify a recent transfer as from abroad?

As of July Bangkok Bank still uses "FTT" Foreign Telex Transfer; but that code is no longer listed in there passbooks so have been expecting it to disappear for the last several years.

To be honest, I dont think the codes will satisfy Immigration. The codes were visible in my original bank book as well, but they insisted on the official form, which required me going home to collect. They even showed me an example of the form they wanted. It would be interesting to see if anyone else has been accepted only on bank book codes, I suspect that the immigration people won't want to work it out with any actual thought - not the Thai way.

Rich

[Kaojai]

It seems like for me at least they have implicitly added a "foreign-sourced income requirement" to the "800K deposit from abroad" requirement.

I did mention in another thread that I had a friend who had had over 1 million baht in an account for some time and his application for a one year extension was denied. They wanted to see proof that during the past year B800,000 had been brought into the country from a foreign source and that the total balance had been above B 800,000 for at least the previous 3 months.

My comments were dismissed by Lopburi.

They, or at least some of them, want to see that funds have been brought into the country during the course of the year. Sitting on a pile of cash of uncertain origin is not satisfactory.

I realize that this concept may not be uniformly applied in all Immigrations offices on all days by all officers, but it does seem that the spirit of the rules, even if they are not explicitly stated in English, is that you need to show you are bringing money into the country either via the statement concerning pensions income or through evidence that you have been bringing foreign currency into your bank account.

[lopburi3]

Actually what you said was:

An acquaintance, not someone I would necessarily put absolute faith in for getting things right, told me:

(-a-) a friend had over one million in his account, but since there was no evidence that he had brought fresh funds into the country during the year, his application was refused,

(-b-) when my acquaintance went to Bangkok Bank to get the manager's letter verifying that foreign deposits had been made to his account, he was told that Immigrations had Internet access to expats' bank accounts to verify information.

And I agreed that your acquaintance probably got it wrong.

Have not heard of anyone being denied on basis of money movements (or lack of them). In fact may people use fixed deposit accounts. Only if they had other information (local income) and used this as an excuse would I give it much rating. For old marriage support I would rate the possibility much higher.

[Kaojai]

As a previous poster noted, I believe the government doesnt want foreigners here if their actual actoions (reather than their rhetoric) are anything to go by. A pity really but I believe they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which can only reinforce the international image of incompetence that exists after their many recent blunders.

Rich

I don't find this to be the case at all.

They want to make sure the foreigners here are actually adding to the economy via income transfers. Certainly you didn't think Thailand simply loved having farangs for decoration.

The blame for greater stringency lies with all the farang who have blatantly taken advantage of less rigorous enforcement of the rules. I still find the application of the rules consistent with the stated expectation that you either show evidence of pension income or that you have brought in the required amount during the year. Evidence that you have been drawing down the money for normal living expenses also seems totally logical. Getting a letter from the manager of your Thai bank is also nothing new.

I think they want to get rid of farang who are not contributing to the economy. It may be an unfortunate consequence that some people who are legitmately living on foreign source income are finding it more difficult to verify that, but then the hassle would be less if they just deposited the money into a Thai bank account durign the year. If that's inconvenient, too bad.

At least during the past year it's been an advantage for me since most of the baht I have in my account were bought at better exchange rates than if I were bringing it in on an as-needed-basis.

It seems that a lot of discussions on ThaiVisa are less to do with complying with rules than how to get around them. It's their ball, play by their rules.

[Penkoprod]

Correct, in fact all the conversations have been on the basis of having to prove the original 800k came from overseas, even if that means getting the bank to certificate a transaction some years prior.

I have kept 800k in the bank for 3 years, without any transactions to speak of, all of my lliving is done from another account (which I also showed th em). In fact, the officer at Suan Phlu told me to keep the certificate because I would need it next year, which strongly suggests that keeping the dosh in an untouched account is fine with them.

Rich

But, isnt this method a bit like building a palace on shifting sands though?

While your expenditure from your other account was sufficiant to satisfy Immigration this time, it could be a different story next time............no?

Seems to me that you are leaving yourself to the opinion/mood of an officer as to what you can, and cannot live on per month/year

Penkoprod

[Krub]

As a previous poster noted, I believe the government doesnt want foreigners here if their actual actoions (reather than their rhetoric) are anything to go by. A pity really but I believe they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which can only reinforce the international image of incompetence that exists after their many recent blunders.

Rich

I don't find this to be the case at all.

They want to make sure the foreigners here are actually adding to the economy via income transfers. Certainly you didn't think Thailand simply loved having farangs for decoration.

The blame for greater stringency lies with all the farang who have blatantly taken advantage of less rigorous enforcement of the rules. I still find the application of the rules consistent with the stated expectation that you either show evidence of pension income or that you have brought in the required amount during the year. Evidence that you have been drawing down the money for normal living expenses also seems totally logical. Getting a letter from the manager of your Thai bank is also nothing new.

I think they want to get rid of farang who are not contributing to the economy. It may be an unfortunate consequence that some people who are legitmately living on foreign source income are finding it more difficult to verify that, but then the hassle would be less if they just deposited the money into a Thai bank account durign the year. If that's inconvenient, too bad.

At least during the past year it's been an advantage for me since most of the baht I have in my account were bought at better exchange rates than if I were bringing it in on an as-needed-basis.

It seems that a lot of discussions on ThaiVisa are less to do with complying with rules than how to get around them. It's their ball, play by their rules.

I tend to agree, we have to suffer stricter rules because of the samrt guys using loopholes

[Maestro]

...Because the rules are in writing about the 800K being in the account, and the 800K being in the account 3 months prior, and being illegal to work in Thailand on that visa...

Not to question or criticise what Jingthing wrote, but merely for the sake of precision: regardless of the type of visa on which one enters or the type of extension of stay one has, it is illegal to work without a work permit. There have been posts about the labour department occasionally issuing a work permit to a person on an extension for retirement, and Sunbelt recently posted that the labour department stopped doing this.

--

Maestro

[Jingthing]

Well noted, Mr M.

BTW, I don't think it is spirit of the law in any way that retirees are required to bring in and/or spend the full 800K every year. The spirit of the rules is clearly to allow only retirees who can prove they have the financial means to take care of themselves and not be a burden on Thailand. And that they are not working or doing business in Thailand (without a work permit). Surely, if a retiree has 800K in a Thai bank and doesn't spend very much, he is still a benefit to that Thai bank, an easy source of money to lend. It would also get really absurd for those who do spend less. If you had to bring in a freah 800K every year and you spent only 400K, in 10 years, you would perhaps have over 4 million sitting there idle, and you would have to a crazy to do that. Also, those of us who own condos or "own" houses don't have rent to pay, so we tend to spend less. Alternatively, if you spent it down all the way every year, you wouldn't have a ready local pile of baht to deal with emergencies, which is a nice thing to have.

That all said, if immigration actually did change the rule and require all retirees to transfer in at least 800K fresh per year and spend at least that much (bank accounters or pensioners) that would be a massive change and it is easy to predict a huge percentage of people would be leaving Thailand. I personally don't want any government micro-managing my spending. Such a radical rule change would clearly be the final tipping point for many.

They can of course change the rules at any time. And they can change the rules in quirky, sudden, and irrational ways based on past behavior. After my experiences here, I would not recommend retirement in Thailand to a friend unless they were a dollar mulit-millionaire. And most of those types would retire somewhere else anyway because they have the funds to retire anywhere in the world.

Edited August 4, 2007 by Jingthing

[retiree]

The blame for greater stringency lies with all the farang who have blatantly taken advantage of less rigorous enforcement of the rules.

[snip]

It's their ball, play by their rules.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm having trouble understanding exactly what "bringing in" money proves:

1. Deposit 800,000 baht into your Thai checking account.

2. Transfer 800,000 (in dollars, pounds, kip, or whatever) to your external bank account.

3. Transfer 800,000 back to your Thai savings account.

It's not clear what the transfer limit is (some say 1,000,000 baht; Kasikorn says that they require a "reason," which the branch manager can approve, for transfers over $10,000), but selling baht certainly isn't against the law -- on the contrary, it is actively encouraged these days. And yes, you'll probably lose a few bucks on the conversions, but think of all the merit you'll gain by supporting government policy both coming and going ;-)

Retiree

[RichardEllis]

It seems like for me at least they have implicitly added a "foreign-sourced income requirement" to the "800K deposit from abroad" requirement.

I did mention in another thread that I had a friend who had had over 1 million baht in an account for some time and his application for a one year extension was denied. They wanted to see proof that during the past year B800,000 had been brought into the country from a foreign source and that the total balance had been above B 800,000 for at least the previous 3 months.

My comments were dismissed by Lopburi.

They, or at least some of them, want to see that funds have been brought into the country during the course of the year. Sitting on a pile of cash of uncertain origin is not satisfactory.

I realize that this concept may not be uniformly applied in all Immigrations offices on all days by all officers, but it does seem that the spirit of the rules, even if they are not explicitly stated in English, is that you need to show you are bringing money into the country either via the statement concerning pensions income or through evidence that you have been bringing foreign currency into your bank account.

Possible that different people make up their own ad-hoc rules because they are given discretion. Makes it nice and easy for us - doesn't it?

Pain in the ass, I would love to know what inner need they are responding to because it isn't reasonability and I am starting to doubt the government isn't behind it. The police are under a lot of pressure right now (rightly), perhaps that is a clue..

Rich

[RichardEllis]

As a previous poster noted, I believe the government doesnt want foreigners here if their actual actoions (reather than their rhetoric) are anything to go by. A pity really but I believe they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which can only reinforce the international image of incompetence that exists after their many recent blunders.

Rich

I don't find this to be the case at all.

Opinions are like bottoms - everyone has one, and you are entitled to yours of course. Mine is based on evidence though and one needs to take a broader view than just this one issue.

They want to make sure the foreigners here are actually adding to the economy via income transfers. Certainly you didn't think Thailand simply loved having farangs for decoration.

Is this based on actual knowledge or Thai-o-philia? I assumed Thailand wanted to become a part of the freer and less xenophobic developed world...

The blame for greater stringency lies with all the farang who have blatantly taken advantage of less rigorous enforcement of the rules.

Can you offer support for this? It seems to ignore the actual fact that there is a NEW regulation.

I still find the application of the rules consistent with the stated expectation that you either show evidence of pension income or that you have brought in the required amount during the year.

I dont think anything was said to nme about bringing in money during the year. Possibly because I have another book with some dosh and lots of transactions but nothing was said to me about this expectation at all. More supposition or is there any actual, fact to back it up?

Evidence that you have been drawing down the money for normal living expenses also seems totally logical. Getting a letter from the manager of your Thai bank is also nothing new.

Nobody has said it is have they? What is new if the certification of income from another country.

I think they want to get rid of farang who are not contributing to the economy. It may be an unfortunate consequence that some people who are legitmately living on foreign source income are finding it more difficult to verify that, but then the hassle would be less if they just deposited the money into a Thai bank account durign the year. If that's inconvenient, too bad.

Ya. I thought it might be a case of 'I'm alright Jack'... matters of principle unimportant then?

At least during the past year it's been an advantage for me since most of the baht I have in my account were bought at better exchange rates than if I were bringing it in on an as-needed-basis.

Well that's alright then. Sod everyone else so long as you turn a profit...

It seems that a lot of discussions on ThaiVisa are less to do with complying with rules than how to get around them. It's their ball, play by their rules.

Ya. And the hypocrisy of Thais going overseas and accepting the more reasonable policies there doesn't occur at all?

Just some thoughts.

Rich

Edited August 4, 2007 by RichardEllis

[RichardEllis]

Correct, in fact all the conversations have been on the basis of having to prove the original 800k came from overseas, even if that means getting the bank to certificate a transaction some years prior.

I have kept 800k in the bank for 3 years, without any transactions to speak of, all of my lliving is done from another account (which I also showed th em). In fact, the officer at Suan Phlu told me to keep the certificate because I would need it next year, which strongly suggests that keeping the dosh in an untouched account is fine with them.

Rich

But, isnt this method a bit like building a palace on shifting sands though?

While your expenditure from your other account was sufficiant to satisfy Immigration this time, it could be a different story next time............no?

Seems to me that you are leaving yourself to the opinion/mood of an officer as to what you can, and cannot live on per month/year

Penkoprod

I can't argue with that. I am probably more fortunate than most in terms of readies. Not rich but adequate. I also have accounts in UK, Singapore, USA and Mauritius so I can always transfer money in as needed. Sure this is different from many and I agree with your comment.

I really do think this goes deeper. Like perhaps the police needing to shore up their reputation for laziness, corruption and incompetence by actually doing something? I suspect they are due to lose Immigration and some other services they have gathered unto themselves over the years of patronage ans so are having a nice little panic. We are just the meat in the sandwich and they don't have the vision or the wit to look beyond their own trough-ensconced snouts.

IMHO.

Rich

[RichardEllis]

As a previous poster noted, I believe the government doesnt want foreigners here if their actual actoions (reather than their rhetoric) are anything to go by. A pity really but I believe they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which can only reinforce the international image of incompetence that exists after their many recent blunders.

Rich

I don't find this to be the case at all.

They want to make sure the foreigners here are actually adding to the economy via income transfers. Certainly you didn't think Thailand simply loved having farangs for decoration.

The blame for greater stringency lies with all the farang who have blatantly taken advantage of less rigorous enforcement of the rules. I still find the application of the rules consistent with the stated expectation that you either show evidence of pension income or that you have brought in the required amount during the year. Evidence that you have been drawing down the money for normal living expenses also seems totally logical. Getting a letter from the manager of your Thai bank is also nothing new.

I think they want to get rid of farang who are not contributing to the economy. It may be an unfortunate consequence that some people who are legitmately living on foreign source income are finding it more difficult to verify that, but then the hassle would be less if they just deposited the money into a Thai bank account durign the year. If that's inconvenient, too bad.

At least during the past year it's been an advantage for me since most of the baht I have in my account were bought at better exchange rates than if I were bringing it in on an as-needed-basis.

It seems that a lot of discussions on ThaiVisa are less to do with complying with rules than how to get around them. It's their ball, play by their rules.

I tend to agree, we have to suffer stricter rules because of the samrt guys using loopholes

Regulations are regulations and have passed several tranches of scrutiny. If there are loopholes, they are there either by design (in which case they can be used freely and without repercussion) or by incompetence. Shall we have a vote?

Rich

[RichardEllis]

The blame for greater stringency lies with all the farang who have blatantly taken advantage of less rigorous enforcement of the rules.

[snip]

It's their ball, play by their rules.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm having trouble understanding exactly what "bringing in" money proves:

1. Deposit 800,000 baht into your Thai checking account.

2. Transfer 800,000 (in dollars, pounds, kip, or whatever) to your external bank account.

3. Transfer 800,000 back to your Thai savings account.

It's not clear what the transfer limit is (some say 1,000,000 baht; Kasikorn says that they require a "reason," which the branch manager can approve, for transfers over $10,000), but selling baht certainly isn't against the law -- on the contrary, it is actively encouraged these days. And yes, you'll probably lose a few bucks on the conversions, but think of all the merit you'll gain by supporting government policy both coming and going ;-)

Retiree

Exactly. Either this hasn't occurred to them or we need to look elsewhere for the reason for the crackdown. Don't underestimate the propensity for some Thais to make things difficult solely to establish their pre-eminence.

Rich

[JetsetBkk]

Had a bad day, RichardEllis?

I'll respond to one of your more logical posts below:

I am still not at all convinced that just seeing the transfer codes in your bank book won't be adequate for most applicants

I just checked my bank account "pass books". The old book used a code that identified the transfers as from abroad. My new book does not - it uses the code "CRT" which probably means "credit".

So maybe there has been a subtle change in the codes that has triggered this new request from immigration.

Does anyone else's book identify a recent transfer as from abroad?

As of July Bangkok Bank still uses "FTT" Foreign Telex Transfer; but that code is no longer listed in there passbooks so have been expecting it to disappear for the last several years.

To be honest, I dont think the codes will satisfy Immigration. The codes were visible in my original bank book as well, but they insisted on the official form, which required me going home to collect. They even showed me an example of the form they wanted. It would be interesting to see if anyone else has been accepted only on bank book codes, I suspect that the immigration people won't want to work it out with any actual thought - not the Thai way.

Rich

The codes WERE accepted before this new ruling. But it now appears that some banks are no longer using codes that identify the transfer as coming from abroad. This is true for my bank.

So how are immigration to determine where the money came from? Easy - they want to see a letter from the bank. Simple, eh?

Do you think they should have one rule for people whose bank book shows a "foreign transfer" code, and another rule for everyone else? Of course not. Once they decide you must present the new letter from the bank, it applies to everyone.

That's my take on it.

[Jingthing]

Letter? Other people say there is a specific form they want to see showing each transfer. This still sounds really sketchy to me.

[Krub]

The blame for greater stringency lies with all the farang who have blatantly taken advantage of less rigorous enforcement of the rules.

[snip]

It's their ball, play by their rules.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm having trouble understanding exactly what "bringing in" money proves:

1. Deposit 800,000 baht into your Thai checking account.

2. Transfer 800,000 (in dollars, pounds, kip, or whatever) to your external bank account.

3. Transfer 800,000 back to your Thai savings account.

It's not clear what the transfer limit is (some say 1,000,000 baht; Kasikorn says that they require a "reason," which the branch manager can approve, for transfers over $10,000), but selling baht certainly isn't against the law -- on the contrary, it is actively encouraged these days. And yes, you'll probably lose a few bucks on the conversions, but think of all the merit you'll gain by supporting government policy both coming and going ;-)

Retiree

Exactly. Either this hasn't occurred to them or we need to look elsewhere for the reason for the crackdown. Don't underestimate the propensity for some Thais to make things difficult solely to establish their pre-eminence.

Rich

Hi

Going towards looking forloopholes again ? trabsfer your800kin and out to satisfy the 'rules' ?

The fact that we now have to have the 800k for 3 months is very new and I think in response to smart guys borrowing it for the 1 day time of the application.

They now want 3 months history of a 800k balance.

It looks to me like easy simple responses at the lower levelof the scale to applicants trying to be smart.

Go ahead and applaud the loopholes crews and that will make it more and more difficult for the majority.

This is true not only in Thailand but the owrld over with administrations looking to show they are 'doing something' to stop the smart guys.

It is reported we will need to have the Embassy letter certified by the MFA, this is very typicalof trying to stop made up letters

[lotus eater]

The critical change, if it is one, would be a requirement for a fresh 800k. I hope someone will soon post with actual experience which confirms or squelches this supposition.

It could be that they want pensioners who actually spend at least 800k each year - which could be harsh for a lot of retirees; and force others to accumulate baht in thailand or to look for ways around this. Or it could be that they want to simply know that a retiree has at least 800k to fall back on - which means they accept the presence of retirees who actually contribute relatively little to the economy and/or are working illegally to supplement their income.

The rationale either way is arguable but less important to us in practical terms than the policy being actually enforced. So I for one am hoping for some consistent reports of extensions approved or denied which go to back up one or other of our speculations.

[Krub]

The critical change, if it is one, would be a requirement for a fresh 800k. I hope someone will soon post with actual experience which confirms or squelches this supposition.

It could be that they want pensioners who actually spend at least 800k each year - which could be harsh for a lot of retirees; and force others to accumulate baht in thailand or to look for ways around this. Or it could be that they want to simply know that a retiree has at least 800k to fall back on - which means they accept the presence of retirees who actually contribute relatively little to the economy and/or are working illegally to supplement their income.

The rationale either way is arguable but less important to us in practical terms than the policy being actually enforced. So I for one am hoping for some consistent reports of extensions approved or denied which go to back up one or other of our speculations.

The rules have always been either a lump sum in the bank OR proof of a regular income (pension)

It also has been the understanding if going the lump sum that it had to come from abroad (seems logical to me to be fair to the 'income/pension rule)

The amounts required have increased over the years (understandable in my opinion)

You are now required to have the amount in the bank for at least 3 months before extension application

You are still liable to show that the incoming amounts come from abroad

For the income/pension letter from Embassy, it seems it will now have to be certified by the MFA

The rules as I look at them have been very consistant, only they have had to incorporate extra requirements (3 months, certification) to stop smart guys playing around the rules. We are paying the price for the loophole users.

Medical certificate is not required anymore

Edited August 5, 2007 by Krub

[mahjongguy]

Letter? Other people say there is a specific form they want to see showing each transfer. This still sounds really sketchy to me.

They want to see the Wire Transfer Details Report. It shows the originating bank, proving the money came from offshore.

These reports, which you can pick up anytime after the 3rd day from the transfer from your designated bank branch, have been faxed over from the Wire Center, or printed out from a database, so although they are informative they are not in any way official-looking. They need to be stamped and signed by the bank, and it's probably best to pay the bank to summarize the report in a signed cover letter.

[ProThaiExpat]

This thread contains such "rampant speculation" that many will be mislead by reading it. We so often see posts from people who are so "confused" by what they have read on Thaivisa, that they need someone like lopuri3 to set them straight.

As I posted early on, the requirement to provide proof of funds from overseas to satisfy the 800K money in the bank regulation has been around for at least five years, as I had to do it in BKK that far back.

The statement I just made above, is where so many go wrong. I joined my personal experience with the conclusion that what happened to me was a "rule" or regulation and that said rule was in effect at the time I was ordered to comply with it, just because it happened to me. Unless we see a printed regulations or rules promulgated by immigration Thailand wide, it is just plain illogical to assume that one persons experience is evidence of a rule or regulation and then to 'Warn" everyone of this new rule is just yellow journalism.

We are dealing with individual Police Officers at immigration, they have bad days, they may not like an individual falang, they will usually vary in their use of their inherent "discretion" in reviewing your "proofs", ad naseum. Police Officers are at liberty to enforce a regulation to satisfy their own sense of what should be done and this varies widely between police officers, leaving out the issue of which are too lazy to even enforce the most obvious proofs.

It is valuable to hear of the complete story from individuals and their experiences with visits to immigration, but then to carry on from there with rampant speculation only confuses people. Perhaps those who do it, are enjoying it, but they should know it confuses many and leads them to reach a conclusion which is erroneous.

Take Krubs last post when he says: For the income/pension letter from Embassy, it seems it will now have to be certified by the MFA.

In an otherwise very cogent and balanced post, Krub has assumed that an MFA stamp is now required for the pension letter, when Sojourner posted that no such requirement currently exists in Chiang Mai. You will recall that the MFA Stamp "Regulation" is a press report backed up by the editor who is Honorary Consul for the UK in Pattaya. Even such a knowledgeable poster as Krub has fallen victim to "rampant speculation".

The only thing we know for sure is that there "might be such a regulation" and that this "regulation" "might be" in force in Pattaya in October and we should be so alerted. We don't have a printed regulation nor a citation to the regulations to verify its existence of this "New Regulation" and we know it has not been promulgated to Chiang Mai.

This "news article" and the many posts supporting the new regulation as "fact" may have caused Sojourner to spend 1800 baht to have a visa service obtain a stamp that Chiang Mai doesn't require. I, on the other hand, will wait until this supposed "new regulation" is "supposed" to go into effect, and then visit immigration and see if the standard pension letter issued this year will be accepted by immigration in Chiang Mai, and if not, allow enough time for the visa service to get me the MFA stamp.

It should be pointed out again, as one poster did, but from a different angle, that notations in a bank book are not a permanent record of a foreign source of funds that immigration can put in their files and does require "interpretation" by the immigration officer. If I was a police officer charged with the responsibility to satisfy myself that a falang has brought funds he is using to satisfy retirement financial obligations under the existing regulations, I would certainly require a bank letter substantiating this issue. The officer I dealt with five years ago required me to get a bank letter proving foriegn source of funds, but none since on the five times I have had to show proof of 800k in the bank in Chiang Mai. It is mere speculation to conclude from my experience that bank proof of foreign sourced funds is only required for the first time you get a retirement extension, just because that has happened to me.

[AJS 7R]

I extended my retirement visa in Pattaya, on the 3 of August. And I used the combined method of money in bank and pension. I obtained a certificate of pension from my Consulate in Patttaya, no trip to MFA was required. Then I went to my bank, asked them to confirm my bank balance and wiring of money to Thailand. Took all of this and required copies of my passport and copies of the first and last updated page of my bankbook, no 3 month rule. Took all of this to immigration, presented them to the officer and 10 min later I was out of the office, my extension approved and was told to come back, and pick up my passport in the afternoon.

[jm49er1]

I extended my retirement visa in Pattaya, on the 3 of August. And I used the combined method of money in bank and pension. I obtained a certificate of pension from my Consulate in Patttaya, no trip to MFA was required. Then I went to my bank, asked them to confirm my bank balance and wiring of money to Thailand. Took all of this and required copies of my passport and copies of the first and last updated page of my bankbook, no 3 month rule. Took all of this to immigration, presented them to the officer and 10 min later I was out of the office, my extension approved and was told to come back, and pick up my passport in the afternoon.

encouraging news - i also need to renew in Pattaya soon using the same criteria - my current retirement visa expires on October 4 - any idea on how soon i can apply for renewal? it sound like the longer i wait the more complicated it may be

[lopburi3]

They like for you to apply between 3-4 weeks early.