Over the years

[OJAS]

8 hours ago, Pattaya57 said:

I extended at Jomtien in June and had no questions about income or source of my 800k

 

Same with me at Rayong in July.

 

[Rob Browder]

11 hours ago, Liquorice said:

I'm on an extension based on Thai spouse where any income does not have to come from a pension

I was specifically told that my more than adequate, easily proven (xfers to my Thai bank + foreign-bank records) foreign income would not be allowed for my marriage-based extension, because it was not a pension.  They required proof of the income-source, to verify (which I was too young to have).    This was several years ago, but I haven't heard that they changed this.

 

If working in Thailand w/ work-permit, you can use non-pension money, but the process is harrowing - requiring all Non-O-marriage paperwork PLUS Non-B paperwork (a pile of company-records).

[DrJack54]

3 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

was specifically told that my more than adequate, easily proven (xfers to my Thai bank + foreign-bank records) foreign income would not be allowed for my marriage-based extension, because it was not a pension

That depends on immigration office.

Perhaps state immigration office to clarify.

Many offices do not require proof of "pension" rather they accept 12 month bank statement showing monthly transfers. 

[jerrymahoney]

6 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Many offices do not require proof of "pension" rather they accept 12 month bank statement showing monthly transfers. 

So if you have an office that does not ask for "source of funds" letter, you can do the revolving door tactic:

 

Wire money to Thai bank account 1st of the month -- Maybe transfer to 2nd Thai bank account. Wire back to home country before end of the month -- wire (same ) money to Thai bank account next month. Rinse & repeat.

[DrJack54]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

So if you have an office that does not ask for "source of funds" letter, you can do the revolving door tactic:

That's bar stool chit chat.

While possible, to send funds back to pp country is not so simple. eg cannot use WISE.

Possible with DEE money. 

What would someone live off in the imaginary example.

Monthly transfers of 40k/65k hardly enough to live on..

 

[jerrymahoney]

52 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

What would someone live off in the imaginary example.

Monthly transfers of 40k/65k hardly enough to live on..

You might have a load of money already in Thailand -- or live off your wife's money as some of the wags on here say.

 

Just not 65K+ verifiable income every month in home country.

 

I remember the barstool chit chat -- when the income affidavit was still available from the US Embassy -- that guys were saying they didn't know anyone that actually had the 65K per month sworn income.

 

But scenarios as I mention were one of the reasons that IMM wanted the source of funds letter as per the word 'evidence' 2x on the Police Order. And any office that doesn't ask for such a letter this year might ask for one next year.

 

 

[Liquorice]

41 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I remember the barstool chit chat -- when the income affidavit was still available from the US Embassy -- that guys were saying they didn't know anyone that actually had the 65K per month sworn income.

Yeah, off topic, but it was US nationals making false affidavit claims as to their incomes that started the whole Immigration investigation, subsequently leading to the US, UK and Australian Embassies ceasing the service.

 

If you're using the 800/400K funds in the bank method, then Immigration theoretically shouldn't be enquiring about your income, as that is irrelevant to your extension application.

However, as in my case, I simply provided statements from a FTD account, where other than any interest added or tax deducted, the balance stayed almost dormant, which raised the question of how I supported myself and covered living expenses in Thailand, unless I was working illegally.
Once proving I had an alternative Savings account, they weren't interested in the amount of income or transfers I made, just that I had a source of income to cover living expenses and wasn't working illegally.

[Liquorice]

At the end of 2018, beginning of 2019, if you recall, Big Joke was in the thrones of amending Immigration Orders, one promise was to make it easier for those married to Thai to obtain annual extensions. He was then unceremoniously removed from office and another IO took over his half finished work.

Due to the fact 3 Embassies stopped issuing Income letters, Immigration were forced into issuing an amendment to the current orders, with regard to the income method, allowing acceptance of monthly overseas transfers to a Thai bank.

It became a shambles of oversight by Immigration and Big Jokes ideas never came to fruition or were completed, rather hastily put together by another IO acting as the deputy commissioner.

 

For example, if entering VE or TV, then applying for the Non Imm O, then only proof of 800/400K deposited in a Thai bank, OR, an Embassy Income letter are permitted.
It was never updated in line with amended orders to include evidence of monthly overseas transfers to a Thai bank account.

 

The amendment to order138/2557 concerning proof of income in a Thai bank account for both extensions based on retirement and Thai spouse, which can be viewed, item 18 https://aseannow.com/topic/981135-laws-regulations-police-orders-etc/#comment-17706004 

Section 2.18 (Thai spouse) is ridiculous and appears to be almost a copy and paste of the requirements for extensions based on 2.22 (retirement).

 

 

You can marry a Thai from age 20 and live in Thailand, but who underage 55-60 would be able to produce evidence of being in receipt of a pension.
I think @Rob Browder found himself in this ridiculous position.

The mindset seems to be if under the age of receiving a pension, then you are either working in Thailand, or have sufficient funds to transfer 400K.

 

[Rob Browder]

9 hours ago, Liquorice said:

Yeah, off topic, but it was US nationals making false affidavit claims as to their incomes that started the whole Immigration investigation, subsequently leading to the US, UK and Australian Embassies ceasing the service.

There were no reports of such ever made, which I saw.  Offenders could have been referred to the FBI for prosecution, and is a USA Felony to lie on those affidavits.

 

Immigration knew (or shortly discovered) it was against USA law for our State Dept to do more than provide the attestation; they were/are legally forbidden from "verifying" anything. 

 

If immigration really cared about foreigners living here w/o income (sleeping outdoors and eating nothing but air?), the first thing they would have done is shut down all the agent services. 

 

Everything Big Joke did - from Edu-extension hassles to retirement-rules changes - only had the effect of increasing agent-business, which bypassed ALL his "new rules."  The "No Tips" policy only amounted to IOs not taking money "on the side," which did not go into the distribution-scheme. 

 

9 hours ago, Liquorice said:

For example, if entering VE or TV, then applying for the Non Imm O, then only proof of 800/400K deposited in a Thai bank, OR, an Embassy Income letter are permitted.
It was never updated in line with amended orders to include evidence of monthly overseas transfers to a Thai bank account.

When first rolled out, the guidelines allowed showing a few months income-transfers for new cases - then, they pulled that back.  The same reason as the rest of their changes - too many honest applicants, who had the income, were "getting away" with not using agents, for at least their first year. 

 

And if you get 2 payments one month, and none the next, due to how your country allocates pensions?  Sure, it's the same income, but - back to the agent you go! 

[Liquorice]

47 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

There were no reports of such ever made, which I saw.  Offenders could have been referred to the FBI for prosecution, and is a USA Felony to lie on those affidavits.

If you followed the story from the beginning, British Embassy statements + the video they made and requested reports and minutes of the meetings between Thai Immigration and British Embassy officials from the Home Office by freedom of information requests, then you'd know more. It started with CM becoming suspicious of some of the incomes claimed on US affidavits. When challenged, they couldn't produce evidence to support their affidavits, the rest is now history.

 

Did you read the post above mine?
 

12 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

I remember the barstool chit chat -- when the income affidavit was still available from the US Embassy -- that guys were saying they didn't know anyone that actually had the 65K per month sworn income.

That was typical chit chat between US nationals that thought it was a joke to make false claims in order to meet the financial requirements.

It may be a felony, and you could be prosecuted in the US, but US laws don't rule in Thailand, the same as the 27 amendments to the US Constitution don't apply here either.

 

1 hour ago, Rob Browder said:

When first rolled out, the guidelines allowed showing a few months income-transfers for new cases - then, they pulled that back.

The financial requirements for applying for the Non O from a VE or TV entry have never changed, nor allowed evidence of overseas transfers to be supplied as proof of income.

Perhaps you're getting confused with when they issued a new order allowing proof of income to be evidence through overseas monthly transfers to a Thai bank and for the year after cessation of the Embassy Income letters they allowed leniency allowing just a few monthly overseas transfers as evidence.

 

1 hour ago, Rob Browder said:

And if you get 2 payments one month, and none the next, due to how your country allocates pensions?  Sure, it's the same income, but - back to the agent you go! 

Nonsense.
The proof of pension letter from the DWP clearly states the pension is paid every 4 weeks, not monthly. Immigration adjusted for that, even when transferring direct using the Bahtnet system. Most use Wise anyway for transfers, so can transfer just once a month.
Never known anyone pushed towards an agent for that reason.

[Rob Browder]

20 hours ago, Liquorice said:

It may be a felony, and you could be prosecuted in the US, but US laws don't rule in Thailand, the same as the 27 amendments to the US Constitution don't apply here either.

USA laws apply to Americans who break USA laws, where ever they are in the world.  Additionally, a USA consulate/embassy is USA soil, by law. 

Immigration could have referred cases to the FBI if they had any evidence.  Thailand is very cooperative with extradition requests, so no problem there, either. 

That would have scared away any fools even thinking of lying on sworn affidavits to get Thai extensions of stay.

 

20 hours ago, Liquorice said:

for the year after cessation of the Embassy Income letters they allowed leniency allowing just a few monthly overseas transfers as evidence.

Why would more than 3 months of xfers be required, if one is starting fresh from a 90-day visa - whether obtained here or abroad?   It's absurd ... unless one wakes up from their "all on the up and up" dream, recognizes the real purpose of these often nonsensical "rules."  
 

20 hours ago, Liquorice said:

Nonsense.
The proof of pension letter from the DWP clearly states the pension is paid every 4 weeks, not monthly. Immigration adjusted for that, even when transferring direct using the Bahtnet system. Most use Wise anyway for transfers, so can transfer just once a month.
Never known anyone pushed towards an agent for that reason.

You should read here more.  I have seen reports of people being rejected because of the transfers-timing, even if their total transfers far exceeded the minimum. 

 

Yes, one can have their pensions deposited in their home-country, and then manually transfer every month - just don't miss the timing by even a minute, no matter what events in your life might happen at that moment.  

 

The "new rules" had only one effect - more agent-use, as designed - as with all the other "crackdown" policies.  Immigration have set up a "Got-cha" mine-field, for this purpose.

[Liquorice]

3 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

USA laws apply to Americans who break USA laws, where ever they are in the world.

US laws apply to Americans who break USA laws, in the US.
In Thailand, it's Thai laws that apply.

So what action did the US Embassy take regards these perpetrators of US law ....... zilch, nada!

 

3 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

Why would more than 3 months of xfers be required, if one is starting fresh from a 90-day visa - whether obtained here or abroad?   It's absurd ... unless one wakes up from their "all on the up and up" dream, recognizes the real purpose of these often nonsensical "rules."  

What!

When the US, UK and Australian Embassies ceased the income letters, affidavits, and stat decs those already in a position of obtaining one were good to apply for annual extensions of stay for 6 months thereafter, (Jan - June 2019) that being the validity period of the letters. Many started overseas transfers of 40 - 65K and had extension renewals due in the later part of that year (July - Dec 2019) and couldn't therefore provide evidence of 12 x monthly overseas transfers. Immigration were instructed to show leniency in these cases and complied with that request.

 

3 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

You should read here more.  I have seen reports of people being rejected because of the transfers-timing, even if their total transfers far exceeded the minimum. 

 

Yes, one can have their pensions deposited in their home-country, and then manually transfer every month - just don't miss the timing by even a minute, no matter what events in your life might happen at that moment.  

I've been reading longer than you, and have practical experience.
Yes, I've witnessed rejections due to missed monthly payments, which can be set up automatically by the way.
I've never witnessed 4 weekly (13 payments) UK pension payments rejected as no months were missed, and two transfers once in one month.

 

3 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

The "new rules" had only one effect - more agent-use, as designed - as with all the other "crackdown" policies.  Immigration have set up a "Got-cha" mine-field, for this purpose.

The only folk that were pushed into using agents were those that could never meet the financial requirements in the first instance, hence false claims of income.

They neither had the 800/400K, or 65/40K incomes to begin with.

Perhaps rather than constantly rant how Immigrations rules constantly force folk into the hands of agents, you should ask why when there is a financial requirement to stay in Thailand, why do so many folk choose to ignore them, then circumvent the system by using agents.
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse, they have choices, but choose to use an agent of their own free will.

[DrJack54]

Time to end this thread.