I think the US recognizes that not all banks are in the position to defy local privacy laws, so banks were given leeway to segregate their accountholders into those who complied and those who are recalcitrant. I think the balances and transactions of recalcitrant accountholders was to be pooled and reported in the aggregate without identifying individual account holders. This gave the banks a means of complying with FATCA without breaking local privacy laws.
Because of this, I doubt that most banks would take the nuclear option of closing an average expat's account, but it's anyone's guess what a Thai bank may do. I also don't know about CRS or have any insight into Thai laws in this area, which I understand were amended in order to facilitate CRS and FATCA compliance by the banks.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now