Went to get my certified bank papers today for non-O visa extension for bank balance and was broadsided by a new rule at Bangkok Bank (account there since 2004).

 

Bangkok bank is now requiring that you leave 400,000 baht in the bank 4 months from the date you come in the get the certified balance letter if you did not have at least 400,000 baht in your account 4 months prior to coming in for the letter.  Not 4 months from the date the account had 400,000 then going forward, 4 months from today for me.  Account was funded with 600k in early May but they won't count from that date for the 4 months (big argument with top bank gal ovver this).  This is not an immigration requirement, new bank policy.  Looking to open account at different bank now.

Was this in Pattaya?

This has been posted on FB about a month ago

 

16 minutes ago, DrPhibes said:

This is not an immigration requirement, new bank policy.  Looking to open account at different bank now.

Thanks for first hand feedback. 

We have 9 page thread on the subject here:

 

I agree with the OP.... if you have time to season your funds then change banks. 

Personally wouldn't want anything to do with this bank in question. 

Off topic post regards agents removed as off topic 

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

This has been posted on FB about a month ago

 

Not a FB user 🙂

1 hour ago, howerde said:

Was this in Pattaya?

Chiang Mai

1 hour ago, howerde said:

Was this in Pattaya?

It's a nationwide requirement at all branches of Bangkok bank.

9 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

It's a nationwide requirement at all branches of Bangkok bank.

only appears to be tripping people up who either don't keep the correct funds in all the time (which is NOT an immigration requirement) OR people who use "service providers" to bank the money 

Just had a couple people who use B/B get their extension based on marriage banking 400K and one got their retirement extension banking 800K and neither had to sign anything to get the letter or the statement from the bank. BUT those two people bank the money full time in the account (they're active accounts but the never let the balance go below the threshold the previous year.. 

There appears to be a LOT of leeway on when the bank decides to strong arm people into signing that "you'll keep the funds in for 4 months from today" paper  

2 minutes ago, Tod Daniels said:

Just had a couple people who use B/B get their extension based on marriage banking 400K and one got their retirement extension banking 800K and neither had to sign anything to get the letter or the statement from the bank. BUT those two people bank the money full time in the account (they're active accounts but the never let the balance go below the threshold the previous year.. 

There appears to be a LOT of leeway on when the bank decides to strong arm people into signing that "you'll keep the funds in for 4 months from today" paper  

 

The noticed posted around branches of Bangkok Bank can't be much clearer.

 

4 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

he noticed posted around branches of Bangkok Bank can't be much clearer.

seems pretty succinctly spelled out 😛 

I'd wager even people wading in the shallow end of the gene pool would be able to glom onto it 😉 

2 hours ago, DrPhibes said:

Went to get my certified bank papers today for non-O visa extension for bank balance and was broadsided by a new rule at Bangkok Bank (account there since 2004).

 

Bangkok bank is now requiring that you leave 400,000 baht in the bank 4 months from the date you come in the get the certified balance letter if you did not have at least 400,000 baht in your account 4 months prior to coming in for the letter.  Not 4 months from the date the account had 400,000 then going forward, 4 months from today for me.  Account was funded with 600k in early May but they won't count from that date for the 4 months (big argument with top bank gal ovver this).  This is not an immigration requirement, new bank policy.  Looking to open account at different bank now.

Heard exactly this more than a month back.

 

48 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

 

The noticed posted around branches of Bangkok Bank can't be much clearer.

 

Clearly want to stop the agent transfers

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

Clearly want to stop the agent transfers

It's to prevent the money launderers and Mule accounts.

11 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

It's to prevent the money launderers and Mule accounts.

The measure they've introduced will stop the current agent protocol 

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

The measure they've introduced will stop the current agent protocol 

The only people enforcing this policy are bank staff.  Money makes bank staff look the other way.  The agents just have to find a bank branch manager that's amenable to handouts, and they're back in business.  There's a reason the agents in Pattaya are busing people to Bangkok to get their letters now, the Bangkok Bank branch managers up there aren't subject to the same scrutiny as the ones in Pattaya, at least at the moment.

5 hours ago, Tod Daniels said:

only appears to be tripping people up who either don't keep the correct funds in all the time (which is NOT an immigration requirement) OR people who use "service providers" to bank the money 

Just had a couple people who use B/B get their extension based on marriage banking 400K and one got their retirement extension banking 800K and neither had to sign anything to get the letter or the statement from the bank. BUT those two people bank the money full time in the account (they're active accounts but the never let the balance go below the threshold the previous year.. 

There appears to be a LOT of leeway on when the bank decides to strong arm people into signing that "you'll keep the funds in for 4 months from today" paper  

Biggest problem with this is those of us that funded the accounts to the minimum or more ahead of the required 2mo but not making the 4mo line in the sand BKK Bank suddenly threw at us recently.  I don't keep a whole lot in my account as the wife does all the bill paying and such here.  I keep a bit of a slush fund in it for nights out with buddies but nowhere near the 400k 4mo new requirement until I have to top it up 2 months prior for the extension renewal, then transfer most to the wife after I'm stamped for the extension.  I've decided to open an account at another bank and will just use BKK bank as a pipe to receive and then fund the other bank account so BKK bank holds only a minuscule amount for almost all of the year.  Waiting for the other shoe to drop when the bank requires foreigners to keep a certain amount in the account all year in excess of the immigration timed amounts.

8 hours ago, Liquorice said:

 

The noticed posted around branches of Bangkok Bank can't be much clearer.

 

 

One particular issue which, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been raised in discussions on this issue is whether, in the case of the second scenario, the bank letter issued by BKKB will include an explicit statement that the account will then be frozen for 4 months. If so, this would, of course, mean that the funds on the frozen account would then not be freely available during the 4-month period in question, in violation of a specific IMM requirement - with the result that a consequential application for an annual retirement or marriage extension would then almost certainly be rejected.

 

And, even if the BKKB letter didn't include any explicit statement to this effect, the word is surely likely to spread like wildfire of the bank's change of policy on the Immigration Bureau grapevine - with the result that ALL account confirmation letters issued by BKKB might then, at best, be viewed with suspicion by immigration officers.

 

2 hours ago, OJAS said:

One particular issue which, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been raised in discussions on this issue is whether, in the case of the second scenario, the bank letter issued by BKKB will include an explicit statement that the account will then be frozen for 4 months. If so, this would, of course, mean that the funds on the frozen account would then not be freely available during the 4-month period in question, in violation of a specific IMM requirement - with the result that a consequential application for an annual retirement or marriage extension would then almost certainly be rejected.

In which Immigration order would that specific requirement appear?

2 hours ago, Liquorice said:

In which Immigration order would that specific requirement appear?

it's been mentioned for a long time, that a requirement for immigration is the money can be immediately withdrawn

Aside from immigration issues, it is in the banks interest to keep your money for as long as possible. 

Reason for this is to swell their coffers for the sake of profits and shareholders.

 

With regard to immigration.

Many years ago I had a run in with BB in Buriram when they refused to supply the required letter.

I reported the problem to the lady immigration police officer who sent my wife and I back to the bank.

She gave my wife her 'phone number and said to call her when we were in the bank.

We made the call and passed the 'phone to the bank manager who was promptly taken down a peg or two and quickly supplied the required letter.

 

I have had a trouble free Krungsri account ever since.

19 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Clearly want to stop the agent transfers

Be a great Idea to stop the agents for doing the Nasty.

22 hours ago, DrPhibes said:

Went to get my certified bank papers today for non-O visa extension for bank balance and was broadsided by a new rule at Bangkok Bank (account there since 2004).

 

Bangkok bank is now requiring that you leave 400,000 baht in the bank 4 months from the date you come in the get the certified balance letter if you did not have at least 400,000 baht in your account 4 months prior to coming in for the letter.  Not 4 months from the date the account had 400,000 then going forward, 4 months from today for me.  Account was funded with 600k in early May but they won't count from that date for the 4 months (big argument with top bank gal ovver this).  This is not an immigration requirement, new bank policy.  Looking to open account at different bank now.

Never understood why anyone would use Bangkok Bank....the least pleasant bank in Thailand.....😫

8 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

it's been mentioned for a long time, that a requirement for immigration is the money can be immediately withdrawn

Mentioned where?

In a bar, on Facebook, X, a forum, or an Immigration officer once said.

Is it an official requirement, or just common sense advice.

 

In official Immigration regulations and orders, I can only find reference to a 'Commercial bank' and a 'deposit account', but nothing related to any requirement that the funds must be immediately available for withdrawal.

1 hour ago, digger70 said:

Be a great Idea to stop the agents for doing the Nasty.

i don’t have a problem with agents, they are helping people out but instead immigration should offer 15k annual exemption no financials, but they won't want that, no kickback

31 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

Mentioned where?

In a bar, on Facebook, X, a forum, or an Immigration officer once said.

Is it an official requirement, or just common sense advice.

 

In official Immigration regulations and orders, I can only find reference to a 'Commercial bank' and a 'deposit account', but nothing related to any requirement that the funds must be immediately available for withdrawal.

Keep looking or maybe start a thread

29 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Keep looking or maybe start a thread

It's OK to just admit you don't know, rather than to spread false gossip.

21 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Clearly want to stop the agent transfers

A 1-week hold would have solved that, if it were the reason. 

Though it should not affect me, as-is (money just sits there), I removed the ATM card from an account I have at another bank, and moved my "big money" over there.  My BKB accounts now hold small money - just enough I don't get hit with a monthly-fee and my daily-spending account.

2 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

It's OK to just admit you don't know, rather than to spread false gossip.

So, Ubon Joe's reports, and all the other reports about "must be available for immediate withdrawal of the principle," with regard to fixed-deposit accounts, was never true?   That opens up some investment options - good to hear.

1 minute ago, Rob Browder said:

So, Ubon Joe's reports, and all the other reports about "must be available for immediate withdrawal of the principle," with regard to fixed-deposit accounts, was never true?   That opens up some investment options - good to hear.

It makes absolute common sense to have an account where funds are available for immediate withdrawal, in the case of an emergency, for example.
I merely questioned whether this is an actual requirement, or just good advice, as I can find nothing in official Immigration regulations or orders to suggest such.

 

It often stated that when applying for an extension based on Thai spouse to keep the 400K funds in the account during the under consideration period until the extension has been approved and issued. That's just advice and a recommendation that been quoted through the relevant topics on this forum for years.
There is no actual requirement to do so.

 

What's to say previous reports are simply offering sensible advice to use an account where funds are readably accessible, rather than it be a requirement, which I can find no reference to, but I'm open to being proved wrong.