4 minutes ago, impulse said:

That's my point. They have the ability. But they're not using it for immigration purposes yet. IMO, the key word is "yet".

As with my comment above as to Penal Code regs with immigration implications not prosecuted:

You say irrelevant. I'll say hibernating.

And if you look at went on with some of the recent nominee enforcement and the amount of data linked, that eventually may not be so far fetched. But if you mention anything on the VISA FORUM about using enhanced computer horsepower to look at 'unorthodox' retirement extensions, the reaction from the main honchos will be something like this:

1 hour ago, JerryM said:

You say irrelevant. I'll say hibernating.

A couple of shiny days does not mean the decades long lasting winter is over.

57 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

A couple of shiny days does not mean the decades long lasting winter is over.

As long as the roots are not severed,

all is well and all will be well in

the garden. ...

In a garden, growth

has its season. There is spring and

summer, but there is also fall and

winter. And then spring and summer

again...

(Peter Sellers in Being There)

On 6/29/2026 at 6:53 PM, JustinTyme said:

Too Easy: (Step One) - Make it a crime to use agents to facilitate annual visa extensions. This means that people need to show up to Immigration, in person, with all the correct information / bank records. Therefore, "the toilet flushes" annually, and it becomes impossible to overstay by more than one year. (You're welcome!) 555!

Using an agent to facilitate annual extension already is illegal for both the passport holder and the agent. But ministerial regulations like the in-person requirement and the "discretion" option are not going anywhere. But what others do to influence or induce that IMM officer's discretion is another matter.

And while the highly informed persons on here say that IMM officers can via "discretion" make or break ministerial regulations, they cannot do so with the Immigration Act which has a higher priority.

Edited July 13Jul 13 by JerryM

On 6/29/2026 at 11:04 PM, technoronin said:

Just like the current banking headaches, they are trying to punish the law abiding foreigners instead of actively pursuing miscreants. More paperwork and more hassles while not breaking the laws.

My next visa renewal is in November. I understand Immigration want to see money in the account for 2 months.

But I am expecting my Bank to tell me they must freeze my account for 4 months if I want a letter to take to Immigration.

They did this already last year and know my account is legit and has been for more than 20 years.

Just another law abiding guy facing useless bureaucratic hurdles.

14 hours ago, JerryM said:

And while the highly informed persons on here say that IMM officers can via "discretion" make or break ministerial regulations, they cannot do so with the Immigration Act which has a higher priority.

This was posted last year on the VISA Forum -- the post was a reply to someone else, not me:

Everyone's situation is different. Agents will always be around. What you call corruption is simply a way of life here. Everyone gets a piece of the pie.

In implementing Section 128 of the Anti-Corruption Act, this is how Thai Immigration defines the "pie" -- Chonburi as an online published example:

On 6/29/2026 at 10:36 AM, impulse said:

AI can lock down their bank accounts.

I don't know about you, but I'd leave on my own accord if I couldn't tap the ATM occasionally. No cops required...

If they have them.... tourists cannot these days. I expect they could track the use of foreign cards though.

From an earlier Thailand news topic:

The use of an agent is 100% legal, the agents use of IOs discretion is also perfectly legal. What goes on between an agent and an IO is up to the IO.

via Gemini:

Section 143 of the Thailand Penal Code criminalizes influence peddling. It punishes anyone who demands, accepts, or agrees to accept benefits in exchange for using influence—dishonest or otherwise—to induce a government official to perform or omit an official act. Penalties include up to 5 years imprisonment, a fine of up to 10,000 Baht, or both.