Policy On Thai Residency Should Not Be Secret

[paddypower]

You write ''proof of Income''. I have an "O" Retirement visa and 600,000 of Thai investment /rental income. What paper work does Immigration require of me so as to allow me to reduce my certificate of cash balance at bank to 200,000. ?? Thanks in advance. Paddy.

Thank you asiawatcher you are one so far out of 10 I hope for.

I agree with you I have had dozens of different visas over last 30 years in 7 countries SE Asia where I have lived or worked and I have yet to see value of PR

PR in Thailand in fact turns out to be extremely useful if you: 1) are on a WP and suddenly lose your job; 2) are on an extension based on marriage and suddenly lose your wife; 3) are on an extension based on retirement and the financial requirements are suddenly raised to realistic levels from the current token amounts. It also comes in handy, if you want to work for a small company, as no Thai employees are required and the WP is granted almost automatically by the Labour Ministry with no input from the spoilers at Immigration. The annual endorsements in the certificate of residence, if you wish to travel abroad, are a formality to make sure you are still in Thailand at least once a year and only require you to present your passport, alien book and certificate of residence - no bank statements, proof of income or employment or similar BS.

[lopburi3]

Not sure what you are asking as this thread is about PR and retirement does not qualify for PR.

[ableguy]

Who claims the best and the brightest of the ex pat community live in phuket ?????? seems to me its down there with Pattaya

[paddypower]

Not sure what you are asking as this thread is about PR and retirement does not qualify for PR.

Yes, it was off-topic - sorry about that.....but this is the first member i have come across who writes of experience with proof of income paperwork.

I'll take my ball and go

Edited April 4, 2011 by paddypower

[Arkady]

I am not sure what documentation is acceptable to Immigration as proof of income in Thailand as a substitute for showing the standard B800k seasoned bank balance. Most people have pension income from offshore and therefore need verification from their embassy (the American Embassy is not allowed to ask for evidence due to privacy laws and signs whatever you tell them). Immigration may regard income from investments or rental as not secure enough and they may also consider renting out property as engaging in business for which you need a work permit - I have heard that there are cases where this was issue vis a vis the Alien Business Law where foreign companies had bought condos in Thailand for rental. The same might apply to investment income, if you are a substantial shareholder in a Thai company that pays you dividends. You need to ask Immigration themselves or a law firm that deals with this sort of question every day, like Sunbelt (no connection to myself). If you show Thai source income, be sure that you have tax receipts covering it.

You write ''proof of Income''. I have an "O" Retirement visa and 600,000 of Thai investment /rental income. What paper work does Immigration require of me so as to allow me to reduce my certificate of cash balance at bank to 200,000. ?? Thanks in advance. Paddy.

Thank you asiawatcher you are one so far out of 10 I hope for.

I agree with you I have had dozens of different visas over last 30 years in 7 countries SE Asia where I have lived or worked and I have yet to see value of PR

PR in Thailand in fact turns out to be extremely useful if you: 1) are on a WP and suddenly lose your job; 2) are on an extension based on marriage and suddenly lose your wife; 3) are on an extension based on retirement and the financial requirements are suddenly raised to realistic levels from the current token amounts. It also comes in handy, if you want to work for a small company, as no Thai employees are required and the WP is granted almost automatically by the Labour Ministry with no input from the spoilers at Immigration. The annual endorsements in the certificate of residence, if you wish to travel abroad, are a formality to make sure you are still in Thailand at least once a year and only require you to present your passport, alien book and certificate of residence - no bank statements, proof of income or employment or similar BS.

[jazzbo]

from post #65 the American Embassy is not allowed to ask for evidence due to privacy laws and signs whatever you tell them.

That is a gross mis-characterization of procedures at the US Embassy ... if what you tell them is false you have possibly committed a felony and the Consular official only states that you have in fact duly appeared before him/her and sworn by such a statement.

The full explanation of how a document originating in the USA can be authenticated is explained here -- it has nothing to do with privacy issues:

Authentication of Vital Records, Academic, Commercial or Other Credentials Issued in the U.S.

U.S. CONSULAR OFFICERS ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO AUTHENTICATE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ISSUED IN THE UNITED STATES.

http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/notary_authentication.html

[Arkady]

from Post #58: " ... are on an extension based on retirement and the financial requirements are suddenly raised to realistic levels from the current token amounts." ... and what is the actual word used for 'Token amounts'' in the Thai-language original document?

As requested, here is the wording from National Police Order 777/2551 on criteria for retirement extensions:

(๑) คนต่างด้าวต้องได้รับการตรวจลงตรา

ประเภทคนอยู่ชั่วคราว

(๒) มีอายุตั้งแต่ ๕๐ ปีบริบูรณ์ขึ้นไป

(๓) มีหลักฐานการมีเงินได้ไม่น้อยกว่า

เดือนละ ๖๕,๐๐๐ บาท หรือ

(๔) ณ วันยื่นคำขอมีเงินฝากในธนาคารใน

ประเทศไทยคงอยู่ในบัญชีตลอดระยะ

เวลาย้อนหลัง ๓ เดือน ไม่น้อยกว่า ๘๐๐,

๐๐๐ บาท เฉพาะในปีแรกให้แสดงบัญชีเงิน

ฝากโดยมีเงินจำนวนดังกล่าวฝากอยู่ในบัญชี

มาแล้วไม่น้อยกว่า ๖๐ วัน หรือ

(๕) มีเงินได้ในรอบปี และมีเงินฝากธนาคาร

คำนวณรวมกันได้ไม่น้อยกว่า ๘๐๐,๐๐๐ บาท

นับถึงวันยื่นคำขอ

[Arkady]

from post #65 the American Embassy is not allowed to ask for evidence due to privacy laws and signs whatever you tell them.

That is a gross mis-characterization of procedures at the US Embassy ... if what you tell them is false you have possibly committed a felony and the Consular official only states that you have in fact duly appeared before him/her and sworn by such a statement.

The full explanation of how a document originating in the USA can be authenticated is explained here -- it has nothing to do with privacy issues:

Authentication of Vital Records, Academic, Commercial or Other Credentials Issued in the U.S.

U.S. CONSULAR OFFICERS ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO AUTHENTICATE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ISSUED IN THE UNITED STATES.

http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/notary_authentication.html

You simply make a declaration of your retirement income in front of a consular official who signs to attest that you have made that declaration in front of him, not that the information contained therein is correct. Moreover, unlike some other embassies, they are not allowed to request any verification. So, while I am not disputing the fact that you could theoretically end up doing bird in a federal penitentiary if you are tempted to lie in front of a US government official, the fact remains that for all practical purposes, your retirement income is what you write down on the piece of paper and the vice-consul is not going to give a shoot. He has more important things to worry about like the recent regulations prohibiting US Embassy staff from visiting Soi Cowboy and other interesting cultural venues.

[jazzbo]

Do you hire a professional comedy writer or just make this stuff up yourself? Maybe next time when I appear before a US Consular Official -- as they have other things to do -- I will just write TOKEN AMOUNT when I affirm my monthly income.

[Gary A]

Quite frankly there is absolutely no economic advantage. Maybe if you were a very young man, It may be an advantage. Anyone who qualifies for a retirement visa cannot possibly benefit. Even if you qualify for the permanent visa, paying 1.900 baht per year for the retirement visa is MUCH cheaper.

[Arkady]

Do you hire a professional comedy writer or just make this stuff up yourself? Maybe next time when I appear before a US Consular Official -- as they have other things to do -- I will just write TOKEN AMOUNT when I affirm my monthly income.

Please do.

[Arkady]

Quite frankly there is absolutely no economic advantage. Maybe if you were a very young man, It may be an advantage. Anyone who qualifies for a retirement visa cannot possibly benefit. Even if you qualify for the permanent visa, paying 1.900 baht per year for the retirement visa is MUCH cheaper.

There is, indeed, no intrinsic economic advantage. It is just that one gives life long security of tenure, whereas the other is a temporary extension of a short term visa with no guarantee of any further extensions. A new National Police Order on the whim of the Interior Ministry could substantially change the conditions or simply do away with retirement as grounds for an extension. Even though they would be reluctant to get their retirees back, there would be no outcry from Western governments because they don't issue retirement visas to Thais or anyone else.

[napapek]

Any application can be approved with enough baht pushed under the table<br>

[jazzbo]

As 'permanent' residency can be revoked -- and given the stated 'whims' and capriciousness of the Dept. of Immigration -- just how permanent is that... Using the excuse of violation of Section 16 of the Immigration Act they could get rid of just about anyone who rubbed them the wrong way

BTW it says ๖๕,๐๐๐ บาท just like in the English version.

Edited April 7, 2011 by jazzbo

[ericthai]

Any application can be approved with enough baht pushed under the table<br>

where did you get this info??? please let me know...

[lopburi3]

Any application can be approved with enough baht pushed under the table<br>

where did you get this info??? please let me know...

Perhaps an assumption from newspaper reports of over 10,000 Thai ID cards issued to non-Thai in the last three years for cash payments?

[Arkady]

As 'permanent' residency can be revoked -- and given the stated 'whims' and capriciousness of the Dept. of Immigration -- just how permanent is that... Using the excuse of violation of Section 16 of the Immigration Act they could get rid of just about anyone who rubbed them the wrong way

BTW it says ๖๕,๐๐๐ บาท just like in the English version.

Section 16 of the Act doesn't apply to revocation of permanent residence. It deals with grounds for the Minister not to permit certain people or groups of people to enter the Kingdom, whereas permanent residents have already been given permission to enter. Permanent residence can, of course, be revoked under the Act on grounds of being outside Thailand for more than one year, being a danger to public order or national security but one assumes the latter two cases must be extremely rare, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Retirement visas on the other hand have no specific basis in the Act, since retirement is not even listed as grounds for temporary permission to stay in Kingdom but is covered under "Other activities as specified in ministerial regulations". Thus they exist only through National Police Orders that can be rescinded through a new police order or ministerial regulation without notice.

[jazzbo]

#77: Section 16 of the Act doesn't apply to revocation of permanent residence. Go tell them:

There are seven reasons for which permanent residence status in Thailand can be revoked. These reasons are detailed below.

3. Persons who are persona non grata by virtue of the decision of the Interior Minister under Section 16 of the Immigration Act B.E.2522 (1979).

http://www.usvisafor...nent-residence/

Edited April 8, 2011 by jazzbo

[Arkady]

It seems rather odd to quote from a website about American green cards, as if such a site would likely be an authority on an arcane topic like Thai permanent residence. However, even they do not claim that Section 16 is to do with revocation of permanent residence.

Their point 5 is clearly incorrect. "5. Those persons who are unable to earn their living because of mental deficiency or physical infirmity or as a result of having any disease as prescribed by Ministerial Regulations. (This category does not apply to an alien father, mother, husband, wife or child of a person having domicile within the Kingdom and who is able to provide support.)"

This is, in fact, grounds for not granting permanent residence in the first place, rather than for revocation of it. Permanent residence existed before work permits were introduced and was granted to virtually every one who showed up, as long as they could convince the immigration officer they had a means of earning a living and were physically and mentally fit enough to work. However, once permanent residence is granted, it is granted and there is no further legal basis for Immigration to examine the person's ability to earn a living. In fact, strange as it may seem, permanent residents are permitted to retire in Thailand without working.

[samran]

#77: Section 16 of the Act doesn't apply to revocation of permanent residence. Go tell them:

There are seven reasons for which permanent residence status in Thailand can be revoked. These reasons are detailed below.

3. Persons who are persona non grata by virtue of the decision of the Interior Minister under Section 16 of the Immigration Act B.E.2522 (1979).

http://www.usvisafor...nent-residence/

of course, if it is printed anywhere on the internet, then it must be true.

Bit like going to a UK visa website to ask about Mongolian visa applications.

[jazzbo]

As per the previous 2 posts by K.s S & A why don't you have a whack at these 'odd' fellows who have posted the same thing:

Reasons for revoking permanent residence status

3.Persons who are persona non grata by virtue of the decision of the Interior Minister under Section 16 of the Immigration Act B.E.2522 (1979)

http://www.thaivisa.com/328.0.html

In fact the same information is posted on several different websites regardless of the source... wonder if the 'odd' persons who posted the above included our very own 'Gang of Six'?

[lopburi3]

Flame removed.

[Arkady]

As per the previous 2 posts by K.s S & A why don't you have a whack at these 'odd' fellows who have posted the same thing:

Reasons for revoking permanent residence status

3.Persons who are persona non grata by virtue of the decision of the Interior Minister under Section 16 of the Immigration Act B.E.2522 (1979)

http://www.thaivisa.com/328.0.html

In fact the same information is posted on several different websites regardless of the source... wonder if the 'odd' persons who posted the above included our very own 'Gang of Six'?

This argument is circular in nature. The fact that people may have copied stuff from the same unreliable source and stuck it on various websites doesn't make it true. It is much easier and more reliable to read the Immigration Act, rather than trying to interpret unattributed misinterpretations of it. If you go direct to the Act, you can see that that stuff is an ill informed melange of the grounds for denying entry to the Kingdom, denying PR applications and revoking visas in general, including in some cases PR, made by some one who obviously doesn't understand the Immigration Act or the thinking behind it. Anyway each to his own. While waiting for my Thai citizenship application to be processed, which may take many years without guarantee of success, I am very happy with the benefits accorded by permanent residence which cost me nothing personally because my company paid for it. I don't live in fear of the knock at dead of night to be dragged off to have my PR revoked on suspicion of having become too insane to earn a living any more. If you haven't already got PR, the question of whether to apply for it or not seems quite academic at the moment anyway.

[jazzbo]

I read the Thai Immigration Act and it is true that at least in the English language version those '7 reasons' do not appear ... but that does not mean they were not the product of some opinion issued although as I said earlier I could not find the original source... but the people in charge of the ThaiVisa.com website felt it was worth putting there and it remains there today.

http://www.thaivisa.com/328.0.html

You have said in general that one of the benefits of PR is that -- unlike the conditions as determined under the Police Order 7777/2551 -- they cannot be rescinded or modified at the whim of they Immigration Department ... and you seem to enjoy putting at unease those persons who rely on those extensions.

My reason for checking as to what reasons might lead to the revoking of PR was prompted by some of your writings about the incompetences (my word) of the various Thai Ministries might lead someone -- if they choose to figure out exactly who you are -- to say 'Well we have to put up with this type of criticism from a Thai citizen but we sure as hell do not have to put up with it with some wise-guy on PR'