Unpaid Credit Card

[triosfunk]

I held a CC with a local Thai bank since 2007,due to unforeseen circumstance I had to return to my home country, which resulted in the card being unpaid.I returned to Thailand recent and received a Lawyer note today that I owe the bank 130 000 baht, something I don't have and hardly earn here.What are my options?

[Pib]

See if you can reach an agreement on monthly payments you can handle. I assume its a valid debt. Or leave Thailand and just continue not to pay the bill.

[jshorts]

Some further details might be helpful. When you returned to your home country in 2007, why did the credit card remain unpaid?

[Nisa]

You really should talk to them about working out a payment plan and/or come to an agreement on a settlement amount.

Be careful because the laws "may" be different here and it "might be possible" for them to file some sort of fraud charges in court that could result in you spending time in jail. TO BE CLEAR ... I don't know if this is possible and you need to check with a lawyer but the bottom line is you need to take this serious until you find out the possible legal ramifications ... which may also be none except for annoying letters.

I am curious however ...

How much of the balance owed is interest?

How did they discover that you were back in Thailand and where to send the bill?

[triosfunk]

I fell terminally ill and had to return home for proper treatment.Thus cc payment was the last thing on my mind. I have just returned back to the same school I use to teach so they must have picked the details up from here.I most of this is interest as the cc limit was only 70 k of which I have paid off halve and no the amount as accumulated to nearly double the amount. No reply from the bank yet.Lets see what happens...Didn't think this would have been picked up after all this time eish

[Aromaz]

Best option is to Pay-Up. But before you pay go to talk to the bank and negotiate a better deal.

In other words - you can strongly negotiate down to the original amount and let them scrap the interest.

Banks are flexible when their options is between nothing and something.

Failure to pay might cause a complaint of Fraud (which is the case if you spend money you do not have).

Their arguement in court will be that;

"If you can afford to fly to Thailand and back home, then howcome you can't afford to pay your account."

Should you choose not to pay and go back home, it would be better not to come to Thailand for at least 10 years;

that is sort of the 'Satue of Limitation' on private debts.

[Soutpeel]

Best option is to Pay-Up. But before you pay go to talk to the bank and negotiate a better deal.

In other words - you can strongly negotiate down to the original amount and let them scrap the interest.

Banks are flexible when their options is between nothing and something.

Failure to pay might cause a complaint of Fraud (which is the case if you spend money you do not have).

Their arguement in court will be that;

"If you can afford to fly to Thailand and back home, then howcome you can't afford to pay your account."

Should you choose not to pay and go back home, it would be better not to come to Thailand for at least 10 years;

that is sort of the 'Satue of Limitation' on private debts.

The OP cannot be charged with fraud in this case, you are scare mongering, credit card fraud would be something like using someone elses CC without their permission.

Based on your flawed logic...if a Thai national obtains a mortgage on a property does pay for it and does a bunk they are committing a criminal offense ?

and it "Statute of limtations"...and believe this applies of criminal cases, you are talking about the period required before a debt is written off

Edited January 18, 2012 by Soutpeel

[gk10002000]

I have heard first hand of credit companies threatening debtors with Fraud. This was against people that were out of work and took cash advances to make ends meet. In general the people were not intending to commit fraud and were not withdrawing the money without the intention of paying, but that didn't matter. The cases revolve around the fact that the people borrowed money without the means to pay the money back. Good intentioned or not.

[Soutpeel]

I have heard first hand of credit companies threatening debtors with Fraud. This was against people that were out of work and took cash advances to make ends meet. In general the people were not intending to commit fraud and were not withdrawing the money without the intention of paying, but that didn't matter. The cases revolve around the fact that the people borrowed money without the means to pay the money back. Good intentioned or not.

and the operative word is "threatened"......credit companies/debt companies can say a lot of things when they are trying to get their money back....

Where these persons actually convicted in a court of law of fraud ?...as Fraud is a criminal offense, while not be able to pay a debt is a civil offense in most cases....so this is a big jump, and I will stand by my opinion that you cant be charged with fraud because you cant pay your CC bill.

[flying]

I agree & unless a person knowingly ran up cards right before fleeing it would not be seen or allowed as a fraud charge.

If instead someone cashed out their cards & then fled perhaps a case could be made.

A credit card ( at least in the USA ) is a unsecured loan...period.

If a person defaults there is very little the CC companies can do.

Other than issue a bad credit rating on your credit report.

If the default is large enough there are some companies now seeking

a court order/lean against future income but I have not heard how that is doing.

I am not advocating credit card defaults but is due to no fault of your own

it is what it is....A default on unsecured debt.

The issuing company knew that going in.

Again this is USA based & I have no idea if the rules are different in

Thailand

Edited January 19, 2012 by flying

[Soutpeel]

I agree & unless a person knowingly ran up cards right before fleeing it would not be seen or allowed as a fraud charge.

If instead someone cashed out their cards & then fled perhaps a case could be made.

A credit card ( at least in the USA ) is a unsecured loan...period.

If a person defaults there is very little the CC companies can do.

Other than issue a bad credit rating on your credit report.

If the default is large enough there are some companies now seeking

a court order/lean against future income but I have not heard how that is doing.

I am not advocating credit card defaults but is due to no fault of your own

it is what it is....A default on unsecured debt.

The issuing company knew that going in.

Again this is USA based & I have no idea if the rules are different in

Thailand

All correct, running up your own CC bill and being unable to pay cannot be fraud,

if someone steals your cc details and obtains goods/services with your details, they would be charged with fraud, if someone steals your card and runs up the bill, they would be charged with fraud.

[Nisa]

If a person defaults there is very little the CC companies can do.

Other than issue a bad credit rating on your credit report.

If the default is large enough there are some companies now seeking

a court order/lean against future income but I have not heard how that is doing.

Well actually they can do more than give you bad credit in the US including (as you mentioned) getting a judgement that would allow them to do things such as seize bank accounts and garnish wages. CC companies can go after you themselves but more than likely they send it to a collection agency who have lawyers that do nothing but go into court to get default judgements because the debtor doesn't show up for the court date.

But this is all moot because the OP has an issue in Thailand where laws, including the burden to prove fraud, will almost surely differ.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Nisa

[Nisa]

I have heard first hand of credit companies threatening debtors with Fraud. This was against people that were out of work and took cash advances to make ends meet. In general the people were not intending to commit fraud and were not withdrawing the money without the intention of paying, but that didn't matter. The cases revolve around the fact that the people borrowed money without the means to pay the money back. Good intentioned or not.

Most likely just idol threats but if you take a cash advance when you have no ability to pay back that money then I am certain they could prove fraud in certain jurisdictions.

Example: Take the laws in California regarding burglary vs. simple shop lifting. If you enter a business with the intent to commit a crime it is burglary. I you happen to be in a store and decide on the spur of the moment to steal something it is shop lifting. So, how do they charge and convict people regularly of burgalry for what we all would normally consider shoplifting? Simple, the ability to pay. If the person doing the pilfering doesn't have money on them (often just not enough to pay for the item they stole) then it is okay for a jury to reasonably believe they entered the store with the intent to steal.

So, if you take a cash advance that needs to be paid back (or at least start to pay) in 30-days and you have no job and no planned income before then it would be clear in many people's minds the money was taken without the intention of honoring the contract you made when taking the money. Just because somebody wishes they could pay back money they borrow doesn't mean they didn't borrow under fraud ... wishes and reality are very different ;-)

Edited January 19, 2012 by Nisa

[E1717007]

The statute of limitations for credit-card debt _ a time limit within which the bank must sue the debtor _ is two years from the date following the debtor's default on payment. Failure by the bank to sue past the expiration date will end its right to enforce the debt and free the debtor from the debt burden.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/financialadvice/276362/some-credit-card-debts-never-die-if-customers-aren-t-careful

[flying]

The statute of limitations for credit-card debt _ a time limit within which the bank must sue the debtor _ is two years from the date following the debtor's default on payment. Failure by the bank to sue past the expiration date will end its right to enforce the debt and free the debtor from the debt burden.

http://www.bangkokpo...-aren-t-careful

Good find/info for the OP

Seems if the bank did not file a lawsuit he may legally be off the hook