Hi Guys, advise please, --- Me and my wife [farang] have enjoyed retirement extensions for 6 years on the dependant method of piggy backing, joint bank account with 800,000baht seasoned funds, our renewal is due shortly and we have learned recently from couples taking the same route that Jomtien are unhappy with this now and want 1,600,000 in the account,they were granted extensions very reluctantly and to make sure they have double amount next year..Has there been a change in the rules or merely a tightening up? We do not have time to season the increase before applying, What would our options be if rejected? Thanks in advance for any input.

It must be 800,000 baht in a bankaccount in the name of the person applying only and has always be the case.

In the past they seem to have been relaxed about it.

There was similar story initiated in Phuket some months ago.

In the end it proofed that all the excitement resulted from the fact, that shared accounts were used with both names on.

And that is not allowed.

If you have an account with the name of the applicant exclusively I would not expect a problem.

As said, 800,000 Baht in a bank account in your name only will be ok.

As said, 800,000 Baht in a bank account in your name only will be ok.

If their renewal is due shortly (presumably < 3 months)and the money is in a joint account, moving the money to an account in his name only won't cover both of them (2 x Baht 800,000) and it won't have been seasoned in the new account(s) for 3 months.

If the O/P can get income verification affidavits from his/their embassy, then combining the monthly income and the money in the bank to account for the Baht 800,00 each could work. When using the combination of income & bank balance, there is no three month seasoning requirement.

Edited September 3, 201411 yr by Suradit69

They only need one amount of 800,000 to cover both of them.

They only need one amount of 800,000 to cover both of them.

It would seem that Immigrations doesn't agree with you.

Jomtien are unhappy with this now and want 1,600,000 in the account,they were granted extensions very reluctantly and to make sure they have double amount next year.

If they are each applying for his/her own retirement extension they need to each meet the financial requirements although the requirement is not uniformly enforced.

The law states that foreign retired couples must each show evidence of 800,000 baht in their bank accounts in order to apply for or renew retirement visas, Phuket Immigration Inspector Napat Nusen confirmed for the Phuket Gazette yesterday.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/686783-immigration-vows-strictness-on-retirement-visa-requirements/

BANGKOK: -- The Thai Immigration Bureau has announced that the foreign wives of expats with a one-year retirement visa will in future need their own separate pension income or cash in a Thai bank.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/686171-retirement-visa-extension-restrictions-for-foreign-married-couples/?hl=%20retired%20%20couple%20%201,600,000

Edited September 4, 201411 yr by Suradit69

OP stated dependent piggy back method - second person does not require any financials - only one retirement extension and other is dependent in this case.

OP stated dependent piggy back method - second person does not require any financials - only one retirement extension and other is dependent in this case.

I guess the applicants can tell immigrations to call you to tell them what to do.

couples taking the same route that Jomtien are unhappy with this now and want 1,600,000

In the past, these wives have been able to “join” their husband’s visa by simply showing a marriage certificate and a current non-immigrant visa in their passport. It was not necessary for both partners to show their own income or cash.

Under the revised guidelines, both foreign partners in a marriage will separately need to demonstrate yearly income in the first country of at least 800,000 baht equivalent or maintain separate bank accounts of the same minimum amount, or provide a combination of both.

Edited September 4, 201411 yr by Suradit69

That info is not correct. Not sure where you found that nonsense. A dependent extension under clause 2.20 does not require any financial proof. See: Immigration Bureau Order 327/2557