Is Bangkok Bank London's unique selling point being in London?

[ldnguy]

I thought the money you had to show for immigration purposes had to be with a bank in Thailand, so not much use having money in a UK bank. They want to know you have enough money here to live.

Well, there's a lot of use in having money in a UK bank - you can take it out at any ATM. Money, these days, isn't "here" in that sense - it doesn't move anywhere, it's just a drawing right on a bank.

There entire system doesn't achieve what they want to achieve. There's nothing stopping you i) borrowing £15k for three months and then paying it back when you've got the visa, or ii) blowing every penny in the first week. The first of these is what a lot of foreign students do to get into the UK, and then they have to work during what is supposed to be their studies. I'm sure the second of these is what a lot of the washed-up folk you see did - "The Brits who never went home".

As I've said before, an escrow account with (say) £3k in it would make a lot more sense, to be held against emergencies until you've left the country, but there isn't a culture in place which allows anyone to say, "If we desire "x" then "y" won't achieve it for reason "z", but this alternative will". This is why they keep saying things that make no sense. The latest one I've just noticed is that your medical check has to have a "validity" of at least three months. What the **** does that mean? Does the certificate confer magical powers that stop you get syphilis? What they actually mean, of course, is that you have to submit your application within three months of having the medical done, but (again) nobody he understands can say to anyone above them, "This doesn't make any sense, boss, can I change it to.....?" So every year they'll spend weeks annoying prospective retirees, or putting themselves in the position where someone is costing them money and it is going to cost even more money to get rid of them.

Northcote and Trevelyan proved that a functioning civil service wasn't sufficient to make a country work (i.e. India), but it's certainly the case that without a functioning civil service a country definitely won't work.

It's true that it's not perfect but I don't suppose it's meant to be. It's a practical solution that works pretty well. That's generally how all such systems work. If people don't have £15K it would be difficult for most to borrow it for 3 months. Some would be able to to, it doesn't really matter if a few slip through the net. What matters is that the system works for the vast majority.

[topt]

"they need people to teach them Anglo-Saxon thinking. Typing those words cost me seconds, which is why the fact that it won't happen isn't a disincentive: it's worth telling the truth even if it does nothing more than anchor it in your own head"

Sounds like you may have got on the wrong aeroplane

Someone can wax lyrical about all the (supposedly) wonderful aspects of any culture they like and not only does nobody think they are being ethnocentric, they think they are being wonderful, pluralistic and multicultural. But the instant you actually dare to suggest that there's anything beneficial about something "western"........oh, no, no, no, no, no.

Anglo-American analytical philosophy wasn't Burmese-Vietnamese analytical philosophy. It might be nice if it had been, but it wasn't. Hume was a Scot. He could have been Nepali, but he wasn't. Not everything quintessential to the West is bad.

We should have as few dead babies as possible, as few neglected pensioners as possible, as little misery and as much human happiness as possible. All of that follows on from seeing that, 1) "there are lots of threads talking about how to move money from BKK London", and 2) "there are lots of threads exploring the advantages of having a baht account in a UK regulated bank" assert two different propositions. Man bites dog is different from dog bites man. It so isn't the case that the difference doesn't matter: not mai phen rai.

But as I've said many times before, a country that doesn't understand that rules advance goals, and so it's important that they actually do, will produce a situation of "adverse selection". It's a bit like the British Army pre-2007. They were spending an incredible slice of the budget on recruiting and training: over £100,000 all in to actually put one indigenous Scot into an infantry battalion, if you took the entire budget and divided it by the number of people they managed to get. My mate took over the recruiting team. He identified the problem. "The kids we get that are brilliant with an ACF background and who are absolutely army barmy are exactly the ones who jack it in when they see the f****** d**s we've already got in the battalions".

So a westerner who thinks that all rules are just mad made-up things that are just designed by people in power to muck you about is much more likely to see British rules and Thai rules as equally onerous. Indeed they might well see Thai rules as less problematic. My pal, however, with his geophysicist wife, very much knows the difference. So despite their luxury mansion in Phra Khanong, and fat rewards, they're now back in the UK. Why? When I walked down the soi an incredibly aggressive dog came flying out snarling and barking. I had to use a lot of voice and assertion to stop it in its tracks. It had previously scared the living crap out of his three year old. I said, "Why not get the cops to do something about it?" He said, "Well, the first thing I'd have to do is bribe them". That, plus the neighbour's kid being killed by bad wiring, and a thousand similar things, is why the Thais will find they can retain the people who keep the "adult industry" workers employed, but they can't retain the people who tell them how to get the oil and gas out from under the water.

Thought matters.

Thought matters - agreed.......but what has it, and all your other responses, really got to do with answering your original questions?

The difference does matter but the reason why there aren't any threads about having a baht account in a UK regulated bank account is simply that AFAIK it is not possible and I am sure it has been considered by more astute minds then yours in the past.

The rest of your arguments appear to me to border on sophistry and Thai bashing, not necessarily in that order and not that I necessarily disagree with some of the points, but you seem to want to wilfully wind up posters who actually tried to answer you...............I won't go as far to suggest trolling but some answers are at odds with others.......or have you really not read that many posts here?

[Sophon]

If it exists where is it and can I apply for an ATM card from Thailand?

I don't know what you're reading because all the posts say there is NOT a retail branch of BBL in London, here, read:

http://www.bangkokbank.com/BangkokBank/InternationalNetwork/InternationalBranches/Europe/Pages/BranchinUK.aspx

The link's a bit misleading because the first thing you see at the top of the page is a tab for personal banking, which - when you click it - starts telling you all about accounts for individuals and kids.

Nothing misleading at all about the link.

The website is the general website of Bangkok Bank - not a website specifically for Bangkok Bank, London branch. The information about London branch that is linked to is mentioned under "International network" => "International branches". When you click on "Personal banking", you are no longer getting information about international branches, but rather about what kind of services Bangkok Bank offer in Thailand.

Sophon

[Craig krup]

Nothing misleading at all about the link.

The website is the general website of Bangkok Bank - not a website specifically for Bangkok Bank, London branch. The information about London branch that is linked to is mentioned under "International network" => "International branches". When you click on "Personal banking", you are no longer getting information about international branches, but rather about what kind of services Bangkok Bank offer in Thailand.

Sophon

Well, whether it's misleading isn't a question of your opinion or my opinion, it's a question of objective fact. We'd need to get someone in the branch to tell us how many people have looked at the website and asked for a deposit account for themselves, or walked into the branch having seen the website. A live link that offers all individual accounts when you scroll over it without leaving the page, in English, with all the accounts - including the kids' accounts - In English. Mmmmm. You don't think that's likely to mislead. Let's agree to disagree. Let's also agree to disagree as to whether it would be worth spending six seconds adding to the page, "Bangkok Bank London unfortunately does not offer banking services to individuals. However, we can......." But, hey, why be professional, eh? I'll tell you something for nothing - if it was my investment it would be fixed in an hour.

[chiang mai]

[Craig krup]

Thought matters - agreed.......but what has it, and all your other responses, really got to do with answering your original questions?

The difference does matter but the reason why there aren't any threads about having a baht account in a UK regulated bank account is simply that AFAIK it is not possible and I am sure it has been considered by more astute minds then yours in the past.

The rest of your arguments appear to me to border on sophistry and Thai bashing, not necessarily in that order and not that I necessarily disagree with some of the points, but you seem to want to wilfully wind up posters who actually tried to answer you...............I won't go as far to suggest trolling but some answers are at odds with others.......or have you really not read that many posts here?

I seem to want to wind up people who have tried to answer me. Mmm. Let’s see if that’s true, and we’ll avoid naming names.

I asked a question which turns on something simple: if you could have an account with a Thai bank which is regulated by the UK and under UK arbitration procedures would that be advantageous? Nobody, but nobody made any attempt to answer that question. If you think otherwise show me where.

The first reply was about transferring funds – irrelevant to the actual question.

A couple of replies later we get the next broadly on-topic remark when someone says that you can’t open a personal account. This is useful information, which is why I “liked it”, but it’s actually still irrelevant to the question. If you were, for example, running an import export business you’d still want to know whether people thought having a UK regulated account with a Thai bank was worth having. If you were planning to retire to Thailand in the future, and had a small business that was incorporated, it would also be useful to know whether Bangkok Bank’s UK status was an advantage in holding a baht account. But nobody’s ever minded to address the actual issue on the web, so we move on.

We then get a remark about money “not being much use” if you’re in Thailand and the money isn’t. What do you do with this kind of thing? It involves such a profound misunderstanding you’ve two choices. 1) You ignore it and someone (and perhaps others) is left thinking something false and incoherent, or 2) you address it and chuck some more fuel into the tangent engine.

We then get a post about “many threads” being available regarding sending money to Thailand which – again – has got fanny adams to do with the original question. I’m asked what I mean by “are all Thai banks equally trustworthy”. There’s doubt as to what I mean by this. Now this is a truly wonderful remark. Every single day there’s another 25 tales of woe on this forum, 23 of which could usefully have been avoided with two second’s worth of thought. Asking yourself, “How will I be placed if I’m in dispute with this new bank headquartered in another country with a poor record for corruption?” is exactly the kind of question posed by people with well-worked procedures for avoiding landing in the s***. But for people who couldn’t find more filth with GPS and a map of the world’s best open sewers this is exactly the kind of consideration that would never occur to them. An ounce of prevention? Oh no, I’d like three quarters of a ton of web-based too-late cure, please.

The next (being generous) relevant remark concerns whether pound deposits are good for visa renewals, which 1) isn’t relevant to the initial question, and 2) elides over the question as to whether they might be enough to get the visa in the first place.

The next post in any way relevant (ignoring my own attempt to suggest that using language with precision is a Western practice, and no bad thing) has someone saying that BKK London always answers your emails. Well, they haven’t answered mine from 24 hours ago.

I’m then asked what my posts have to do with answering my questions. In other words, if you try to firefight against a sea of irrelevant madness that’s (apparently) inapt, and (it seems) I’m secretly possessed of the answer to my own question, which I should have posted. I’m told that some of my posts contradict others. Well which? Quote.

There isn’t a single post which in any way addresses the issue, “Is there an advantage in having a baht account with a UK regulated bank if you could?”

Not one. If you think this issue is addressed at any point show me where. People honestly and truly don’t know that they have characteristics and share them with others. There’s an educational theorist called Olson who famously described so-called “literate scientific” thinking, which is the kind of thinking promoted by forcing people to look closely at exactly what has been said – by them or someone else – and what exactly is implied by it. Most people have zero tolerance for this. Decent universities spend three or four years drilling people in it. But most folk just don’t use language like this, and it absolutely ***** up their lives. What do you do if they’re doing this? Give up? That seems a bit of a counsel of despair. And there’s the rub – as I’ve said before. Nobody “joins” a group without sharing characteristics with the group. People on this forum really need to see that they restrict themselves to, 1) “Can you?”, 2) “You can because I did”, 3) “I like”, 4) “I dislike”. But something as nuanced as, “It would be useful to have UK regulatory oversight and some standing with a Thai bank, but the only option doesn’t allow personal accounts: something to think about, though, if you’re running a business” – that kind of language doesn’t exist.

Following on from that, I wonder how good Thai immigration offices are at distinguishing between John Smith, and John Smith, managing director of John Smith Ltd, with a right to draw on the deposits of John Smith Ltd? Sorry, sorry, sorry, ko toot, kow a phai………there’s me ****** thinking again. Mustn’t do that.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Craig krup

[topt]

Thought matters - agreed.......but what has it, and all your other responses, really got to do with answering your original questions?

The difference does matter but the reason why there aren't any threads about having a baht account in a UK regulated bank account is simply that AFAIK it is not possible and I am sure it has been considered by more astute minds then yours in the past.

The rest of your arguments appear to me to border on sophistry and Thai bashing, not necessarily in that order and not that I necessarily disagree with some of the points, but you seem to want to wilfully wind up posters who actually tried to answer you...............I won't go as far to suggest trolling but some answers are at odds with others.......or have you really not read that many posts here?

I seem to want to wind up people who have tried to answer me. Mmm. Let’s see if that’s true, and we’ll avoid naming names.

I asked a question which turns on something simple: if you could have an account with a Thai bank which is regulated by the UK and under UK arbitration procedures would that be advantageous? Nobody, but nobody made any attempt to answer that question. If you think otherwise show me where.

The first reply was about transferring funds – irrelevant to the actual question.

A couple of replies later we get the next broadly on-topic remark when someone says that you can’t open a personal account. This is useful information, which is why I “liked it”, but it’s actually still irrelevant to the question. If you were, for example, running an import export business you’d still want to know whether people thought having a UK regulated account with a Thai bank was worth having. If you were planning to retire to Thailand in the future, and had a small business that was incorporated, it would also be useful to know whether Bangkok Bank’s UK status was an advantage in holding a baht account. But nobody’s ever minded to address the actual issue on the web, so we move on.

We then get a remark about money “not being much use” if you’re in Thailand and the money isn’t. What do you do with this kind of thing? It involves such a profound misunderstanding you’ve two choices. 1) You ignore it and someone (and perhaps others) is left thinking something false and incoherent, or 2) you address it and chuck some more fuel into the tangent engine.

We then get a post about “many threads” being available regarding sending money to Thailand which – again – has got fanny adams to do with the original question. I’m asked what I mean by “are all Thai banks equally trustworthy”. There’s doubt as to what I mean by this. Now this is a truly wonderful remark. Every single day there’s another 25 tales of woe on this forum, 23 of which could usefully have been avoided with two second’s worth of thought. Asking yourself, “How will I be placed if I’m in dispute with this new bank headquartered in another country with a poor record for corruption?” is exactly the kind of question posed by people with well-worked procedures for avoiding landing in the s***. But for people who couldn’t find more filth with GPS and a map of the world’s best open sewers this is exactly the kind of consideration that would never occur to them. An ounce of prevention? Oh no, I’d like three quarters of a ton of web-based too-late cure, please.

The next (being generous) relevant remark concerns whether pound deposits are good for visa renewals, which 1) isn’t relevant to the initial question, and 2) elides over the question as to whether they might be enough to get the visa in the first place.

The next post in any way relevant (ignoring my own attempt to suggest that using language with precision is a Western practice, and no bad thing) has someone saying that BKK London always answers your emails. Well, they haven’t answered mine from 24 hours ago.

I’m then asked what my posts have to do with answering my questions. In other words, if you try to firefight against a sea of irrelevant madness that’s (apparently) inapt, and (it seems) I’m secretly possessed of the answer to my own question, which I should have posted. I’m told that some of my posts contradict others. Well which? Quote.

There isn’t a single post which in any way addresses the issue, “Is there an advantage in having a baht account with a UK regulated bank if you could?”

Not one. If you think this issue is addressed at any point show me where. People honestly and truly don’t know that they have characteristics and share them with others. There’s an educational theorist called Olson who famously described so-called “literate scientific” thinking, which is the kind of thinking promoted by forcing people to look closely at exactly what has been said – by them or someone else – and what exactly is implied by it. Most people have zero tolerance for this. Decent universities spend three or four years drilling people in it. But most folk just don’t use language like this, and it absolutely ***** up their lives. What do you do if they’re doing this? Give up? That seems a bit of a counsel of despair. And there’s the rub – as I’ve said before. Nobody “joins” a group without sharing characteristics with the group. People on this forum really need to see that they restrict themselves to, 1) “Can you?”, 2) “You can because I did”, 3) “I like”, 4) “I dislike”. But something as nuanced as, “It would be useful to have UK regulatory oversight and some standing with a Thai bank, but the only option doesn’t allow personal accounts: something to think about, though, if you’re running a business” – that kind of language doesn’t exist.

Following on from that, I wonder how good Thai immigration offices are at distinguishing between John Smith, and John Smith, managing director of John Smith Ltd, with a right to draw on the deposits of John Smith Ltd? Sorry, sorry, sorry, ko toot, kow a phai………there’s me ****** thinking again. Mustn’t do that.

Apologies but I cannot be arsed to address all of your thinking but as regards this -

There isn’t a single post which in any way addresses the issue, “Is there an advantage in having a baht account with a UK regulated bank if you could?”

I would respectfully suggest that it is, perhaps, so blindingly obvious, but unfortunately not at all possible relative to the original parameters of your question, that it was not deemed necessary to reply "literally" and that nearly everyone else seemed to understand this.

Oh and perhaps the bank have not responded as they are closed for the Thai holidays..........or not

[stament]

I'm lost is the original OP wanting to keep funds in the UK rather than Thailand to show immigration he has the required 800k?

Sorry but I'm a bit lost what is his objective? Fully understand from threads he can't open an account with BKK bank in London, which surprisingly is different to what I was told about four or five years ago when I popped into the branch in London, but hey perhaps things have changed or my question was misunderstood by staff?

[blackcab]

Thought matters - agreed.......but what has it, and all your other responses, really got to do with answering your original questions?

The difference does matter but the reason why there aren't any threads about having a baht account in a UK regulated bank account is simply that AFAIK it is not possible and I am sure it has been considered by more astute minds then yours in the past.

The rest of your arguments appear to me to border on sophistry and Thai bashing, not necessarily in that order and not that I necessarily disagree with some of the points, but you seem to want to wilfully wind up posters who actually tried to answer you...............I won't go as far to suggest trolling but some answers are at odds with others.......or have you really not read that many posts here?

I seem to want to wind up people who have tried to answer me. Mmm. Lets see if thats true, and well avoid naming names.

I asked a question which turns on something simple: if you could have an account with a Thai bank which is regulated by the UK and under UK arbitration procedures would that be advantageous? Nobody, but nobody made any attempt to answer that question. If you think otherwise show me where.

The first reply was about transferring funds irrelevant to the actual question.

A couple of replies later we get the next broadly on-topic remark when someone says that you cant open a personal account. This is useful information, which is why I liked it, but its actually still irrelevant to the question. If you were, for example, running an import export business youd still want to know whether people thought having a UK regulated account with a Thai bank was worth having. If you were planning to retire to Thailand in the future, and had a small business that was incorporated, it would also be useful to know whether Bangkok Banks UK status was an advantage in holding a baht account. But nobodys ever minded to address the actual issue on the web, so we move on.

We then get a remark about money not being much use if youre in Thailand and the money isnt. What do you do with this kind of thing? It involves such a profound misunderstanding youve two choices. 1) You ignore it and someone (and perhaps others) is left thinking something false and incoherent, or 2) you address it and chuck some more fuel into the tangent engine.

We then get a post about many threads being available regarding sending money to Thailand which again has got fanny adams to do with the original question. Im asked what I mean by are all Thai banks equally trustworthy. Theres doubt as to what I mean by this. Now this is a truly wonderful remark. Every single day theres another 25 tales of woe on this forum, 23 of which could usefully have been avoided with two seconds worth of thought. Asking yourself, How will I be placed if Im in dispute with this new bank headquartered in another country with a poor record for corruption? is exactly the kind of question posed by people with well-worked procedures for avoiding landing in the s***. But for people who couldnt find more filth with GPS and a map of the worlds best open sewers this is exactly the kind of consideration that would never occur to them. An ounce of prevention? Oh no, Id like three quarters of a ton of web-based too-late cure, please.

The next (being generous) relevant remark concerns whether pound deposits are good for visa renewals, which 1) isnt relevant to the initial question, and 2) elides over the question as to whether they might be enough to get the visa in the first place.

The next post in any way relevant (ignoring my own attempt to suggest that using language with precision is a Western practice, and no bad thing) has someone saying that BKK London always answers your emails. Well, they havent answered mine from 24 hours ago.

Im then asked what my posts have to do with answering my questions. In other words, if you try to firefight against a sea of irrelevant madness thats (apparently) inapt, and (it seems) Im secretly possessed of the answer to my own question, which I should have posted. Im told that some of my posts contradict others. Well which? Quote.

There isnt a single post which in any way addresses the issue, Is there an advantage in having a baht account with a UK regulated bank if you could?

Not one. If you think this issue is addressed at any point show me where. People honestly and truly dont know that they have characteristics and share them with others. Theres an educational theorist called Olson who famously described so-called literate scientific thinking, which is the kind of thinking promoted by forcing people to look closely at exactly what has been said by them or someone else and what exactly is implied by it. Most people have zero tolerance for this. Decent universities spend three or four years drilling people in it. But most folk just dont use language like this, and it absolutely ***** up their lives. What do you do if theyre doing this? Give up? That seems a bit of a counsel of despair. And theres the rub as Ive said before. Nobody joins a group without sharing characteristics with the group. People on this forum really need to see that they restrict themselves to, 1) Can you?, 2) You can because I did, 3) I like, 4) I dislike. But something as nuanced as, It would be useful to have UK regulatory oversight and some standing with a Thai bank, but the only option doesnt allow personal accounts: something to think about, though, if youre running a business that kind of language doesnt exist.

Following on from that, I wonder how good Thai immigration offices are at distinguishing between John Smith, and John Smith, managing director of John Smith Ltd, with a right to draw on the deposits of John Smith Ltd? Sorry, sorry, sorry, ko toot, kow a phaitheres me ****** thinking again. Mustnt do that.

Bangkok Bank Public Company Ltd is recognised by the Bank of England as a bank incorporated outside the EEA that is authorised to accept deposits through a branch in the UK:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Documents/authorisations/banklist/banklist1506.pdf

Bangkok Bank Public Company Ltd is listed by the Financial Conduct Authority as a bank whose eligible depositors are covered by the UKs Financial Services

Compensation Scheme (FSCS) up to a limit of £85,000:

http://fca.org.uk/static/documents/deposit-protection-fscs.pdf

Whether this bank chooses to open retail accounts and operate limited retail banking services is another matter, as the the compliance costs associated with doing so would be high for a single branch. I would imagine the fees they would have to charge customers to cover this expense would not make their position commercially viable.

Would this be advantageous? To my mind, it would be no more advantageous than having an account at any other bank that is part of the FSCS.

In theory, if the UK branch accepted retail deposits in GBP and immigration accepted a GBP deposit in this account for the purpose of extensions of stay it would save depositors having to transfer and deposit money to Thailand (400k or 800k) and pay any associated transfer fees.

I'm sure others could think of additional advantages.

Edited August 1, 2015 by blackcab

[chiang mai]

Except, Thai Immigration requires the funds for visa purposes to be deposited in a bank in Thailand, not in a Thai bank outside Thailand.

[stament]

Except, Thai Immigration requires the funds for visa purposes to be deposited in a bank in Thailand, not in a Thai bank outside Thailand.

That was my understanding of the rules too hence I couldn't see what the OPs objective was in trying to open an account in UK

[chiang mai]

Except, Thai Immigration requires the funds for visa purposes to be deposited in a bank in Thailand, not in a Thai bank outside Thailand.

That was my understanding of the rules too hence I couldn't see what the OPs objective was in trying to open an account in UK

I don't think there is a real objective, OP's probably just bored.

[Craig krup]

Thought matters - agreed.......but what has it, and all your other responses, really got to do with answering your original questions?

The difference does matter but the reason why there aren't any threads about having a baht account in a UK regulated bank account is simply that AFAIK it is not possible and I am sure it has been considered by more astute minds then yours in the past.

The rest of your arguments appear to me to border on sophistry and Thai bashing, not necessarily in that order and not that I necessarily disagree with some of the points, but you seem to want to wilfully wind up posters who actually tried to answer you...............I won't go as far to suggest trolling but some answers are at odds with others.......or have you really not read that many posts here?

I seem to want to wind up people who have tried to answer me. Mmm. Lets see if thats true, and well avoid naming names.

I asked a question which turns on something simple: if you could have an account with a Thai bank which is regulated by the UK and under UK arbitration procedures would that be advantageous? Nobody, but nobody made any attempt to answer that question. If you think otherwise show me where.

The first reply was about transferring funds irrelevant to the actual question.

A couple of replies later we get the next broadly on-topic remark when someone says that you cant open a personal account. This is useful information, which is why I liked it, but its actually still irrelevant to the question. If you were, for example, running an import export business youd still want to know whether people thought having a UK regulated account with a Thai bank was worth having. If you were planning to retire to Thailand in the future, and had a small business that was incorporated, it would also be useful to know whether Bangkok Banks UK status was an advantage in holding a baht account. But nobodys ever minded to address the actual issue on the web, so we move on.

We then get a remark about money not being much use if youre in Thailand and the money isnt. What do you do with this kind of thing? It involves such a profound misunderstanding youve two choices. 1) You ignore it and someone (and perhaps others) is left thinking something false and incoherent, or 2) you address it and chuck some more fuel into the tangent engine.

We then get a post about many threads being available regarding sending money to Thailand which again has got fanny adams to do with the original question. Im asked what I mean by are all Thai banks equally trustworthy. Theres doubt as to what I mean by this. Now this is a truly wonderful remark. Every single day theres another 25 tales of woe on this forum, 23 of which could usefully have been avoided with two seconds worth of thought. Asking yourself, How will I be placed if Im in dispute with this new bank headquartered in another country with a poor record for corruption? is exactly the kind of question posed by people with well-worked procedures for avoiding landing in the s***. But for people who couldnt find more filth with GPS and a map of the worlds best open sewers this is exactly the kind of consideration that would never occur to them. An ounce of prevention? Oh no, Id like three quarters of a ton of web-based too-late cure, please.

The next (being generous) relevant remark concerns whether pound deposits are good for visa renewals, which 1) isnt relevant to the initial question, and 2) elides over the question as to whether they might be enough to get the visa in the first place.

The next post in any way relevant (ignoring my own attempt to suggest that using language with precision is a Western practice, and no bad thing) has someone saying that BKK London always answers your emails. Well, they havent answered mine from 24 hours ago.

Im then asked what my posts have to do with answering my questions. In other words, if you try to firefight against a sea of irrelevant madness thats (apparently) inapt, and (it seems) Im secretly possessed of the answer to my own question, which I should have posted. Im told that some of my posts contradict others. Well which? Quote.

There isnt a single post which in any way addresses the issue, Is there an advantage in having a baht account with a UK regulated bank if you could?

Not one. If you think this issue is addressed at any point show me where. People honestly and truly dont know that they have characteristics and share them with others. Theres an educational theorist called Olson who famously described so-called literate scientific thinking, which is the kind of thinking promoted by forcing people to look closely at exactly what has been said by them or someone else and what exactly is implied by it. Most people have zero tolerance for this. Decent universities spend three or four years drilling people in it. But most folk just dont use language like this, and it absolutely ***** up their lives. What do you do if theyre doing this? Give up? That seems a bit of a counsel of despair. And theres the rub as Ive said before. Nobody joins a group without sharing characteristics with the group. People on this forum really need to see that they restrict themselves to, 1) Can you?, 2) You can because I did, 3) I like, 4) I dislike. But something as nuanced as, It would be useful to have UK regulatory oversight and some standing with a Thai bank, but the only option doesnt allow personal accounts: something to think about, though, if youre running a business that kind of language doesnt exist.

Following on from that, I wonder how good Thai immigration offices are at distinguishing between John Smith, and John Smith, managing director of John Smith Ltd, with a right to draw on the deposits of John Smith Ltd? Sorry, sorry, sorry, ko toot, kow a phaitheres me ****** thinking again. Mustnt do that.

Bangkok Bank Public Company Ltd is recognised by the Bank of England as a bank incorporated outside the EEA that is authorised to accept deposits through a branch in the UK:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Documents/authorisations/banklist/banklist1506.pdf

Bangkok Bank Public Company Ltd is listed by the Financial Conduct Authority as a bank whose eligible depositors are covered by the UKs Financial Services

Compensation Scheme (FSCS) up to a limit of £85,000:

http://fca.org.uk/static/documents/deposit-protection-fscs.pdf

Whether this bank chooses to open retail accounts and operate limited retail banking services is another matter, as the the compliance costs associated with doing so would be high for a single branch. I would imagine the fees they would have to charge customers to cover this expense would not make their position commercially viable.

Would this be advantageous? To my mind, it would be no more advantageous than having an account at any other bank that is part of the FSCS.

In theory, if the UK branch accepted retail deposits in GBP and immigration accepted a GBP deposit in this account for the purpose of extensions of stay it would save depositors having to transfer and deposit money to Thailand (400k or 800k) and pay any associated transfer fees.

I'm sure others could think of additional advantages.

Excellent. Exactly. HSBC and (it's looking like Barclays) seem to offer baht accounts, and as a Brit I think you stand a damn sight more chance of receiving reasonable treatment from either of them in the event of a dispute than you would with a bank with no international reputation, no branches abroad and no fear of a western regulator or legal system.

If someone said that you'd withdrawn 112,000 baht across the counter, and you swore blind you hadn't, what chance have you got if your account was opened with the Kasikorn Branch in Nong Khai? I'll answer my own rhetorical question - sweet fanny adams of a chance. How much time would your MP or the British regulatory authorities spend dealing with your letter? The square root of **** all. How interested would Moneybox or the Telegraph personal finance editor be? About as interested as I was at 12 in Mrs McCrone's French class - zut alors! How bothered would the Thai bank be if you did make public your complaint and someone showed an interest? About as interested as you would be if I told you about Mrs McCrone's French class.

But if the account was in London and Inspector Knacker asks to see the CCTV for the time of the supposed transaction.......

If no idea whether the stories you hear and read about are true, but some of them have the appalling ring of credibility. Having read about the American who (supposedly) had a load of "fake" (actually real) US dollars confiscated at the airport, and was threatened with getting jailed if he kept insisting on a receipt, would you carry a load of currency through?

I'll be blunt. If you had (say) 800,000 baht in a Thai bank what are the chances of some or all of the money going missing and you being able to do damn all about it? Are the procedures too tight for that? The staff are badly paid, and I'm not sure they know what they're doing. They photocopy notes and your passport and have you sign. I thought that was in case there was theft among the farangs. Thinking about it, it's actually because they don't trust themselves to tell real notes from fake. What would it take for a badly paid Thai bank clerk to pay a load of money out to another farang she was in cahoots with and use one of the photocopied passport sheets from one of your other transactions, landing her colleague in the s**t and emptying your account? If bureacrats don't think fraud is easy. My mate trained in fraud prevention years ago. A bloke who knew how the British banking system worked had a dodgy printer create a load of bank giro credit slips with (IIRC) an RBS clearing sort code in the middle and "Bank of Scotland" across the top in words. He knew that the slips went through an auto-reader and were sent to the relevant banks, and cheques would clear unless there was a problem. In the weeks it took for someone to work out why these slips kept going through the system the money had gone.

There are a lot of people saying that there card has been "skimmed". I'm quite suspicious. If money has gone I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions about how it had happened. But I would have thought that if other things were equal having some leverage over your bank has to be a good thing. I really don't understand the mentality that allows people to put themselves in a position without thinking about where they'll be left if there's a problem. People buy property in a country with a major subsidence problem and never consider subsidence. They buy in a country with no planning controls or ability to prevent noise and other nuisances. They put property in the name of someone who has every interest in abandoning them and keeping the wealth. They start disputes and act aggressively without thinking, "This is like a know-nothing Spaniard casually making enemies in a peripheral estate in Glasgow". Folk just don't see the value in trying to put insurance in place. I truly can't wrap my head around it.

[Craig krup]

I don't think there is a real objective, OP's probably just bored.

You don't think, period.

[Craig krup]

Except, Thai Immigration requires the funds for visa purposes to be deposited in a bank in Thailand, not in a Thai bank outside Thailand.

Where does it actually say that? It doesn't in the visa application form. It says (London embassy) "Copy of bank statement or evidence of adequate finance showing a deposit of the amount equal to and not less than 800,000 Baht or an income certificate with monthly income of not less than 65,000 Baht, (approximately GBP 14,000.00/annum) or a deposti acocount plus a monthly income totaling not less than 800,000 Baht. In case attached copy of bank statement, the original reference letter from the banking concerned is necessary."

You won't manage a Thai account from the UK, and it says "equivalent". Any number of people have said (in effect) forget "equivalent" once you're in the country, which may well be true, but (it seems) HSBC can give you a baht account and doubtless there are other non-Thai banks which can do the same.

[Craig krup]

There isn’t a single post which in any way addresses the issue, “Is there an advantage in having a baht account with a UK regulated bank if you could?”

I would respectfully suggest that it is, perhaps, so blindingly obvious, but unfortunately not at all possible relative to the original parameters of your question, that it was not deemed necessary to reply "literally" and that nearly everyone else seemed to understand this.

This sounds profound, but isn't. I spent the morning turning John Stuart Mill into plain English, and while he's convoluted he's usually actually saying something.

You don't mean "relative", you mean "relevant". Your sentence doesn't say anything. You can't be arsed, and your sentences can't be parsed. You might be saying that everyone knows that there would be an advantage in having an account with a bank in a jurisdiction where you have some standing and some chance or redress..........or you might not know what you're saying. If you're saying it's obviously advantageous I'm at a loss as to why you could possibly think it outwith the "parameters" of the question: such a claim would directly address the question. As to "literally", you've misunderstood what the word means. You wouldn't go into a shop and say that you wanted a sandwich and accept their saying, "A literal sandwich, or a metaphorical one?" If someone says that the curry was so hot they "literally burst into flames" then they don't know what the word means. The simple question, "Is there an advantage in doing business with someone who has to submit to competent and honest arbitration should there be a dispute?" isn't really the kind of question that admits of both literal and metaphorical answers.

[Sophon]

It says so on Immigrations website here:

What you are reading on the London embassy website is the conditions for applying for a Non Immigrant (Long stay) OA visa, the same rules do not apply when applying for an extension in Thailand.

You can choose to believe us or not, but Bangkok Bank, London will not open an account for you. And even if they did, you would not be able to apply for an extension in Thailand based on such an account, as it would not meet the requirement that the account is in "a bank in Thailand".

Sophon

[topt]

There isn’t a single post which in any way addresses the issue, “Is there an advantage in having a baht account with a UK regulated bank if you could?”

I would respectfully suggest that it is, perhaps, so blindingly obvious, but unfortunately not at all possible relative to the original parameters of your question, that it was not deemed necessary to reply "literally" and that nearly everyone else seemed to understand this.

This sounds profound, but isn't. I spent the morning turning John Stuart Mill into plain English, and while he's convoluted he's usually actually saying something.

You don't mean "relative", you mean "relevant". Your sentence doesn't say anything. You can't be arsed, and your sentences can't be parsed. You might be saying that everyone knows that there would be an advantage in having an account with a bank in a jurisdiction where you have some standing and some chance or redress..........or you might not know what you're saying. If you're saying it's obviously advantageous I'm at a loss as to why you could possibly think it outwith the "parameters" of the question: such a claim would directly address the question. As to "literally", you've misunderstood what the word means. You wouldn't go into a shop and say that you wanted a sandwich and accept their saying, "A literal sandwich, or a metaphorical one?" If someone says that the curry was so hot they "literally burst into flames" then they don't know what the word means. The simple question, "Is there an advantage in doing business with someone who has to submit to competent and honest arbitration should there be a dispute?" isn't really the kind of question that admits of both literal and metaphorical answers.

Wasn't meant to be or sound profound and I meant what I said. If you choose to engage in verbal pyrotechnics, for whatever reason, up to you!

See Sophon post above which hopefully is clear enough for you..................

[Craig krup]

It says so on Immigrations website here:

2.22.jpg

What you are reading on the London embassy website is the conditions for applying for a Non Immigrant (Long stay) OA visa, the same rules do not apply when applying for an extension in Thailand.

You can choose to believe us or not, but Bangkok Bank, London will not open an account for you. And even if they did, you would not be able to apply for an extension in Thailand based on such an account, as it would not meet the requirement that the account is in "a bank in Thailand".

Sophon

Fair enough, and thanks. Siam Legal has you arriving on a 60/90 day visa and quickly opening a baht account. Personally I think if you can put off the day for a year it's worth doing. You wonder how often you could - or if you could - "abandon" your visa, forget about the extension, and just pay another £125 and go through the palaver to avoid depositing dough in Thailand.

But even then notice just how bad their pseudo-legal convolutions are. Look at point four. You 1) need 800,000 for three months, and 2) in the first year you "must" have the money for sixty days. What they actually mean, of course, is that they'll cut you a bit of slack in that first year because they know that visa waver and a rush to immigration might allow you to meet 60 days. But that means that they mean "For the first year the funds need to have been deposited for 60 days, and for each subsequent year for three months". In other words, their bad translation - and the country is full of people who could fix it - is causing avoidable problems. Someone who had thought through the practicalities arrived at the right answer, and then expressed it with a "must" rather than a "may" - or a longer sentence - and left a dog's breakfast: probably one eaten by the dead one Chiang Mai is beating. By point "5" we're back to "a" bank, rather than "a bank in Thailand". And - to return to a couple of earlier posts - it doesn't say "a Thai bank" it says "a bank in Thailand": HSBC would do, I think, even if you were an expat customer with a baht account with them. Point "5" also further screws things up by talking about "annual" income, when every other thing they produce talks about "a month". So if you have four quarterly dividends that come to the required yearly total is that okay? Well, one thing says it is, and lots of other forms and documents say something different.

That screenshot is, though, useful. Interesting too that they cut long-term residents some slack.

[chiang mai]

I think this is probably a waste of time but for the sake of clarity I'll cover the point anyway, the OP wrote:

"as a Brit I think you stand a damn sight more chance of receiving reasonable treatment from either of them in the event of a dispute than you would with a bank with no international reputation, no branches abroad and no fear of a western regulator or legal system".

I don't know if the above is merely Thai bashing, xenophobia or fear of the unknown but many banks that operate in Thailand are really quite strong and many have an international reputation. For example, Bank of Ayudhya (BAY) is a particularly strong bank, owned by the Japanese Bank of Mitusbishi it has assets of over USD 2.5 trillion. Similarly, UOB, a Singaporean bank with many branches in Thailand is consistently rated in the top ten safest banks in the world. CIMB, a Malaysian bank with many many branches here is also extremely strong. All the foregoing have branches in many countries, unlike HSBC which doesn't have a retail branch here, ditto any other British bank.

Edited August 1, 2015 by chiang mai

[blackcab]

New customers at HSBC need a minimum balance of £60,000 or the equivalent on deposit to have a currency savings account.

If you open an account at HSBC denominated in Baht, how are you going to credit the account? Are you going to deposit GBP and let them exchange it? Or are you going to transfer Baht from Thailand to the UK?

If you want to close the account one day, how are you going to get your money? Let HSBC exchange it to GBP? Or transfer the Baht to a Thai bank and then deal with it from there?

[chiang mai]

New customers at HSBC need a minimum balance of £60,000 or the equivalent on deposit to have a currency savings account.

If you open an account at HSBC denominated in Baht, how are you going to credit the account? Are you going to deposit GBP and let them exchange it? Or are you going to transfer Baht from Thailand to the UK?

If you want to close the account one day, how are you going to get your money? Let HSBC exchange it to GBP? Or transfer the Baht to a Thai bank and then deal with it from there?

HSBC doesn't have any retail branches in Thailand any longer.

[blackcab]

Yes. Which is why I was wondering how craig krup would handle a Thai Baht HSBC currency savings account in reality.

[chiang mai]

Yes. Which is why I was wondering how craig krup would handle a Thai Baht HSBC currency savings account in reality.

It's too silly to even contemplate, a concept that hasn't been thought through.

[Craig krup]

New customers at HSBC need a minimum balance of £60,000 or the equivalent on deposit to have a currency savings account.

If you open an account at HSBC denominated in Baht, how are you going to credit the account? Are you going to deposit GBP and let them exchange it? Or are you going to transfer Baht from Thailand to the UK?

If you want to close the account one day, how are you going to get your money? Let HSBC exchange it to GBP? Or transfer the Baht to a Thai bank and then deal with it from there?

The account you've got the cash in never needs to experience a credit, or a withdrawal - all you're looking for is the 800,000 balance. It doesn't need to be an active account. How you fill it in the first place is a pretty marginal issue, or what precise rate you get on closing it, would be pretty marginal given all other considerations.

That said, I didn't realise it was 60k. That's more exchange rate risk than I'd want.

[Craig krup]

Yes. Which is why I was wondering how craig krup would handle a Thai Baht HSBC currency savings account in reality.

If you're not actually short of a couple of quid the baht account doesn't have to be anything more than a case of satisfying the authorities.

[Craig krup]

I think this is probably a waste of time but for the sake of clarity I'll cover the point anyway, the OP wrote:

"as a Brit I think you stand a damn sight more chance of receiving reasonable treatment from either of them in the event of a dispute than you would with a bank with no international reputation, no branches abroad and no fear of a western regulator or legal system".

I don't know if the above is merely Thai bashing, xenophobia or fear of the unknown but many banks that operate in Thailand are really quite strong and many have an international reputation. For example, Bank of Ayudhya (BAY) is a particularly strong bank, owned by the Japanese Bank of Mitusbishi it has assets of over USD 2.5 trillion. Similarly, UOB, a Singaporean bank with many branches in Thailand is consistently rated in the top ten safest banks in the world. CIMB, a Malaysian bank with many many branches here is also extremely strong. All the foregoing have branches in many countries, unlike HSBC which doesn't have a retail branch here, ditto any other British bank.

Why can't you distinguish between 1) a dispute following a loss, and 2) the financial solvency of the banks as entities? Honestly, I really don't understand how it's possible to conflate the two things. They're as separate as cats and comets. How is it possible to go through the day (presumably) lumping radically distinct things into the same conceptual categories?

The risk of fraud or personal loss, and the difficulties you will have getting any redress, is a completely different thing from the strength of the loan book of the banks, their "Tier One" capital or the willingness of the Thai central bank to act as a lender of last resort.

For what it's worth I think -

1) The baht is a reasonable long term buy at 55 to the pound: not much risk you'd make a currency loss over any reasonable time-frame, particularly given the interest rate difference. If you had to guess you'd think that China's middle class will increasingly holiday in SE Asia so, even if Thailand doesn't develop industrially, the service, hospitality and tourism industries will do okay. Low cost carriers on long-haul routes will also drag in more Europeans.

2) I'm sure the Thai central bank would make any Thai bank liquid with baht in the event of a crisis. If you were spending loads of baht in the country, and were buying it year on year with pounds, dollars or euros you'd do okay.

If I could convince myself that money won't just go missing I'd be fine. If I could convince myself that having money in the bank couldn't possibly be the source of other problems in the right circumstances I'd be fine. People on this forum keep relating stories about terrible things that have happened to foreigners in Thailand. In the UK if a member of bank staff accesses information without good reason, or leaks it, they get sacked. What does someone on 5,000-10,000 baht a month fear when leaking information if the rewards are multiples of a year's salary, the chance of getting caught is minuscule, the possibility of escaping punishment is real and the person you're victimizing is "other"?

As I say, I know I'm a worrier, but worrying is useful. Think about the situation from the other guy's point of view, and eliminate all his best options right from the start.

Am I worrying about nothing? Is the Thai banking system characterized by integrity, honesty and procedure, or is it reasonable to think that the people administering your account might do something straightforwardly bent?

[chiang mai]

I think this is probably a waste of time but for the sake of clarity I'll cover the point anyway, the OP wrote:

"as a Brit I think you stand a damn sight more chance of receiving reasonable treatment from either of them in the event of a dispute than you would with a bank with no international reputation, no branches abroad and no fear of a western regulator or legal system".

I don't know if the above is merely Thai bashing, xenophobia or fear of the unknown but many banks that operate in Thailand are really quite strong and many have an international reputation. For example, Bank of Ayudhya (BAY) is a particularly strong bank, owned by the Japanese Bank of Mitusbishi it has assets of over USD 2.5 trillion. Similarly, UOB, a Singaporean bank with many branches in Thailand is consistently rated in the top ten safest banks in the world. CIMB, a Malaysian bank with many many branches here is also extremely strong. All the foregoing have branches in many countries, unlike HSBC which doesn't have a retail branch here, ditto any other British bank.

Why can't you distinguish between 1) a dispute following a loss, and 2) the financial solvency of the banks as entities? Honestly, I really don't understand how it's possible to conflate the two things. They're as separate as cats and comets. How is it possible to go through the day (presumably) lumping radically distinct things into the same conceptual categories?

The risk of fraud or personal loss, and the difficulties you will have getting any redress, is a completely different thing from the strength of the loan book of the banks, their "Tier One" capital or the willingness of the Thai central bank to act as a lender of last resort.

For what it's worth I think -

1) The baht is a reasonable long term buy at 55 to the pound: not much risk you'd make a currency loss over any reasonable time-frame, particularly given the interest rate difference. If you had to guess you'd think that China's middle class will increasingly holiday in SE Asia so, even if Thailand doesn't develop industrially, the service, hospitality and tourism industries will do okay. Low cost carriers on long-haul routes will also drag in more Europeans.

2) I'm sure the Thai central bank would make any Thai bank liquid with baht in the event of a crisis. If you were spending loads of baht in the country, and were buying it year on year with pounds, dollars or euros you'd do okay.

If I could convince myself that money won't just go missing I'd be fine. If I could convince myself that having money in the bank couldn't possibly be the source of other problems in the right circumstances I'd be fine. People on this forum keep relating stories about terrible things that have happened to foreigners in Thailand. In the UK if a member of bank staff accesses information without good reason, or leaks it, they get sacked. What does someone on 5,000-10,000 baht a month fear when leaking information if the rewards are multiples of a year's salary, the chance of getting caught is minuscule, the possibility of escaping punishment is real and the person you're victimizing is "other"?

As I say, I know I'm a worrier, but worrying is useful. Think about the situation from the other guy's point of view, and eliminate all his best options right from the start.

Am I worrying about nothing? Is the Thai banking system characterized by integrity, honesty and procedure, or is it reasonable to think that the people administering your account might do something straightforwardly bent?

Two points:

Firstly - You wrote that none of the banks in Thailand have an international presence, my most recent post refutes that point.

Secondly - It is reasonable to presume that a bank with USD 2.5 trillion in assets and a second that is rated the tenth safest bank in the world, probably do most things right.

But in your case, those things probably are not enough to provide you with calm and comfort, perhaps best you stay in the UK under the watchful eyes of whoever you think is watching your funds and the jurisdiction of UK law, good luck with that last point (Northern Rock, Standard Life, RBS et al)!

Byee!

[Craig krup]

Firstly - You wrote that none of the banks in Thailand have an international presence, my most recent post refutes that point.

Secondly - It is reasonable to presume that a bank with USD 2.5 trillion in assets and a second that is rated the tenth safest bank in the world, probably do most things right.

But in your case, those things probably are not enough to provide you with calm and comfort, perhaps best you stay in the UK under the watchful eyes of whoever you think is watching your funds and the jurisdiction of UK law, good luck with that last point (Northern Rock, Standard Life, RBS et al)!

Byee!

Two things.

Firstly, I didn't say "international presence" I said "no international reputation" such as to make it possible to embarrass them. You still don't pay attention to to differences which - in point of fact - really matter.

Secondly - You (now) say that their capital ratios imply propriety with regard to individual accounts. That's obvious b*******s, and is exactly the kind of ad hoc remark you'll be driven into if you pay no attention early on in a conversation and then have to try to find a way out. The world is full of well capitalized banks - in Russia, the Middle East and elsewhere - which have good balance sheets and dodgy practices with regard to individuals.

What, exactly, does the collapse of Northern Rock or the bailing out of RBS have to do with the integrity of their operation as it affects the retail depositor? Absolutely **** all. As to Northern Rock, and the inability of people to think, I have two colleagues - both graduates - who had £12,000 each in Northern Rock shares. They'd had savings accounts and mortgages with the building society when it floated. I told them repeatedly that if they wouldn't buy the shares for twelve grand then they had to sell them: logic dictated this. They said, "Oh no, that's silly, I got them for nothing, I don't care whether they go up or down". You could talk until you were blue in the face, you could recommend they read Kahneman, you could tell them that companies can and do go bust.....................nothing: a big fat waste of time. What happened when Northern Rock went bust? Jesus wept, they said, "What do you think we should do?"

You suggested I might be Thai bashing earlier on. I'm so not. Most people, regardless of ethnicity, couldn't think their way out of a phone box. Advanced economies have systems in place devised by people with working brains precisely to deprive people of the kinds of choices that they wouldn't be able to exercise without a lot of risk. Try explaining absolutely anything about finance and investments to the average punter - like water on PVC.

The reason we can have three pages and nobody grasp, "Ah, he's asking if they'll fiddle accounts because he thinks if they did there'd be fanny adams he could do about it" is because nobody has thought about what should be obvious, "If they fiddled my account there'd be fanny adams I could do about it".

[incidentally, you do know what an "asset" is in the context of a bank? They've loaned a load of money into existence and entered the loans as assets on the balance sheet. RBS had a "balance sheet" of two trillion. That wasn't an advantage; that was the source of the problem].

Edited August 3, 2015 by Craig krup

[blackcab]

New customers at HSBC need a minimum balance of £60,000 or the equivalent on deposit to have a currency savings account.

If you open an account at HSBC denominated in Baht, how are you going to credit the account? Are you going to deposit GBP and let them exchange it? Or are you going to transfer Baht from Thailand to the UK?

If you want to close the account one day, how are you going to get your money? Let HSBC exchange it to GBP? Or transfer the Baht to a Thai bank and then deal with it from there?

The account you've got the cash in never needs to experience a credit, or a withdrawal - all you're looking for is the 800,000 balance. It doesn't need to be an active account. How you fill it in the first place is a pretty marginal issue, or what precise rate you get on closing it, would be pretty marginal given all other considerations.

That said, I didn't realise it was 60k. That's more exchange rate risk than I'd want.

If you think "marginal" is:

1) HSBC converting £60,000 GBP to Baht at their exchange rate, or

2) Transferring 3 million baht from Thailand without a corresponding FET certificate

then I think you are as delusional as your idea is unrealistic and harebrained.

I won't be contributing to this thread anymore - I prefer reading sensible and constructive content.