Thread: Amendments to Police Order 138/2257 (using monthly income)

Originally Posted by Maanaam

"Then record the evidence that the officer has informed the applicant".
I can easily imagine that for the more officious officers this will involve signed affidavits in triplicate, photos, and corroborating witness statements. Seems redundant, though. Come 2020 and the applicant hasn't got his 12 months bank records, it would be his bad, and his bad luck.

One question that arises; the memo states specifically "monthly transfers". To the letter of the ruling, this precludes transfers of twice as much every two months or other longer equivalents (to save on fees, perhaps, or because that his how the applicant's income is structured.)


Great stuff Todd.

My transfers and I'm sure others are quarterly, and wouldn't fit the 'word of the law'.

Dumb, dumber and dumbest on the podium!

Originally Posted by jabir

My transfers and I'm sure others are quarterly, and wouldn't fit the 'word of the law'.

Dumb, dumber and dumbest on the podium!

So it is a valid question that could affect people. Good to know. Hopefully someone will bring this point of order up with BJ.
First reaction is to have your quarterly transfers to one account, then once a month make a transfer to your "For immigration purposes" account once a month, thereby showing a once monthly sufficient amount.

So does the memo mean someone seeking an extension gets a free ride until 2020? AFTER being informed that person must then comply 100% for further extensions to be granted?

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

So does the memo mean someone seeking an extension gets a free ride until 2020? AFTER being informed that person must then comply 100% for further extensions to be granted?

No it doesn't mean you get a full free ride, just that they are allowed to be lenient if you're missing part of the 12 monthly transfers.

Post #119

From the MFA

Originally Posted by bowie

solely at the discretion of the Immigration officer.

So, any guess' on just whose interpretation of the police orders they're gonna enforce?

The silver lining –

When I did my expatriation retirement due diligence a few years ago I had a few options; non-o procurement: USA or Thailand?, marriage or retirement extensions?, monthly or lump sum qualification? Selected: USA, Retirement, Lump Sum.

So, THB 800k in a Thai bank account that I really cannot use as I must replenish it, why bother using it. So considered “off-limits”.

Now, the silver lining. Change in requirements lets me get my “Letter” from the Bangkok Bank for the monthly income option. Embassy trip for income affidavit is NOT required, saves a full day commute and USD $50 fee.

I get a letter from the Bangkok Bank for THB 100 and one hours time for the THB 800k Lump Sum Deposit that is “Off-Limits”. Now the Bank Letter can also be used for the monthly deposit. Before this amendment it had to be an Embassy Letter.

So, I changed my monthly deposits (@ THB 90k/mo.) from our joint account to my solo account and implemented an automatic transfer from the solo account to the joint account. This way the wife still has access to the funds but, I now have a documented @ THB 90k/mo. transfer from a foreign account to my solo Bangkok Bank account. Started that this month Jan19. So, basically after a year I’ll be able to “qualify” my extension with the monthly deposit freeing up the “off-limits” THB 800k Lump Sum deposit. In 2020 that THB 800k will be my “Medical Emergency Fund”.

Works for me.

Bowie, if you've got 800k sitting there, why would you need to show evidence of any monthly income? You've already satisfied the financial requirement.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Bowie, if you've got 800k sitting there, why would you need to show evidence of any monthly income? You've already satisfied the financial requirement.

Maanaam
I will answer for bowie and then he can correct me if I am wrong.
He is going to go the monthly transfer route now because he can and that will free up his 800K to do with as he pleases and saves him having to go to the US Embassy.
I thought it was quite obvious what and why he is doing it.

Just one comment though and that is, for people with enough money there are multiple solutions for those that struggle for money there are difficult times ahead.

Originally Posted by ootai

Maanaam
I will answer for bowie and then he can correct me if I am wrong.
He is going to go the monthly transfer route now because he can and that will free up his 800K to do with as he pleases and saves him having to go to the US Embassy.
I thought it was quite obvious what and why he is doing it.

Gotcha.

Originally Posted by ootai

for those that struggle for money there are difficult times ahead.

Actually this new monthly rule can help those whose income from home is less than what is required to be shown since they can now ping pong an amount, back and forth from home to Thailand and back again.
Lets say the requirement is 40k but the guy's income from home is 30k. He sends 40k, sends 10k back each month. He just has to have that extra 10k initially.
I wonder what the requirement is exactly: Does the 40k have to be deposited in his bank account monthly and there is no consideration from Immigration as to where it came from, or does it have to show that it all came from overseas? If the former, it makes it even easier for the scenario of a rotating top-up amount because the 30k comes from home into one account, which then transfers 40 to another local account (for Immigration to see) and the 10k is then sent back to the first local account. Almost no fee and done online.

Originally Posted by ootai

Just one comment though and that is, for people with enough money there are multiple solutions for those that struggle for money there are difficult times ahead.

Yup, right on both accounts - money talks, if you have it, no problems, if you don't "difficulties". The real problem is the con artists that feed off the folks with the difficulties. The roots of corruption run deep, and, corruption happens everywhere, it's not a Thai phenomena, Google bribes and just about any big cities name and you'll get a bunch of hits.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I wonder what the requirement is exactly

seems the real "requirement" is to satisfy the IO sitting behind the desk. From the MFA, extensions are granted at the "discretion" of the IO. So, up to the IO to "accept" or "reject" whether you, I, or the other guy, meets his/her interpretation of the financial requirements.

Haven't seen any thread on any Thai forum about a foreigner challenging an IO's decision - I would like to know if anyone had success challenging or appealing an IO's decision.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Bowie, if you've got 800k sitting there, why would you need to show evidence of any monthly income? You've already satisfied the financial requirement.

I think somebody posted that despite having 800k sit in a bank for the required period, he was questioned on how he manages day to day exes.

Originally Posted by jabir

I think somebody posted that despite having 800k sit in a bank for the required period, he was questioned on how he manages day to day exes.

The rules say it's one OR the other. A lump sum sitting there, or a monthly income. If someone has the lump sum (ostensibly to prove he can cover medical emergencies and not be a burden on the state), then they're allright. Otherwise, prove you have 40/65k as regular income.

First, there is the deposit/income combination as well.

Secondly, you'll find out what the requirements are once you apply for the visa extension. It's not unusual for them to inquire what you have lived on if the lumpsum remains untouched.
When you're in that position, good luck with waving your interpretation of the rule book at them.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Does the 40k have to be deposited in his bank account monthly and there is no consideration from Immigration as to where it came from, or does it have to show that it all came from overseas?

It needs to show that they are international transfers to a Thai bank account in your name.



You will need to submit a bank book (or depending on the IO, a print out of the account's transactions, as above) with copies showing monthly International Transfers.


I'm sure you can work out something dodgy. Perhaps a Cambodian bank account for your wife.

Get your wife to transfer 40k from her Thai account to her Cambodian account, then from her Cambodian account to your Thai Account. If you can open one. Just get and bring your Work-Permit and passport to any bank and it's simple.


Update the bank book, which shows the Int. Transfer to your account.
Withdraw it.
Deposit it to your wife's Thai account.
And do it again every month.


Or simply get a work-permit for one of your jobs, and get a simple annual extension from that.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Actually this new monthly rule can help those whose income from home is less than what is required to be shown since they can now ping pong an amount, back and forth from home to Thailand and back again.

It's not a 'new' rule.

Lets say the requirement is 40k but the guy's income from home is 30k. He sends 40k, sends 10k back each month. He just has to have that extra 10k initially.

International bank transfer fees + currency exchange losses would easily take 2k/month out of their meagre income. Not a good solution, IMO.

Originally Posted by stroller

International bank transfer fees + currency exchange losses would easily take 2k/month out of their meagre income. Not a good solution, IMO.

I agree, but it is an option for some.

Today I had the good fortune to meet a Welshman whom I found to be a very nice chap, he even laughed when I called him an Englishman.
Anyway during the conversation he asked what I knew about these new rules regarding having pension payments i.e. verified by the British Embassy.
I told him all I knew I had learnt from the good folks here at TD so I told him I take no responsibility for the accuracy of anything I tell him.

Anyway my advice to him was to use the 400K (he's here on a marriage visa) method if he had the money. I explained to him about what people have said about there being some leeway (perhaps) on the monthly income route up until January 2020 but thereafter he had to show every month an International transfer the minimum transfer being multiplied by 12 had to meet the annual income criteria.

He told me that he usually gets his bank in the UK to transfer money every couple of months so my advice to him was to just make one transfer 4 months prior to applying for his extension so that he could then show the 400K and didn't need any calculations to be done. I said then in my opinion he could use money from there until the next year when he tops it up again. This solves the issue of monthly transfers which do cost (fees and exchange losses) and provides the explanation of what he lives on during the year.

This in my opinion is what people should do if they are fortunate enough to be able to i.e. have enough to put 400K in the Thai bank for 4 months and not touch it.

Please tell me if any of my assumptions are incorrect as I will then pass it onto him at a later date.

Cheers

Originally Posted by ootai

I told him all I knew I had learnt from the good folks here at TD so I told him I take no responsibility for the accuracy of anything I tell him.

Yup - gotta say that.

But, in a nutshell, everyone and everyone's situation is "different". He has to do his own "due diligence" and select whatever is appropriate for his situation. Everything is subject to interpretation - and it is all: "at the discretion of the IO". The IO can be lenient, strict, nice, pissed off, generous, an angel or a devil, and it changes from day to day and in some situations hour to hour.

He's like the rest of us, "at their mercy". I prepare to the best of my ability for all possible scenarios, and, as you know from surfing the sites - lots and lots of scenario's.

For me - I went the THB 800k retirement route to avoid the marriage "under consideration" investigation rigmarole. This year I am starting the monthly deposit route. End of this year Dec19 I "should" be extension financially qualified two ways, monthly deposits and lump sum. But, it only takes one "hiccup" to disqualify the monthly deposit route, being a few baht short due to exchange rate, missing a "months" deposit by a day, an erroneous bank deposit code ID, and, any one of a number of other glitches that can occur.

Originally Posted by ootai

Please tell me if any of my assumptions are incorrect as I will then pass it onto him at a later date.

I do not see anything wrong with your "assumptions". I would advise him to "ask" his Immigration Office exactly what they require (knowing it is subjective and will change with time).

Originally Posted by stroller

It's not unusual for them to inquire what you have lived on if the lump sum remains untouched.

Yes that has happened but there is no requirement that you should live on the lump sum and it is really none of their business what you have lived on.
If they persist then show them your credit card Job jobbed!

Originally Posted by lom

Yes that has happened but there is no requirement that you should live on the lump sum and it is really none of their business what you have lived on.

Kinda is. They are working for a branch of the RTP.

Many foreign criminals work with children illegally without work-permits/licences/police clearance certs etc, some are pedophiles, some are just well dodgy. If they are processing a foreigner's permission to stay and they don't show any means of income, it's good police work to ask and look into it.

It may seem obtrusive, but it's just good police work aimed at protecting the public from such criminals/possible pedophiles.

^ Those crims typically don't bother with a proper visa, but are doing perpetual border runs and exploit loopholes in the system.

^ Yeah, it's why the South have pain in the butt borders and restrictions. Rotating land/air border runs to continue on with their crimes.


But it's also understandable why the IO (working for a branch of the RTP) will typically ask if there are no signs of income or expenditure while processing the permission to stay. Simple police work, really.

Originally Posted by Luigi

If they are processing a foreigner's permission to stay and they don't show any means of income, it's good police work to ask and look into it.

Having the required funds to be able to support yourself is what the immigration law requires.
Do you also think they should check that a retiree uses all of his 65K baht every month?