Denied entry at Don Meung even with a valid 60 day Tourist Visa

[anon4546543]

On 7/5/2018 at 7:31 PM, Chou Anou said:

Gotta love ThaiVisa. Everyone's bending over backwards to tell this guy how he can keep abusing the Thai immigration system, with nobody stopping to say: if you've continually been in Thailand since 2017, you are NOT a tourist, and you're abusing a system (visa-exempt stays and tourist visas) meant for tourists. I'd love to sit down with the OP over a beer and hear his opinion on immigrants to his country and their (real or imagined) abuse/skirting of his country's immigration laws.

I tend to agree with you. I have tried to abide by all immigration issues but sometimes the goal post changes.

The law is the law is what they quote to me. Except many of the Thai Immigration police (all men in my experience) do not know the law.

When, finally someone points out that the Thai immigration man is wrong, now it is my fault.

I have been abused, spit in my face from his mouthful of abuse. I smile.

But the ladies behind the desk process the forms. They do not offer apology but they are helpful.

I have no sympathy for those that abuse Thai immigration laws.

I do wish there was some consistency in the application of the law. I have to say that I love Thailand and my wife.

I believe the village I live in tolerates/loves me. 

Finally get out of tourist areas, the country is the true Thailand

[AusDieMaus]

I just came back from Vietnam via Don Muang airport and was denied entry to Thailand. I have been in Thailand for 20 years, first coming to study (Bachelors degree at Mahidol Uni), then taking some time to travel and then continuing to study (Master degree at Thammasat Uni). Now I live in Thailand on multiple entry tourist visas as there is no other option for me. I own a 3-family house in my home country, that is why I do not have to work to support myself here. I lived here half my life and then you get denied, just like that. No warning. I speak fluent Thai and know how to speak to public officials in a respectful way. I guess that saved me, after consulting a senior officer who convinced the lady that denied me entry to give me one last stamp. They also added that they made an entry into my history to not let me enter Thailand without a non-immigrant visa again. When asking them what visa I shall apply for they suggested to marry (which I can't without a person that I love) or to learn Thai (which I obviously speak already). They said that I can read online about that law that limits the number of entries one can do on tourist visas. They even counted the days that I have been in Thailand. I guess that is it for me. After 20 years in the country I call home and that I love, just like that. 

[JackThompson]

 

19 hours ago, AusDieMaus said:

They said that I can read online about that law that limits the number of entries one can do on tourist visas. They even counted the days that I have been in Thailand. I guess that is it for me. After 20 years in the country I call home and that I love, just like that. 

They Lied. There is no such law, no place to read about it, you have done nothing wrong, and you don't have to leave.  You must simply avoid the crooked entry-points - including both Bangkok Airports.

 

All land-borders but Poipet/Aranyaprathet would be fine for entry in the future.  As well, Chiang Mai airport is likely OK, though any air-entry risks the hassle you just went through with having to get a last-minute ticket back where you came from.  If ever denied at a land border (no reports for years for those with a Valid Tourist Visa without extenuating circumstances), you could just walk back, cancel your exit stamp, and try another crossing later.

 

If you wanted to study (ED Visa), then you could study any language other than your passport-country language.  Many schools have several offerings, and some go from one language to the next for years. 

 

You might be wondering why the crooked officials at bad entry points want you on a Non-Imm?  There are no "extra fees" obtained from people with MFA-issued Visas.  But, immigration has a "fee" scam working on the ED Visa angle - 3K to 5K Baht per 90-day "hassle free" extension.  Other schools arrange for IOs to attend classes - so they get paid that way.  Immigration are also "tightening" marriage-based extensions - now pushing the seasoning-time for money-in-the-bank, and demanding documents from landlords many can not obtain - all to force people to agents, which nets them thousands of baht in kickbacks per application.

 

The good news, is that only some entry points are run by the crooked-faction.  The rest operate normally - abiding by the written/published laws.  Stick to those, and you should not have problems.  Given their "note" in your file (again, no law to back it up - just hoping they can get you on the hook for one of their scams), I would make my next Out/In to Laos and back - preferably Nong Khai (Friendship Bridge).

Edited January 10, 2019 by JackThompson

[JackThompson]

On 1/9/2019 at 2:57 AM, spiderorchid said:

I do wish there was some consistency in the application of the law. I have to say that I love Thailand and my wife.

I believe the village I live in tolerates/loves me. 

My sentiments exactly.  I'll always be "a farang" - but that is not a term of hate - in my village, anyway.

 

Consistency with immigration law would mean removing the potential for abuse of the law by officials (99% of abuse is directed by/through them for under-the-table revenue), which is why it doesn't happen - sadly. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by JackThompson

[Nyezhov]

24 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

 

They Lied. There is no such law, no place to read about it, you have done nothing wrong, and you don't have to leave.  You must simply avoid the crooked entry-points - including both Bangkok Airports.

 

All land-borders but Poipet/Aranyaprathet would be fine for entry in the future.  As well, Chiang Mai airport is likely OK, though any air-entry risks the hassle you just went through with having to get a last-minute ticket back where you came from.  If ever denied at a land border (no reports for years for those with a Valid Tourist Visa without extenuating circumstances), you could just walk back, cancel your exit stamp, and try another crossing later.

 

If you wanted to study (ED Visa), then you could study any language other than your passport-country language.  Many schools have several offerings, and some go from one language to the next for years. 

 

You might be wondering why the crooked officials at bad entry points want you on a Non-Imm?  There are no "extra fees" obtained from people with MFA-issued Visas.  But, immigration has a "fee" scam working on the ED Visa angle - 3K to 5K Baht per 90-day "hassle free" extension.  Other schools arrange for IOs to attend classes - so they get paid that way.  Immigration are also "tightening" marriage-based extensions - now pushing the seasoning-time for money-in-the-bank, and demanding documents from landlords many can not obtain - all to force people to agents, which nets them thousands of baht in kickbacks per application.

 

The good news, is that only some entry points are run by the crooked-faction.  The rest operate normally - abiding by the written/published laws.  Stick to those, and you should not have problems.  Given their "note" in your file (again, no law to back it up - just hoping they can get you on the hook for one of their scams), I would make my next Out/In to Laos and back - preferably Nong Khai (Friendship Bridge).

So the guy admittedly lives in Thailand on METVs and you think that the IOs are just looking for tea money? Mmmmkay......

 

Well then, if you are contending that Swampy is run by a "crooked faction" shouldnt someone be reporting that to Big Joke?

[JackThompson]

56 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

So the guy admittedly lives in Thailand on METVs

No, he can enter for 60-days, then at immigration's discretion, get an addition 30-days, then must leave the country.  Then, he can return and repeat this for as long as the Visa is valid.  He cannot "live here" - which would mean not having to leave, unless he wanted to.  Only if he violates the terms of his Visa, or correctly matches a legal reason for denial-of-entry, would denial-of-entry (or deportation) be appropriate.

 

There is no rule or law limiting "time in country" on Tourist Visas.  The OP has his own money, and was doing nothing wrong.  The IO(s) lied to him, so are the ones In The Wrong on this - clear as day, no doubt at all.

 

Quote

and you think that the IOs are just looking for tea money? Mmmmkay......

 

Well then, if you are contending that Swampy is run by a "crooked faction" shouldnt someone be reporting that to Big Joke?

Given

• The denials at Swampy / Don Muang are based on lies told by IOs, who then cover their criminality by using a rejection-stamp which is irrelevant to the person denied.
• The lies told and denials-of-entry at Swampy / Don Muang based on "time in country before" are not repeated at any land-border except Poipet/Aranyaprathet.
• B Joke gave a press interview where he provided cover for his IOs allowing agent-submitted applications that circumvent seasoning the financial requirements fo for extensions-of-stay.
• Chang Wattana, under B Joke's time in power, are now denying legit applications for marriage-based extensions based on often-impossible landlord docs - to force people to agents

... Yes, I am certain these denials are not remotely legitimate, and certainly related to how they make extra-money. 

 

They don't have to make money on every extension (or force them all onto the elite), any more than an advertiser must make a sale on 100% of those who see an ad.  But those not going for extensions (using MFA-issued Visas corruption-free) are never part of the pool from which extortion-victims can be culled.

 

If when the corruption disappears, agent-apps cannot bypass requirements or receive less scrutiny than in-person applications, and every immigration service is done "by the book" at every office - then, at that point, I might be inclined to believe these actions are not motivated for corrupt ends - perhaps "misguided but well-intentioned staff." 

 

But, even then, the "misguided" remains - because, unless there is a law or published rule limiting "time in country" on Tourist Visas, it would still be illegal to deny-entry for this reason - or any reason not listed in the Immigration Act.

Edited January 10, 2019 by JackThompson

[BritTim]

22 hours ago, AusDieMaus said:

I guess that is it for me. After 20 years in the country I call home and that I love, just like that

You have my sympathy. Is there any way you could afford a Thailand Elite visa? That does not require a marriage participant, which would anyway be more expensive in practice.

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

No, he can enter for 60-days, then at immigration's discretion, get an addition 30-days, then must leave the country.  Then, he can return and repeat this for as long as the Visa is valid.  He cannot "live here" - which would mean not having to leave, unless he wanted to.  Only if he violates the terms of his Visa, or correctly matches a legal reason for denial-of-entry, would denial-of-entry (or deportation) be appropriate.

 

There is no rule or law limiting "time in country" on Tourist Visas.  The OP has his own money, and was doing nothing wrong.  The IO(s) lied to him, so are the ones In The Wrong on this - clear as day, no doubt at all.

 

Given

• The denials at Swampy / Don Muang are based on lies told by IOs, who then cover their criminality by using a rejection-stamp which is irrelevant to the person denied.
• The lies told and denials-of-entry at Swampy / Don Muang based on "time in country before" are not repeated at any land-border except Poipet/Aranyaprathet.
• B Joke gave a press interview where he provided cover for his IOs allowing agent-submitted applications that circumvent seasoning the financial requirements fo for extensions-of-stay.
• Chang Wattana, under B Joke's time in power, are now denying legit applications for marriage-based extensions based on often-impossible landlord docs - to force people to agents

... Yes, I am certain these denials are not remotely legitimate, and certainly related to how they make extra-money. 

 

They don't have to make money on every extension (or force them all onto the elite), any more than an advertiser must make a sale on 100% of those who see an ad.  But those not going for extensions (using MFA-issued Visas corruption-free) are never part of the pool from which extortion-victims can be culled.

 

If when the corruption disappears, agent-apps cannot bypass requirements or receive less scrutiny than in-person applications, and every immigration service is done "by the book" at every office - then, at that point, I might be inclined to believe these actions are not motivated for corrupt ends - perhaps "misguided but well-intentioned staff." 

 

But, even then, the "misguided" remains - because, unless there is a law or published rule limiting "time in country" on Tourist Visas, it would still be illegal to deny-entry for this reason - or any reason not listed in the Immigration Act.

Thai Law defines a tourist, as somebody temporarily away from their normal residence

[Caldera]

2 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Thai Law defines a tourist, as somebody temporarily away from their normal residence

I'll bite. Cite the law.

[cleopatra2]

25 minutes ago, Caldera said:

I'll bite. Cite the law.

Tourism Authority of Thailand Act

[ubonjoe]

A comment on moderation has been removed. 

[metempsychotic]

On 7/5/2018 at 8:31 PM, Chou Anou said:

Gotta love ThaiVisa. Everyone's bending over backwards to tell this guy how he can keep abusing the Thai immigration system, with nobody stopping to say: if you've continually been in Thailand since 2017, you are NOT a tourist, and you're abusing a system (visa-exempt stays and tourist visas) meant for tourists. I'd love to sit down with the OP over a beer and hear his opinion on immigrants to his country and their (real or imagined) abuse/skirting of his country's immigration laws.

Indeed you must love thaivisa, there is always some bitter git sitting in judgment over someone else. 

[AusDieMaus]

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

They Lied. There is no such law, no place to read about it, you have done nothing wrong, and you don't have to leave.  You must simply avoid the crooked entry-points - including both Bangkok Airports.

So I still have my METV in my passport to expire on the end of April. But they wrote on my departure card that I need a non immigrant visa next time. And they told me that they made an entry into the system that I would only be allowed back into the country with a non immigrant visa. Do you think I can extend my current 60 days and then go to Laos or Pailin (Cambodia) and would be able to come back here on the current METV? 

 

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

You have my sympathy. Is there any way you could afford a Thailand Elite visa? That does not require a marriage participant, which would anyway be more expensive in practice.

I cannot afford the Elite visa without selling the house, which is my retirement plan. Thanks so much for your sympathies :). I hope I can figure this out. I really want to stay, as this is my home.

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

Tourism Authority of Thailand Act

555

 

15 minutes ago, AusDieMaus said:

But they wrote on my departure card that I need a non immigrant visa next time.

What would be the purpose of writing it on the departure card? They keep this when you leave Thailand and then it's gone

 

15 minutes ago, AusDieMaus said:

And they told me that they made an entry into the system that I would only be allowed back into the country with a non immigrant visa.

They are just trying to scare you, most likely there is no such note in their system. They tro to push you towards any non-immigrant visa so that they can get money when you do an extension

 

15 minutes ago, AusDieMaus said:

Do you think I can extend my current 60 days and then go to Laos or Pailin (Cambodia) and would be able to come back here on the current METV?  

Shoult be no problem, the only land border to avoid is Poipet

Edited January 10, 2019 by jackdd

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

Thai Law defines a tourist, as somebody temporarily away from their normal residence

 

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

Tourism Authority of Thailand Act 

Actually (per

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/consol_act/taota1979337/ ) :

Quote

"tourist" means any person who freely travels from his normal place of residence to other place for temporary period with the objective other than to carry on his occupation or to earn income;

The "temporary period" for a Tourist Visa = 60 Days, which Immigration, at their option, may extend for 30 more.  Then you leave.  If you come back, that is a separate visit, having entered from another country.

 

Note "objective other than to carry on his occupation or to earn income;" means you can be coming for any reason OTHER THAN the "objective" of work.  @AusDieMaus earns his money from passive investment abroad, so not here for the purpose of working.  But even other cases - those whose work is location-independent - would not be "Coming To Thailand for the Objective of Work."

 

Glad I saw this, given sometimes "show itinerary" has come up.  This makes it clear that you can be coming to sit every day on one spot of beach, it is fine.

Edited January 10, 2019 by JackThompson

[JackThompson]

15 minutes ago, jackdd said:

30 minutes ago, AusDieMaus said:

But they wrote on my departure card that I need a non immigrant visa next time.

What would be the purpose of writing it on the departure card? They keep this when you leave Thailand and then it's gone

So if he goes for an extension, to make problems?  The IOs at the bad entry-points have been reported to say/do things that indicate they are extremely vindictive.  They want these stories to get out - to scare people - fear is how the drive their extortion rackets.  They don't care how much damage it does to their fellow citizens by wrecking Thailand's friendly-image, because ordinary citizens are not useful, from the perspective of their tea-money.

 

15 minutes ago, jackdd said:

30 minutes ago, AusDieMaus said:

And they told me that they made an entry into the system that I would only be allowed back into the country with a non immigrant visa.

They are just trying to scare you, most likely there is no such note in their system.

Hard to say - someone reported a "note" came up when they ran into an IO at a different location on exit, ("Thought you were leaving on xxx..."), but never again after that. 

 

These "notes" have no power of law, even when/if they exist - so likely a note for another corrupt-IO who is running the same agenda, but less likely to affect an honest IO's assessment of things. 

This is why I suggested Nong Khai, since they seem to have a long record of following the law.

 

I imagine a "notes" system would be implemented to help protect the country from terrorists and such - but is now being abused for bad-IO-vendettas against "here too often, in my opinion" tourists.

Edited January 10, 2019 by JackThompson

[lkv]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

Tourism Authority of Thailand Act

It does not matter what TAT says. 

 

MFA says this:

 

Royal Thai Embassies and Royal Thai Consulates-General have the authority to issue visas to foreigners for travel to Thailand.  The authority to permit entry and stay in Thailand, however, is with the immigration officers.  In some cases, the immigration officer may not permit foreigner holding a valid visa entry into Thailand should the immigration officer find reason to believe that he or she falls into the category of aliens prohibited from entering Thailand under the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979). 11. According to the Immigration Act of Thailand B.E. 2522 (1979), foreigners who fall into any of the following categories are prohibited to enter Thailand:

 

And then we have 12.1 to 12.11, and 12.2  (Having no appropriate means of living following entry into the Kingdom) is being used unlawfully (in some cases).

Edited January 10, 2019 by lkv

[dcnx]

On 7/5/2018 at 7:31 PM, Chou Anou said:

Gotta love ThaiVisa. Everyone's bending over backwards to tell this guy how he can keep abusing the Thai immigration system, with nobody stopping to say: if you've continually been in Thailand since 2017, you are NOT a tourist, and you're abusing a system (visa-exempt stays and tourist visas) meant for tourists. I'd love to sit down with the OP over a beer and hear his opinion on immigrants to his country and their (real or imagined) abuse/skirting of his country's immigration laws.

 

As long as they let him in, he’s not abusing anything. He’s using the system they put into place and they have allowed him to enter. There’s no reason not to max that out, especially considering every immigration point interprets the rules differently. When he’s crossed the line, they will let him know and deny entry.

 

[JackThompson]

14 minutes ago, dcnx said:

As long as they let him in, he’s not abusing anything. He’s using the system they put into place and they have allowed him to enter. There’s no reason not to max that out, especially considering every immigration point interprets the rules differently. When he’s crossed the line, they will let him know and deny entry.

Agree - except there "is no line" - other than "have the money to support yourself" and "not coming to Thailand to work a job here."  There is no "coming to Thailand too often" line in the law - just in the minds of IOs at bad entry-points, which can be avoided.

Edited January 10, 2019 by JackThompson

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, lkv said:

It does not matter what TAT says. 

 

MFA says this:

 

Royal Thai Embassies and Royal Thai Consulates-General have the authority to issue visas to foreigners for travel to Thailand.  The authority to permit entry and stay in Thailand, however, is with the immigration officers.  In some cases, the immigration officer may not permit foreigner holding a valid visa entry into Thailand should the immigration officer find reason to believe that he or she falls into the category of aliens prohibited from entering Thailand under the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979). 11. According to the Immigration Act of Thailand B.E. 2522 (1979), foreigners who fall into any of the following categories are prohibited to enter Thailand:

 

And then we have 12.1 to 12.11, and 12.2  (Having no appropriate means of living following entry into the Kingdom) is being used unlawfully (in some cases).

It is not what TaT are saying, . It is a definition of Thai law as promulgated by publication in Government Gazette

[jackdd]

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

It is not what TaT are saying, . It is a definition of Thai law as promulgated by publication in Government Gazette

Before you said it's what TaT are saying. Then you saw that this doesn't confirm your opinion so now you say it's not the TaT but it's the Government Gazette.

Well, then quote what the publication in the Government Gazette says and provide a link.

Edited January 10, 2019 by jackdd

[cleopatra2]

2 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Before you said it's what TaT are saying. Then you saw that this doesn't confirm your opinion so now you say it's not the TaT but it's the Government Gazette.

Well, then quote what the publication in the Government Gazette says and provide a link.

The relevant act only comes into force after publication, Basic Thai law

[cleopatra2]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

So if he goes for an extension, to make problems?  The IOs at the bad entry-points have been reported to say/do things that indicate they are extremely vindictive.  They want these stories to get out - to scare people - fear is how the drive their extortion rackets.  They don't care how much damage it does to their fellow citizens by wrecking Thailand's friendly-image, because ordinary citizens are not useful, from the perspective of their tea-money.

 

Hard to say - someone reported a "note" came up when they ran into an IO at a different location on exit, ("Thought you were leaving on xxx..."), but never again after that. 

 

These "notes" have no power of law, even when/if they exist - so likely a note for another corrupt-IO who is running the same agenda, but less likely to affect an honest IO's assessment of things. 

This is why I suggested Nong Khai, since they seem to have a long record of following the law.

 

I imagine a "notes" system would be implemented to help protect the country from terrorists and such - but is now being abused for bad-IO-vendettas against "here too often, in my opinion" tourists.

The conspiracy line is becoming irrational. The IO allegedly want stories of their illegal activities to become widely known.

This seems to be flawed, firstly what do they gain , secondly if it is illegal their seniors would become aware with due discipline following .

[jackdd]

30 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The conspiracy line is becoming irrational. The IO allegedly want stories of their illegal activities to become widely known.

This seems to be flawed, firstly what do they gain , secondly if it is illegal their seniors would become aware with due discipline following . 

The IOs don't want that people know that their tactics are illegal, but they want people to be afraid of their tactics, so that these people switch from for example tourist visas to education visas, because like this they all get more money.

It seems you don't know how corruption works, this goes from the lowest to the highest level. The small cop at the street collects 200THB from you because you didn't wear a helmet, and the highest ranking officials get a part of this (indirectly)

Edited January 10, 2019 by jackdd

[cleopatra2]

6 minutes ago, jackdd said:

The IOs don't want that people know that their tactics are illegal, but they want people to be afraid of their tactics, so that these people switch from for example tourist visas to education visas, because like this they all get more money.

It seems you don't know how corruption works, this goes from the lowest to the highest level. The small cop at the street collects 200THB from you because you didn't wear a helmet, and the highest ranking officials get a part of this (indirectly)

I know how corruption works , the MO is certainly not to bring it to the attention of your seniors.

Last time I looked wearing an helmet was a requirement.

For corruption to exist the opportunity firstly needs to arise. I have yet to  come across anybody being extorted for no helmet when the requirement to wear did not exist in first instance 

[jackdd]

10 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I know how corruption works , the MO is certainly not to bring it to the attention of your seniors. 

Ok, maybe i should say: You don't know how corruption in Thailand works. The senior expects his share, he is fully aware of what his underlings are doing.

15 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

For corruption to exist the opportunity firstly needs to arise. I have yet to  come across anybody being extorted for no helmet when the requirement to wear did not exist in first instance 

You should look up the definition of "extortion" and "corruption", this is not the same. I was talking about corruption when i made the example with the 200THB cash for no helmet, instead of writing you an official ticket, i didn't say that this is extortion.

[JackThompson]

10 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

The conspiracy line is becoming irrational. The IO allegedly want stories of their illegal activities to become widely known.

This seems to be flawed, firstly what do they gain , secondly if it is illegal their seniors would become aware with due discipline following .

The way agents acquire extensions is a conspiracy.  When people pay extra through schools for ED extensions, it is a conspiracy.

 

Given this reality, when a group of IOs at select entry points start claiming "you stay here too much" - then putting notes in people's records having no relation to actual legal questions, it is not far-fetched to assume they are furthering their agenda.

 

The IOs blocking entry to those holding valid visas always stamp a "real" reason for denial in the passport - to hide their tracks - no paper trail.  One case was reported here, where the guy tried to appeal (legal right - in the Immigration Act), and they would not let him - forced him onto a plane.  If they were "in the right," they would have welcomed the opportunity to prove it.

( https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/992077-entry-denied-bangkok-airport/?do=findComment&comment=12091161 )

 

As to discipline, this site is a treasure-trove of IOs not following published protocols in offices across the country.  The only "crackdowns" on them or their accomplices, involve situations where their actions were unsanctioned from above - the agent filing fake tax-documents for Indian foreigners' B-Visa applications (leaving a paper-trail), for example.  Generally, each office can twist the rules however it wants - demanding extra paperwork, changing specified time-limits, etc - and nothing comes down from above to stop them. 
 

10 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

For corruption to exist the opportunity firstly needs to arise. I have yet to  come across anybody being extorted for no helmet when the requirement to wear did not exist in first instance 

I agree on this point - the corruption-payoff in this instance is a favor, overall, to the person not wearing the helmet.  Similar to the case of the guy with not enough money, who pays an agent for an extension - he is paying a bribe through an agent for a favor.

 

Where it crosses the line into the intolerable, is when "legal" actions are sanctioned - where, "The law/rule is X" is cited by the official, when no such exists.  Or, where a person follows the published protocols to obtain an extension, and is denied the service, in order to force agent-use.

[cleopatra2]

11 hours ago, jackdd said:

Ok, maybe i should say: You don't know how corruption in Thailand works. The senior expects his share, he is fully aware of what his underlings are doing.

You should look up the definition of "extortion" and "corruption", this is not the same. I was talking about corruption when i made the example with the 200THB cash for no helmet, instead of writing you an official ticket, i didn't say that this is extortion.

Where is the value?. The senior officials are not going to engage in low level corruption , where the gain/risk ratio is low. There are far better and more productive opportunities .

[Thaidream]

20 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Given this reality, when a group of IOs at select entry points start claiming "you stay here too much" - then putting notes in people's records having no relation to actual legal questions, it is not far-fetched to assume they are furthering their agenda.

Agree completely-  when one has the elite visa-which is simply a long term Tourist Visa- there is never a question related to how long one stays in Thailand.  There is no yearly proof of income asked for; there is no criteria other than a payment . 

 

However-at certain entry points when one has a Tourist Visa or even a multiple entry tourist visa- people are hassled and refused entry for made up reasons.  To me- the difference between the Elite Visa and a single tourist visa has only one difference- Money.

[jackdd]

28 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Where is the value?. The senior officials are not going to engage in low level corruption , where the gain/risk ratio is low. There are far better and more productive opportunities .

There are many different concepts of making money through corruption.

A very common form across probably all government institutions in Thailand: People have to pay for their rank or job position. A promotion might cost them several hundred thousand baht. Do you think that his boss thinks he saved this money from his 15k THB per month salary? His boss is fully aware he got this money by collecting bribes and when his underling wants the promotion he demands his share.

 

Then there are more direct forms of payment, let's take for example the money that immigration police collects for a certificate of residence which should actually be free. One person collects this, but i'm quite sure that this is shared between the people working at the office and not just kept by the person who collects it, because this is demanded openly for all colleagues to see.