Are agents still operating or has Big Joke wiped them out

[JLCrab]

5 minutes ago, Chivas said:

Crazy that thaivisa allow threads like this to appear and remain

That's OK -- Pretty soon people will start to being referred to as 'mugs' who DON'T use an agent.

[smedly]

8 minutes ago, Chivas said:

Crazy that thaivisa allow threads like this to appear and remain

Is it beyond their comprehension to grasp that they will be viewed by all and sundry including the very immigration department that agents are attempting to circumnavigate

Mind boggling  no other way to describe it

why ?

[onera1961]

22 minutes ago, Esso49 said:

circumnavigate

Sure, agents do that for people who don't want to deal with TI, their changing requirements, paperworks, standing in queue, sitting all day in TI office, TM30, etc. etc.

Edited November 11, 2018 by onera1961

[scottiejohn]

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

Some agents are now telling their customers that they now have to make an appearance at immigration for the photo.

The Photo for retirement extension has been a must with or without an agent (legal) since the photo requirement became a must up here in CM years ago.  I always thought it was a requirement country wide.  Silly me.

 

PS;  Spoke to my agent the other day and she sees no change for her or the other larger/legal agents doing legal processing.  Out look for those  agents doing "extras" is wide open.

Edited November 11, 2018 by scottiejohn

[JLCrab]

7 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

Sure, agents do that for people who don't

mind paying a bribe.

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

I would disregard that report. he is probably confusing O-A with non-imm O.

It was me and there was no confusion on my part. The only confusion was from the embassy official. When I showed her a copy of the relevant page on the Thai Embassy UK website stating that age 50 and above was the age limit, she told me that the printout didn't come from their website and was fake.

 

Don't take that as typical of all Thai embassies, the embassy in London has a particularly bad reputation.

 

I later learned that if I'd made my application at the consulate in Hull, I wouldn't have had a problem. However, another poster recently said that the Hull consulate no longer provide that service, how true that is, I don't know.

[steve73]

What seems strange to me is that Thailand does not appear to want to allow people bringing into the country and spending 64,999 every month (assuming a means of approving 65,000/month without an embassy letter can be found and adopted), yet they are quite happy with someone bringing in and spending say 10,000 (or even less) per month, provided they have first deposited 800,000 into their Thai account.

　

The cost of keeping 800k in Thailand compared to keeping it in your own country is negligible, IMO. Thai bank interest rates are around 0.5 to 1.5% (risk free), which is similar to those in the western banks, although I accept that there are relatively low risk investments available that may pay a little more. Anything paying much more than this would be subjected to a much higher risk, and is therefore not a good comparison. Anyone who has adequate saving somewhere should IMO bank it here, making the whole extension easy, irrespective of your income/spending.

　

Without the income letter anyone that has insufficient savings anywhere will be forced to use the agent route, the cost of which could in the future become significant.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Chivas said:

Crazy that thaivisa allow threads like this to appear and remain

Is it beyond their comprehension to grasp that they will be viewed by all and sundry including the very immigration department that agents are attempting to circumnavigate

Mind boggling  no other way to describe it

The agents run "no money visa" (sic: should be "extension") ads publicly, so no beans are being spilled here.

 

Unlike our passport-countries, there is apparently no shame in making money from corruption, as long it is done in a way where it is not easy to prove.  Agents collecting the fees, combined with cash-envelopes handed-off to higher-level staff in private, seem to have worked well for decades.

[Spidey]

23 minutes ago, steve73 said:

What seems strange to me is that Thailand does not appear to want to allow people bringing into the country and spending 64,999 every month (assuming a means of approving 65,000/month without an embassy letter can be found and adopted), yet they are quite happy with someone bringing in and spending say 10,000 (or even less) per month, provided they have first deposited 800,000 into their Thai account.

The logic is that if you have 800k baht in a Thai bank account, even if that's all the money you have in the world and have no income, you have enough money in Thailand to support yourself for the next 12 months.

 

Conversely, if you have a regular income of 65k baht per month, wherever that may be, you have access to enough funds to support yourself in Thailand.

 

Hence the difference, 800k must be in a Thai bank, 65k baht must be from a regular income.

[OJAS]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

Don't take that as typical of all Thai embassies, the embassy in London has a particularly bad reputation.

As now has their British counterpart in Bangkok IMHO, whose decision to withdraw their income service will in all probabliity result in an increase in the number of Brits seeking recourse to agency assistance at extension of stay time!

[Maestro]

Removed an off-topic post

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Sure, but there are plenty of guys who have burned their boats and for whom going home to process a visa is not appropriate in the short term.

Some of us have no intention of going 'back home' for various reasons.

 

In my case, it's cause I have dogs and there aren't any reliable 'dog-sitters' around, plus I'm too ornery to go through the nightmare of at least 14 hours without a cigarette ????!

 

Please try not to categorise everyone into your own narrow-minded viewpoint....

 

4 hours ago, JLCrab said:

Mug or not, I consider the agent route a back-handed illegal bribe. If some others choose to go that route, up-to-them. 

I pay an agent to deal with my perfectly legal retirement extensions and 90 day reports (although I still have to provide all the necessary paperwork), because it's worth the money (to me) to avoid the stress of having to visit and deal with the Immigration office.

 

You're someone else categorising others into your own narrow-minded viewpoint....

4 hours ago, Chivas said:

Crazy that thaivisa allow threads like this to appear and remain

Is it beyond their comprehension to grasp that they will be viewed by all and sundry including the very immigration department that agents are attempting to circumnavigate

Mind boggling  no other way to describe it

Very few, if any, are trying to "circumnavigate" the Immigration departments - we are just trying to find out what is happening re. the 'proof of income' route'.

 

Your terminology - implying that everyone using an agent is trying to circumnavigate Immigration rules and regs - indicates that you too are categorising others into your own narrow-minded viewpoint...

[JLCrab]

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

pay an agent to deal with my perfectly legal retirement extensions and 90 day reports (although I still have to provide all the necessary paperwork), because it's worth the money (to me) to avoid the stress of having to visit and deal with the Immigration office.

Whatever you might do, if someone gets an extension of stay based upon having 800K baht in a Thai bank account for 3 months prior to applying for an extension who has never had 800K baht in a Thai bank account for 3 months prior to applying for an extension, that is not perfectly legal.

[Maestro]

8 hours ago, smedly said:

Agents that were bypassing the funds requirement seasoning with backhanders in various immigration offices

 

 

are they still active or have they been wiped out since the new boss of immigration took over and vowed to wipe out corruption

1

 

Ubonjoe mentioned it in a recent post in another topic: immigration offices may make an exception when an applicant for an extension of stay does not meet the full qualifications. it is written in paragraph  5 of Police Order 327/2557:

 

Quote

5. In the case where an alien applicant does not meet the full qualifications stipulated by the criteria herein or in other cases not specified in this Order but a competent officer equivalent to or higher than inspector is of the opinion that the alien has legitimate reason for staying in the Kingdom of Thailand, the application shall be forwarded to the Commander of the Royal Thai Police or an authorized competent officer for further consideration of the alien's application.

 

Therefore,  granting the extension in the above circumstances is not, by itself, an act of corruption but collecting a higher than the regulatory fee from the applicant certainly is. The question is: how can irrefutable proof of this corruption, if it happens, be obtained and who will report it to the Immigration Commissioner?

[JLCrab]

So is the above suggesting that your via agent average back-office at IMM or a bank accomplice actually goes through the process of getting the approval of the Commander of the Royal Thai Police or other authorized competent official for 'further consideration'?

[Maestro]

My suggestion is that these exceptional extensions are recorded by the immigration office as extensions under paragraph 5 of Police Order 327/2557. I have no knowledge of the full details of Immigration's internal procedures nor how faithfully these are followed with regard to individual applications. 

 

P.S. Added a link to the Police order, after the kind reminder received in this postkind reminder received in this post.

[JackThompson]

4 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

So is the above suggesting that your via agent average back-office at IMM or a bank accomplice actually goes through the process of getting the approval of the Commander of the Royal Thai Police or other authorized competent official for 'further consideration'?

The "other authorized competent official" waives the seasoning on the bank-money.  After having honest applications denied, I have come to realize that the system (that wording, in this example) was designed for exactly this purpose.  It is not as though it would be difficult to identify and prosecute this activity by an examination of the docs on completed applications.

 

But, the only thing that seems to get anyone in trouble, is not paying into the chain which includes the "authorized competent official" and friends.  This is why I am skeptical that anything will change - the people who should be overseeing things, are the same ones running such schemes.  They must see those "no money extension" agent-advertisements and smile from ear to ear.

[JLCrab]

10 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The "other authorized competent official" waives the seasoning on the bank-money. 

Baloney.

 

If the above Police Order provisions were followed, the extension should still cost no more than 1900 baht.

Edited November 11, 2018 by JLCrab

[Orton Rd]

6 hours ago, SheungWan said:

It is not appropriate to call someone a mug who for one reason or another is unable/unwilling to process using lump sum method and has recourse to agency. Do not conflate your situation with everybody else.

People too poor to legally stay here resorting to corrupt practices might have been better

[Olmate]

Not baloney! How else does it get the OK? This puts the whole stat dec scenario and those that choose to call users of it scammers into perspective.

[observer90210]

Rather doubtful that the fine immigration officials, will let go so easly their kickbacks, obtained via the agents ? ????

[JLCrab]

Total baloney and it makes anyone who puts 800K baht hard currency into a Thai bank look like a total sucker if all took was a 20-30K baht annual payoff to corrupt officials.

[rott]

3 hours ago, OJAS said:

As now has their British counterpart in Bangkok IMHO, whose decision to withdraw their income service will in all probabliity result in an increase in the number of Brits seeking recourse to agency assistance at extension of stay time!

Possibly you have not been keeping up with things OJAS.

[rott]

24 minutes ago, Maestro said:

My suggestion is that these exceptional extensions are recorded by the immigration office as extensions under paragraph 5 of Police Order 327/2557. I have no knowledge of the full details of Immigration's internal procedures nor how faithfully these are followed with regard to individual applications. 

Maestro could you please quote para 5 of Police Order 327/2557. In English.

[smedly]

1 hour ago, Maestro said:

Ubonjoe mentioned it in a recent post in another topic: immigration offices may make an exception when an applicant for an extension of stay does not meet the full qualifications. it is written in paragraph  5 of Police Order 327/2557:

so you believe that not producing 800k (never having it for more than a few hours) or never  producing an income of any kind can be interpreted as "not meeting to full qualifications"

 

are you serious ?

[JackThompson]

14 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Baloney.

 

If the above Police Order provisions were followed, the extension should still cost no more than 1900 baht.

Yes, but they won't waive the seasoning for "good" reasons - like "hospitalization costs" or something.  That's not why they put that clause in there.

 

2 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Total baloney and it makes anyone who puts 800K baht hard currency into a Thai bank look like a total sucker if all took was a 20-30K baht annual payoff to corrupt officials.

Yes, that's why they ask for far more money/income than is actually needed to live here.  For the record, I detest the agent system and the corruption.  When I speak of these matters, it is in the frame of "real-politik" - not "Golly, ain't this great!" 

 

In order to live here, and deal with this particular bureaucracy, we are forced to put aside the Western notion that there is some sort of "honest-intent" in this arrangement.  There isn't.  The goal is for a percentage of us to be forced to "pay to stay" - and that subset just got larger, with this embassy-letter routine ("Golly, we never noticed the disclaimers on those letters before!  Guess you guys have to go to agents, now, yuk, yuk, yuk."). 

 

I've experienced this first-hand.  They tried to push me into the "pay (agent) to stay" category twice.  I had every required published qualifications plus everything listed on this site met, copied, signed, and/or stamped, from the onset of each of two applications - a Non-O 90-day and 1-year extension.  I brought back even more documents when requested.  It didn't matter; they wanted agent-money, and could run me out of time over and over, fetching more and more unpublished or impossible-to-get requirements.

 

No, I didn't break down and pay the agents - wasn't about to give them the satisfaction, after that routine.  I got Visas from the MFA abroad, instead.  But, at some point, I know that I may be unable to avoid being extorted, if I wish to stay with my family here.  All we can do, is avoid jumping into that sewer for as long as possible.  And to those who say, "Why wait, the sewer is easier," I can't really blame them any more.

[ubonjoe]

24 minutes ago, rott said:

Maestro could you please quote para 5 of Police Order 327/2557. In English.

He did in another topic. Here it is again.

[ubonjoe]

9 minutes ago, smedly said:

so you believe that not producing 800k (never having it for more than a few hours) or never  producing an income of any kind can be interpreted as "not meeting to full qualifications"

I don't think he believes that.

It is really meant to be for exceptional cases. They might waive the 3 months in the bank for the 800k baht.

[Maestro]

43 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

It is not as though it would be difficult to identify and prosecute this activity by an examination of the docs on completed applications.

As the saying goes, ubi non accusator, ibi non iudex, where there is no accuser, there is no judge. Who is going to report the alleged corruption to "the people who should be overseeing things"? Neither the applicant for the extension has an interest, nor his agent, nor any of the immigration officials involved in the approval of the application. Even if something or someone aroused the suspicions of the people who should be overseeing things" about alleged corruption at a particular immigration office, what evidence will the investigators find? Would a public prosecutor act on the evidence of the fact that out of the total number of extension applications a few are processed under paragraph 5 of the Police Order?

[smedly]

14 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

I don't think he believes that.

It is really meant to be for exceptional cases. They might waive the 3 months in the bank for the 800k baht.

respectfully - a lot of the people using agents don't have money in the bank or produce any income - that is the reality, the agent puts the money in and removes it the same day - it is not their 800k baht