Jump to content
BANGKOK 24 March 2019 00:07
Jonathan Fairfield

Foreigners now need to keep 800k in Thai bank for three months AFTER retirement extension is granted

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, indepth said:

I didnt post "If you were correct , etc". But, what you say is rubbish, pure supposition, would never stand up in a court of law. Lets stick to the facts, just the facts.

If we stuck to facts, we'd still be on page 1, not page 176!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wayned said:

If we stuck to facts, we'd still be on page 1, not page 176!

Uh, speaking of facts, it's page 177...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Uh, speaking of facts, it's page 177...

When he replied it was still on 176. His post started page 177 after he posted. Fact...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BertM said:

When he replied it was still on 176. His post started page 177 after he posted. Fact...

Yes, but his statement: ".we'd still be on page 1, not page 176!.." is on page 177, not on page 176. Fact...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, but his statement: ".we'd still be on page 1, not page 176!.." is on page 177, not on page 176. Fact...

time for you to go to bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brokenbone said:

time for you to go to bed

Every party has to have a pooper...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spidey said:

None of that is evidence. They are just your opinions.

I know you have no evidence because the BE still stands by their original statement as to why they stopped the letters. They have issued no new statement.

You think the other three embassies followed suit because they were lazy, too, or, is it more likely that none of them could do what TI requested?

 

Your so-called "evidence" is a joke.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

None of that is evidence. They are just your opinions.

I know you have no evidence because the BE still stands by their original statement as to why they stopped the letters. They have issued no new statement.

You think the other three embassies followed suit because they were lazy, too, or, is it more likely that none of them could do what TI requested?

 

Your so-called "evidence" is a joke.

There's no helping some people. Of course it's evidence, not "my opinion". Facts.

 

Fact: The BE decision was a result of a Foreign Office Audit. Announced by a BE consul on Pattaya Radio. Posted on TV.

 

Fact: Several US citizens, on TV, reported having to show supporting documents for their affidavits, at CM immigration, post meeting, pre cancellation of affidavits.

 

Fact: Every other embassy using the same method of verification as BE, continues to produce their letters and shows no sign of stopping them.

 

Which of these facts do you dispute?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, elviajero said:

I think the embassy letter/affidavit option will eventually go leaving only transfers into the country as the only way to prove income, or 800K.

Is this the Phuket model currently being employed, yet the complete and utter opposite to the Petchabun model, being touted for 2020?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Sorry Spidey, but once again you are ‘barked up the wrong tree’ and just regurgitating rumour with no factual basis.

 

The Foreign Office Auditors were never involved in the decision that the BE (Bangkok) should withdraw their letter confirming income for British Nationals.

 

FYI

 

In early May last year (2018) there was a meeting between Thai Immigration and senior consular representatives from the BE.  During that meeting TI expressed several concerns about the income letter which the Embassy were providing to British Nationals.  TI asked the BE to confirm that they (the BE) verified the income which the applicant(s) were claiming.  The BE response was that they did not and that they had no way of doing so.  TI indicated that they assumed that the information contained within the letter was correct and accurate and that the application was supported by the Embassy.

 

Following that meeting, on the 21 May 2018, the Deputy Consul & Head of Operations sent an email to the legal department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London.  The email summary was as follows:

 

“We explained that the Embassy have no method of confirming/checking that applicants have the amount of income required to apply for this visa, however Thai Immigration confirmed that if we provide a supporting letter they will assume that this information is correct and accurate and that the application is supported by the Embassy.

 

Currently we ask customers to send us evidence of their bank accounts/pension statements etc. to correlate the information which they state, however as you are aware we cannot confirm income in support of the application. Often there are numerous pots of money which contribute to a “monthly income”. The letters we issue do have a disclaimer however the clear statement from the Thai immigration was that they assume that we have supported the persons application.

 

The letter from Thai bank accounts can be applied for FOC and is readily available on request.

We issue a large number of these letters, as do other Embassies, although interestingly they informed us that some Embassies do not issued this letter as they cannot corroborate the information provided. Any change to this process would affect a large number of the retired community here.

It would therefore seem appropriate for us to review the risk that we have in issuing this letter and what evidence we should expect to see in order to provide this letter and would welcome your thoughts/comments on this.

 

(REDACTED)Deputy Consul & Head of Operations, Consular Department, British Embassy | 14 Wireless Road, Lumpini | Pathumwan | Bangkok 10330”

 

On the 22 May 2018 the Notarial and Property Desk Officer, Documentary Policy Team, Consular Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office responded as follows:

 

“Thanks for your email.

Our preference is for you to stop issuing these letters especially in light of the knowledge that the Thai authorities have confirmed that they assume that you have verified and are therefore confirming the income reflected in it. Whilst we may have suspected this in the past the Thai authorities have now confirmed this. We therefore, can’t ignore this fact.

 

We support the proposal to encourage BNs to open a Thai bank account. Whilst we appreciate from previous correspondence with you that BNs have evidence of their income and savings in different places, what would these customers have done if we had never issued this letter? They would have had to have found a way to meet the Thai authorities’ requirements as I assume, those customers do whose Embassies don’t issue a letter. The outcome of posts enquiries with the other Embassies will be helpful.

 

(REDACTED) Notarial and Property Desk Officer

Documentary Policy Team, Consular Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office”

 

The above information was obtained from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through one of a number of Freedom of Information requests.  This is FACT.

Which confirms that the FO made the decision not the embassy. During an interview on Pattaya radio, a consular official stated that the decision was made as a result of a FO audit of the embassy.

 

This is also a FACT.

 

No other embassy, carrying out the same level of verification as the BE has withdrawn their letters.

 

This is also a FACT.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Name one Country who's own Data Protection Act allows and qualifies an official of an Embassy to verify personal incomes.

Incomes have never been verified simply because the law doesn't allow third parties access to your personal information. The documentary evidence is taken at face value and the Embassies give a certified letter to that effect.

All true, which is why BE and a number of other embassies, who haven't withdrawn their letters, verify incomes by perusing the documents sent to them. This has always been accepted and still is by the majority of embassies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

.....

Incomes have never been verified simply because the law doesn't allow third parties access to your personal information. The documentary evidence is taken at face value and the Embassies give a certified letter to that effect.

Not strictly correct.  It is possible for an organisation, such as a government body, to access a person’s personal information if:

 

They (the organisation) has the legal basis/power to do so (there is a law which gives the organisation the legal ability to access that information), or

 

The person concerned has been given comprehensive details as to why the information is needed, how it will be used, who else it may be shared with, how long it will be retained and that the individual concerned has given their explicit consent for the organisation to access that information for the purpose(s) stated.

 

In the case of the BE being able to validate the applicant’s income, they do not have the legal powers to access such information and the bank/pension provider etc would quite rightly refuse to disclose any information. 

 

The only way that the BE could verify the income of the applicant is if the applicant gave their explicit consent for their bank/pension provider etc to make such a disclosure.

 

The use of explicit consent may be feasible if there is only one bank/pension provider etc involved but would be an administrative nightmare if there were several sources of income each of which needed to be verified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Spidey said:

No other embassy, carrying out the same level of verification as the BE has withdrawn their letters.

 

This is also a FACT.

Verify is the wrong word.

No other Embassy, carrying out the same level of processing as the BE has withdrawn their letters.

 

Interestingly after the BE, US, Australian and Denmark Embassies all announced withdrawal of the service, TI issued an amendment  in December clearly stating 'Income certification certified by the Embassy or Consulate' as an acceptable method of proof of income.

What happened to their insistence of 'verification' after the biggest 3 Embassies pulled out.

An attempt to lock the stable doors after the horses have bolted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...