I have the 800k, but??

[nasa123]

19 hours ago, MadMuhammad said:

He had no will and didn’t inform anyone in his family about his accounts? 

When I left Australia I authorised my mom as a co-signer on my account and she has copies of everything: bank accounts, family trust account, term deposits, my shares and brokers contact details plus an airtight will. 

You cant blame the banks for your friends lack of preparation 

When you die, they still have to go through the court in Thailand if there are money in the bank.What can help or make the matter easier is to write a will here in Thailand through a lawyer you can trust, and they are not that many of them, but you probably have one (but still court).

[Wake Up]

On 2/22/2019 at 8:13 AM, Longcut said:

If there is now a requirement to leave a minimum 400K baht in the bank and never be able to withdraw the money. Why would someone want to have to show 65K baht a month going into a Thai bank account? Or leave 800K in the bank for six months? Wouldn't the combination method be the best option? That is only going to require 33,334 baht a month deposit. I can meet the 800K or the 65K a month option. But why, when I will only have to deposit 33,334 baht a month. Am I missing something?

The cost of transfer fees and poor exchange rate on a monthly basis versus a one time exchange fee and poor exchange rate. Or bring cash from home country next trip and change it at Vasu or SuperRichTH and have no transfer fees and best exchange rate. 

[Wake Up]

10 minutes ago, nasa123 said:

When you die, they still have to go through the court in Thailand if there are money in the bank.What can help or make the matter easier is to write a will here in Thailand through a lawyer you can trust, and they are not that many of them, but you probably have one (but still court).

No my son will just do an ACH transfer to USA bank as he has all the information.  

[Tanoshi]

8 minutes ago, nasa123 said:

When you die, they still have to go through the court in Thailand if there are money in the bank.What can help or make the matter easier is to write a will here in Thailand through a lawyer you can trust, and they are not that many of them, but you probably have one (but still court).

You can also have your wife as a co-signature to your account.

A Will then isn't required, but I'd still recommend a Will for other issues pertaining to your assets.

[Tanoshi]

6 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

The cost of transfer fees and poor exchange rate on a monthly basis versus a one time exchange fee and poor exchange rate. Or bring cash from home country next trip and change it at Vasu or SuperRichTH and have no transfer fees and best exchange rate. 

Your talking about the 800K, right?

[Tanoshi]

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 8:13 AM, Longcut said:

If there is now a requirement to leave a minimum 400K baht in the bank and never be able to withdraw the money. Why would someone want to have to show 65K baht a month going into a Thai bank account? Or leave 800K in the bank for six months? Wouldn't the combination method be the best option? That is only going to require 33,334 baht a month deposit. I can meet the 800K or the 65K a month option. But why, when I will only have to deposit 33,334 baht a month. Am I missing something?

If you only transferred 33,334 baht per month, the shortfall would be 400K to the requirement of 800K.

You would have to leave that 400K in the bank all year round in order to meet the total of 800K at next extension.

You therefore have 33,334 baht monthly for living expenses throughout the year.

Perhaps that is sufficient for you, more many it wouldn't.

[luckyluke]

 

" On basis of the documents shown to the Consulate it is hereby certified that :

Mr. Luckyluke is receiving a monthly pension of EUR 1234,56 equivalent to approximately ThB 78901."

 

"r X has also stated that he receives monthly pensions totally £GBP xxxxx and has shown us letters from x.x.and x stating that he receives pensions totalling £GBP xxxxx."

 

For me the difference is that a Consular officer write in the L.o.I. ( not a Affidavit ) the words :

" it is hereby certified that "

 

But if you consider these 5 words as irrelevant, fair enough.

 

I won't go further on with this matter.

 

 

 

[onera1961]

20 hours ago, MadMuhammad said:

You cant blame the banks for your friends lack of preparation 

True, but sometime it just slips away. If married, one must have wife access to the account. If single with a long-term girl friend, girl friend should have access to the account (by knowing the ATM number). If none of these applies, just keep 800K and have somebody in home country know about this with the ATM pin number. 

[onera1961]

19 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

it is hereby certified that

May be that's the catch. Thai officials like the word certify. They have no clue what is affidavit. They think it is just made up ????, and a large number of people from those countries do make up their income when you don't have to show document to get an affidavit. Lying is an unavoidable part of human nature to gain advantage. 

[Sheryl]

Interesting that no mention of the 800K having to remain for 3 months after the extension. Also no mention of the pre-seasoning requirement though that is certain (though unclear if 2mos always or 2 mo first time then 3 after that).

 

Mt Imm office (Prachinburi) on the other hand told me 800K has to remain for 3 months after extensions but nothing about 400K after that.

 

In other words SNAFU, confusion still reigns....

 

Juts an educated guess, I think what TI HQ meant  to convey in the police order was the same pre-seasoning requirement was before (2/3 months) and then maintaining a balance of nto less than 400k all year, but the wording was so vague that it got translated (and also understood by most, but not all,  IOs) to mean 800K 2 month before and 3 month after the same extension.

 

????‍♀️

[Tanoshi]

5 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

 

" On basis of the documents shown to the Consulate it is hereby certified that :

Mr. Luckyluke is receiving a monthly pension of EUR 1234,56 equivalent to approximately ThB 78901."

 

"r X has also stated that he receives monthly pensions totally £GBP xxxxx and has shown us letters from x.x.and x stating that he receives pensions totalling £GBP xxxxx."

 

For me the difference is that a Consular officer write in the L.o.I. ( not a Affidavit ) the words :

" it is hereby certified that "

 

But if you consider these 5 words as irrelevant, fair enough.

 

I won't go further on with this matter.

Only the US used the 'affidavit' method.

We had to show the same documents to the BE as you do to your Austrian Embassy.

The BE signed the their letter, thereby is was a certified letter of income.

 

Being an Austrian you probably didn't follow the turn of events following the BE's announcement to cease the income letters and TI's change of request to 'verify' incomes, to that of their amended order that Embassy income letters be 'certified'.

They dropped the 'verified' request, but only after the BE, US, Aus and Denmark announced withdrawal of the service.

To late to help the British expats.

 

The US and Australian Embassies reason for withdrawal is a different issue.

They used the 'affidavit' or 'statutory declaration' of statements of proof of income.

However even if they could, or were prepared to change their system, they were still unable to 'verify' incomes, that being TI's request at the time.

[Sheryl]

41 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

If you only transferred 33,334 baht per month, the shortfall would be 400K to the requirement of 800K.

You would have to leave that 400K in the bank all year round in order to meet the total of 800K at next extension.

You therefore have 33,334 baht monthly for living expenses throughout the year.

Perhaps that is sufficient for you, more many it wouldn't.

And what if the shortfall is only say 50K or 100K? Do you still have to have 400K in the bank? If so,  you are being required to have considerably more than a total of 800K.

 

Has this part been clarified yet? (or anything else for that matter - I think there was supposed to have been a meeting last week?)

[JackThompson]

4 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Juts an educated guess, I think what TI HQ meant  to convey in the police order was the same pre-seasoning requirement was before (2/3 months) and then maintaining a balance of nto less than 400k all year, but the wording was so vague that it got translated (and also understood by most, but not all,  IOs) to mean 800K 2 month before and 3 month after the same extension.

I am surprised no one else posted this (that I've seen).  That actually makes much more sense that the current interpretation/wording.

[xylophone]

14 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Interesting that no mention of the 800K having to remain for 3 months after the extension. Also no mention of the pre-seasoning requirement though that is certain (though unclear if 2mos always or 2 mo first time then 3 after that).

 

Mt Imm office (Prachinburi) on the other hand told me 800K has to remain for 3 months after extensions but nothing about 400K after that.

 

In other words SNAFU, confusion still reigns....

 

Juts an educated guess, I think what TI HQ meant  to convey in the police order was the same pre-seasoning requirement was before (2/3 months) and then maintaining a balance of nto less than 400k all year, but the wording was so vague that it got translated (and also understood by most, but not all,  IOs) to mean 800K 2 month before and 3 month after the same extension.

 

????‍♀️

Sheryl, if you are referring to the "letter" that was recently posted from the Phuket immigration office, then, as I see it, there could be a few problems with that letter........firstly because it differs from another one which was recently produced by them, and secondly because it makes no mention that the regular funds of 65K into the account have to be from overseas?

 

Not sure if that will be the final letter from them or if things will change again, but what seems to be clear is that different IOs have different interpretations, but then again, what's new?

[jacko45k]

20 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Interesting that no mention of the 800K having to remain for 3 months after the extension

I was thinking about this, As there is no apparent way to police this post-extension 3 months at 800k, and the only time it can be checked is when applying for a subsequent extension a full year later. It is not an after requirement, but in reality is a seasoning for the new/later extension!  

Unless they come in with some other checks.

Or retroactive fining!

Edited February 23, 2019 by jacko45k

[Tanoshi]

10 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

And what if the shortfall is only say 50K or 100K? Do you still have to have 400K in the bank? If so,  you are being required to have considerably more than a total of 800K.

Not according to my IO.

For the combo at next application it must be a combination of funds and income totalling 800,000K for the year.

They used as little as 200K funds as their examples.

The funds did have to be seasoned for the same period as the 'funds only' method.

 

15 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Has this part been clarified yet? (or anything else for that matter - I think there was supposed to have been a meeting last week?)

I believe the meeting was supposed to take place this week.

I'm not expecting an official announcement, more a leak of further information.

@elviajero may be one of the first to acquire some clarification.

[Sheryl]

1 minute ago, xylophone said:

Sheryl, if you are referring to the "letter" that was recently posted from the Phuket immigration office, then, as I see it, there could be a few problems with that letter........firstly because it differs from another one which was recently produced by them, and secondly because it makes no mention that the regular funds of 65K into the account have to be from overseas?

 

Not sure if that will be the final letter from them or if things will change again, but what seems to be clear is that different IOs have different interpretations, but then again, what's new?

You mean the thread about Phichit IO,  no, I was not specifically referring to there. They are a special case in that they seem to have not seen the police order on the income method (or else decided to ignore it!)

 

From what I have read the majority if IOs have seen both orders band most understand the new 800K rules to mean 800K untouched 2 months before and 3 months after and then 400K safter that...which is how it is translated in English but might nto necessarly be the original intent. 

 

But what is in this thread from Phuket seems to differ.

 

 

[Sheryl]

1 minute ago, Tanoshi said:

Not according to my IO.

For the combo at next application it must be a combination of funds and income totalling 800,000K for the year.

They used as little as 200K funds as their examples.

The funds did have to be seasoned for the same period as the 'funds only' method.

 

@elviajero

And then what is the rule on spending it? Leave untouched either 400K or the full sum whichever is less?

[Tanoshi]

7 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

From what I have read the majority if IOs have seen both orders band most understand the new 800K rules to mean 800K untouched 2 months before and 3 months after and then 400K safter that...which is how it is translated in English but might nto necessarly be the original intent. 

Agree and it's penalising those using the funds method if correct.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Tanoshi

[Tanoshi]

13 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

And then what is the rule on spending it? Leave untouched either 400K or the full sum whichever is less?

You must show income and funds amounting to 800K for the year.

 

You can spend the income, but how much you can spend of the funds will still be subject to being able to show funds and income amounting to 800K for the year.

[luckyluke]

53 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Being an Austrian

A few words clarification.

 

I am Belgian not Austrian.

 

An Affidavit is established at the Belgian embassy in Bangkok, no documents are needed, but the embassy certify nothing.

 

In Pattaya the Austrian consulate, where next to Austrians,

Belgians, Dutch, French, Germans can utilize their service, a letter addressed to T.I. is issued by the Consul-General or the Vice Consul.

 

In this letter the C.-G. or V. C., certify the income of the citizen after consultation of the documents provided by the citizen.

 

Some Belgians in Pattaya, as myself, use the Austrian Consulate in Pattaya to get a L.o.I., some prefer to do the trip to Bangkok to get an Affidavit.

 

I live in Bangkok now after 15+ years Pattaya, however I come to Pattaya for the use of the Austrian Consulate and my extension in Jomtien.

Edited February 23, 2019 by luckyluke

[Tanoshi]

6 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I am Belgian not Austrian.

Apologies for thinking you were Austrian, although there's nothing wrong with being an Austrian.  ????

 

7 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

An Affidavit is established at the Belgian embassy in Bangkok, no documents are needed, but the embassy certify nothing.

They don't sign anything!

Not even a stamp or signature after your affidavit and signature.

They don't certify they've witnessed your signature.

 

11 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

In Pattaya the Austrian consulate, where next to Austrians,

Belgians, Dutch, French, Germans can utilize their service, a letter addressed to T.I. is issued by the Consul-General or the Vice Consul.

 

in this letter the C.-G. or V. C., certify the income of the citizen after consultation of the documents provided by the citizen.

Same as the BE then.

 

Now please tell, when you supply your copies of documents to TI for your extensions, do they request you sign the documents. You are in fact self certifying the copies of your documents.

Do you write on every copy 'It is hereby certified that' …….. thought not ….. but by signing, you are certifying regardless of the 5 words or not.

[luckyluke]

28 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

They don't sign anything!

Not even a stamp or signature after your affidavit and signature.

They don't certify they've witnessed your signature.

 

Sorry, I don't know, I only know threw compatriots they don't certify the income.

But pretty sure somebody must sign something.

34 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Same as the BE then.

Here also I don't know, but have no reason to not believe you.

 

36 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

do they request you sign the documents.

Yes, the copies of my passport pages, ( never understood why I had to sign them, thought It would be more logic the officer sign them as confirmation he received them ).

I not sign the original of the Letter of Income established by the Austrian Consulate, neither the original of my rent contract.

[Bogbrush]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

You must show income and funds amounting to 800K for the year.

 

You can spend the income, but how much you can spend of the funds will still be subject to being able to show funds and income amounting to 800K for the year.

Seems a lifetime ago when the IO question was “Why you not use 800 000? How you live? Where you get money? Walk this way.....”

[Tanoshi]

38 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Yes, the copies of my passport pages, ( never understood why I had to sign them, thought It would be more logic the officer sign them as confirmation he received them ).

I not sign the original of the Letter of Income established by the Austrian Consulate, neither the original of my rent contract.

TI don't always want to see the all the original documents.

When you sign the copies you are in fact certifying they are a true copy of the original document, although you never actually state that.

In the UK and I'm sure in Belgium, if your asked for a 'certified' copy of a document, self certification wouldn't be acceptable. You'd need to take the original to a solicitor, who would make the copy, them stamp it and sign it as a certified copy of the original.

 

Don't tell Immigration that though.  ????

 

It's common practice in Thailand, when Thais supply a certified copy to draw two diagonal lines across, stating the reason of the copy between the lines. then signing. It prevents misuse of the copy.

Landlords quite often do that on the copies of their Tabien Baans and ID cards.

 

At my office, they now stamp the copies, with a line for me to sign within.

I've stopped pre-signing my copies for that reason, otherwise I end up signing twice.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Tanoshi

[david555]

1 hour ago, luckyluke said:

Sorry, I don't know, I only know threw compatriots they don't certify the income.

But pretty sure somebody must sign something.

Here also I don't know, but have no reason to not believe you.

 

Yes, the copies of my passport pages, ( never understood why I had to sign them, thought It would be more logic the officer sign them as confirmation he received them ).

I not sign the original of the Letter of Income established by the Austrian Consulate, neither the original of my rent contract.

There is definitely  different wording now on that affidavit as before delivered to us, by this wording, pointing out they saw documents stating the income and verified it :

" On basis of the documents shown to the Consulate it is hereby certified that :....

So not as before just stating our signature is genuine ..., Thank you Belg. Embassy for not being so stubborn (St@$#%d... ) as those others..for their compatriots ????

Edited February 23, 2019 by david555

[Tanoshi]

11 minutes ago, david555 said:

There is definitely  different wording now on that affidavit as before by this wording, pointing out they saw documents stating the income and verified it :

" On basis of the documents shown to the Consulate it is hereby certified that :....

So not as before just stating our signature is genuine ..., Thank you Belg. Embassy as not being so stubborn (St@$#%d... ) as those others..for their compatriots ???? 

Don't get to excited.

I reckon when TI start finding out these declared incomes aren't actually being transferred, they'll knock these Embassy letters on the head and revert to proof of income being transferred into a Thai bank from overseas.

[david555]

20 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Don't get to excited.

I reckon when TI start finding out these declared incomes aren't actually being transferred, they'll knock these Embassy letters on the head and revert to proof of income being transferred into a Thai bank from overseas.

I am quit sure they don't like too much job doing, as already now they push the marriage ext. applications to ret. extensions if possible …….if only a Embassy letter covers them up …..???? stating they saw the proof of being a pensioner really and  pension money ( a double thing as proof as being entitled to a pension + the money receiving for rest of the life….) ????????

Besides this is only my plan B , as I am  under the 800K option , but was worried about the plan B no more an extra option ..

Edited February 23, 2019 by david555

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, david555 said:

There is definitely  different wording now on that affidavit as before delivered to us, by this wording, pointing out they saw documents stating the income and verified it :

" On basis of the documents shown to the Consulate it is hereby certified that :....

So not as before just stating our signature is genuine ..., Thank you Belg. Embassy for not being so stubborn (St@$#%d... ) as those others..for their compatriots ????

I think you need to wait and see on that one. The new wording is clearly to cover the embassies back. Whether or not it will be acceptable to TIB bosses is another thing.

 

If it were that easy surely the BE/US/other embassies would have done the same.

[Sheryl]

Not the US for sure. They were not looking at or reviewing any sort of documentation and were/are unwilling to do so.

 

My impression (could be wrong) is that Aus was the same.

 

UK though did require and review supporting documentation. So if this sort of language is considered OK by TI no reason they couldn't provide it.

 

 

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app