Jomtien retirement extension today. New bankbook procedure.

[Lichiyado]

24 minutes ago, david555 said:

As it is for me , the rules are clear , only they did not think of side matters , eg. if you wish to change to another money system , or even at another visa system (O-A home country application example ) , how to take your money out bank complete legal , so not risking to be on OVERSTAY 

Yes, the devil is in the details. And the details are not well thought out. But, bit by bit, information will trickle in, clarity will come, and we'll all be dancing in the streets.  Until we're not.

[david555]

1 minute ago, Lichiyado said:

Yes, the devil is in the details. And the details are not well thought out. But, bit by bit, information will trickle in, clarity will come, and we'll all be dancing in the streets.  Until we're not.

We should have as in politics  ….A "shadow Lieutenant General " to pointing out their forgotten issues  !

Ah.., we got another I.O. boss now , so all could become clear ,better , or worse ..we wait and see

[Kevbo]

7 hours ago, jacko45k said:

As it is early days yet nobody can confirm if you will have to return after the 6 month point and demonstrate the 400k is still available as required. It may only be a check when you make your next extension application. 

The fear that your current extension may be cancelled should be enough to deter you from spending, unless you see no likelihood of needing to attend immigration during the rest of the year. 

Good advice, thanks

[Bryacar]

On 4/19/2019 at 6:53 AM, Henryford said:

Did they say what would happen if your balance falls below 800k?

Good question.  I have assumed that the visa would be invalid if that happened.

[jacko45k]

18 hours ago, Bryacar said:

Good question.  I have assumed that the visa would be invalid if that happened.

I asked an agent and was told I would need to go see him!

[Jingthing]

22 hours ago, Bryacar said:

Good question.  I have assumed that the visa would be invalid if that happened.

Yes if you're ordered to show bank book during post seasoning, we know already that the extension would be cancelled on the spot. So then what exactly? We do not know. On overstay from the date of account non-compliance? Deportation? Blacklisting? Detention? Not knowing is scary because going under during the post seasoning period is something that will definitely happen to some people for lots of reasonable reasons. 

 

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Yes if you're ordered to show bank book during post seasoning, we know already that the extension would be cancelled on the spot.

Source please. I have not heard this anywhere, only rumoured. And if I was in such a position, I would keep away from that spot!

[Jingthing]

Just now, jacko45k said:

Source please. I have not heard this anywhere, only rumoured. And if I was in such a position, I would keep away from that spot!

There was a report on this forum. You can search for it. I'm not your search bot. 

Also, even without that report, THINK about it.

You get an extension and are ordered to show up in three months to show your bank book hasn't gone under 800K.

You show up.

It's under.

Why would they ORDER you in if there weren't serious consequences for non-compliance?
Answer, they wouldn't.

YES -- your annual extension would be cancelled on the spot in that scenario.

The majority of offices are not making these bank book report orders.

Obviously if they can't see your bank book, they won't have grounds to cancel your extension.

Cheers.

[marcusarelus]

11 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Source please. I have not heard this anywhere, only rumoured. And if I was in such a position, I would keep away from that spot!

If he had a source he would have posted it.  Nothing official on what happens nor is it clear that they even have a method of checking if you report or don't.  Change your address and report at a different location of leave and reset your 90 day clock.  Nothing known. 

[Jingthing]

26 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

If he had a source he would have posted it.  Nothing official on what happens nor is it clear that they even have a method of checking if you report or don't.  Change your address and report at a different location of leave and reset your 90 day clock.  Nothing known. 

You are wrong. You're ascribing evil intensions to me that do not exist. That is VERY OFFENSIVE. I don't keep a database chart of information that I read about. Perhaps you're confused. I am not saying, indeed did not say, that anyone has had their extension cancelled like that. Why? It is too early for that. The changes went into effect in March so that isn't even possible until three months after that. The future. I was passing along a report here that I don't have a link to because I'm not as ANAL as you demand where an expat was explicitly told by an immigration officer that non-compliance on a 90 day after extension bank book report would result in extension cancellation on the spot. Beyond that, we don't know. Also if you bothered to employ basic COMMON SENSE you would realize that such a cancellation would be likely even if we didn't have any reports. Jomtien indeed is ordering people in for these reports. You think they're doing that to give lectures to people that show up with unders in their bank books, Get real! 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Jingthing

[KittenKong]

On 4/20/2019 at 12:24 AM, Beggar said:

I also was told that no bank letter is needed. Just an updated bank book showing the 800.000 balance on this date. 

With my bank it is impossible to update the book unless I make an extra fixed deposit or a withdrawal, and partial withdrawals are not possible. When I do my extension my book is never up to date for this reason. Jomtien Immigration seem to understand this and they happily rely on the bank letter which of course is up to date.

 

So I wonder if I will need to get a second bank letter about 90 days after my next extension?

 

The whole thing is made even more stupid by the fact that my 800kB is on time deposit for 2 years and this is clearly marked in the book. So as long as the book does not show a withdrawal the full amount is still there.

[Beggar]

1 hour ago, KittenKong said:

With my bank it is impossible to update the book unless I make an extra fixed deposit or a withdrawal, and partial withdrawals are not possible. When I do my extension my book is never up to date for this reason. Jomtien Immigration seem to understand this and they happily rely on the bank letter which of course is up to date.

 

So I wonder if I will need to get a second bank letter about 90 days after my next extension?

The bank letter shows the balance on the day of the letter. It doesn't show if the balance has been below 800.000 before this date. Hopefully Jomtien Immigration still understands this the same way as when you applied for the extension and accepts it :-) But what I have learned in this forum is that at some banks it seems to be possible to create a posting in your book without any transaction. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Beggar

[KittenKong]

10 minutes ago, Beggar said:

The bank letter shows the balance on the day of the letter. It doesn't show if the balance has been below 800.000 before this date. Hopefully Jomtien Immigration still understands this the same way as when you applied for the extension and accepts it :-) But what I have learned in this forum is that at some banks it seems to be possible to create a posting in your book without any transaction. 

Some banks certainly can, but mine cant.

 

As far as I know the bank letter confirms what the current bank balance is and also that the bank book is up to date. So any previous lower amount should be visible.

[Beggar]

1 minute ago, KittenKong said:

Some banks certainly can, but mine cant.

 

As far as I know the bank letter confirms what the current bank balance is and also that the bank book is up to date. So any previous lower amount should be visible.

Try it. Didn't work for me when I had my last extension in Jomtien. I had the letter and several bank books - sadly without a posting on the day of the bank letter - even if this amount will not be shown in the bank letter of this day anymore but only in the book. To cut a long story short I had to go to the bank and make deposits on the accounts before they were willing to continue with me. But perhaps you have more luck. Not every case seems to be the same. 

[watcharacters]

On 4/20/2019 at 3:11 PM, Kevbo said:

As it is early days yet nobody can confirm if you will have to return after the 6 month point and demonstrate the 400k is still available as required.  

 

 

If that comes to pass, I'd be smelling a bank letter in the works.      The banks could use the extra baht.

 

 

[KittenKong]

1 minute ago, Beggar said:

But perhaps you have more luck. Not every case seems to be the same. 

For several years I have been doing my extension with a bank book that is never up to date and I have never had any trouble with that at Jomtien. Perhaps it helps that the bank book clearly shows time deposits going back several years and never falling below 800kB. Also I own my condo and they must know this, so maybe that counts for something too.

 

Luck of the draw also seems to count for something.

 

It's just that this particular new issue of presenting an up to date bank book 90 days after the extension is granted will be hard for me to comply with. So maybe I wont be asked to.

[WaveHunter]

I'd love to know if anybody can explain the rationale behind the IMM changes regarding funds-in-bank that were made in March of this year.  I mean, it makes no sense for funds to be tied up AFTER extension approval.  The only benefit I see is to the bank itself.  Sounds sort of suspicious to me.

Edited April 25, 2019 by WaveHunter

[marcusarelus]

Just now, WaveHunter said:

I'd love to know if anybody can explain the rationale behind the IMM changes regarding funds-in-bank that were made in March of this year.  I mean, it makes no sense for funds to be tied up AFTER extension approval.  The only benefit I see is to the bank itself.

It is so an agent cannot put money in for a day and then take it out.  Hope this helps. 

[bangkokspurs]

I did my retirement renewal back in march, to be honest no issues as such just a stupid new form to fill in that was totally confusing (even in the IO laughed and said fill in what you can ) anyway there was no mention at all bringing a bank statement of funds (800,000baht) for 90 day report, which I have never done in two years (in country one month out month) so will be interesting when I go back next year for renewal, or due you suggest I go and show proof that the money is still there, which is no problem as I have a separate retirement visa account (1,000,000 baht) for this purpose. 

Just one thing this in CW

 

 

[Jingthing]

27 minutes ago, bangkokspurs said:

I did my retirement renewal back in march, to be honest no issues as such just a stupid new form to fill in that was totally confusing (even in the IO laughed and said fill in what you can ) anyway there was no mention at all bringing a bank statement of funds (800,000baht) for 90 day report, which I have never done in two years (in country one month out month) so will be interesting when I go back next year for renewal, or due you suggest I go and show proof that the money is still there, which is no problem as I have a separate retirement visa account (1,000,000 baht) for this purpose. 

Just one thing this in CW

 

 

At this point most offices are not ordering the 90 day bank book check in. JOMTIEN is. Other offices that are doing that or similar, I don't know, but Jomtien is a major office for retirement. 

[ChouDoufu]

3 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

It is so an agent cannot put money in for a day and then take it out.  Hope this helps. 

why not?  brown envelope = overlooked requirement.

if 30 minutes in an account is good enough for 3 months seasoning, why not 2x30 minutes for 5 months?  (plus thicker envelope)

[marcusarelus]

25 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

why not?  brown envelope = overlooked requirement.

if 30 minutes in an account is good enough for 3 months seasoning, why not 2x30 minutes for 5 months?  (plus thicker envelope)

Have you ever done an extension with an agent?

[ChouDoufu]

15 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

Have you ever done an extension with an agent?

of course not.  the agent dinna want my business as i had the 800k in the bank and all my paperwork was in order, only needed the extension done earlier than 45 days prior.

[marcusarelus]

1 hour ago, ChouDoufu said:

of course not.  the agent dinna want my business as i had the 800k in the bank and all my paperwork was in order, only needed the extension done earlier than 45 days prior.

Then why comment about something you know nothing about? 

[ChouDoufu]

32 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Then why comment about something you know nothing about? 

point being..........if i don't need to show 800k in my bank account, 'cause agent will fix it for a fee, then i don't need to show it twice.  agent can fix it for a biggerer fee.

[JackThompson]

21 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

21 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I'd love to know if anybody can explain the rationale behind the IMM changes regarding funds-in-bank that were made in March of this year.  I mean, it makes no sense for funds to be tied up AFTER extension approval.  The only benefit I see is to the bank itself.

It is so an agent cannot put money in for a day and then take it out.  Hope this helps. 

No.  The agents are still in-business using the same routine as before - seasoning is not checked if you use an agent.  The existing-seasoning, if enforced for agent-applications, would have prevented "quick loaned" money.

 

If they wanted to stop the agents getting around the rules, they would have just stopped allowing agents into immigration-offices - not added redundant seasoning which only hurts legit-applicants, and is ignored for agents, anyway.

 

17 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

Have you ever done an extension with an agent?

49 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

2 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

of course not.  the agent dinna want my business as i had the 800k in the bank and all my paperwork was in order, only needed the extension done earlier than 45 days prior.

Then why comment about something you know nothing about? 

Checked with them in March - told me exactly how it would work.  They put money in/out in a day (Bangkok Bank is OK), and I show up at immigration for 5 mins for a picture.  Everyone knows how it works - not a secret - and it is clearly allowed at the highest-levels, given no crackdown on it.  

 

The primary reason I didn't do it, was because I don't live in that area any more, and the agent's 90-day reports would have been fraudulent.

[jacko45k]

On 4/25/2019 at 4:43 PM, marcusarelus said:

It is so an agent cannot put money in for a day and then take it out.  Hope this helps. 

Although it is business as usual I hear.

[WaveHunter]

21 hours ago, JackThompson said:

No.  The agents are still in-business using the same routine as before - seasoning is not checked if you use an agent.  The existing-seasoning, if enforced for agent-applications, would have prevented "quick loaned" money.

 

If they wanted to stop the agents getting around the rules, they would have just stopped allowing agents into immigration-offices - not added redundant seasoning which only hurts legit-applicants, and is ignored for agents, anyway.

 

Checked with them in March - told me exactly how it would work.  They put money in/out in a day (Bangkok Bank is OK), and I show up at immigration for 5 mins for a picture.  Everyone knows how it works - not a secret - and it is clearly allowed at the highest-levels, given no crackdown on it.  

 

The primary reason I didn't do it, was because I don't live in that area any more, and the agent's 90-day reports would have been fraudulent.

What you are saying makes no sense.  The reason for the changes made in March were expressly to deal with agents depositing funds in client's account, wasn't it?  Why else would they initiate such a bizarre rule?

Edited April 27, 2019 by WaveHunter

[jacko45k]

4 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I don't think any of what you say is true.

You are wrong simply by reading his first sentence. 

4 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

The agents are still in-business using the same routine as before

(Actually from JackThompson)

Which they are.

Edited April 27, 2019 by jacko45k

[WaveHunter]

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

You are wrong simply by reading his first sentence. 

Which they are.

I amended my post to read:  What you are saying makes no sense.  The reason for the changes made in March were expressly to deal with agents depositing funds in client's account, wasn't it?  Why else would they initiate such a bizarre rule?