Jump to content

Don Muang Airport showing funds


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

Filling up a TM6 has nothing whatsoever to do with showing sufficient funds.

Indeed, but both are required on entering Thailand, and his argumentation for cash not being required on re-entry was that an entry and a re-entry are handled differently. If this were the case a TM6 would not be required upon re-entry. But it is, which shows the flaw in his argument.

 

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

Someone that has an approved extension of stay has already proven that they have sufficient funds and also that they have/had the right visa to live in Thailand. For that reason, the IO will never bother to ask for proof of funds.

Somebody who has a METV proved funds already, so following your argument he can't be asked for cash on entry, right?

Funds shown to get a visa or extension are just different from the cash required on entry, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

I used to travel in/out about 18 times a year for many years and was never once asked to show funds.

I've traveled in and out of Thailand many times on tourist visas and visa exempts, I was never asked to show money. Based on my personal experience, should I tell people who are going to enter as a tourist that they don't need to carry cash?

Edited by jackdd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've traveled in and out of Thailand many times on tourist visas and visa exempts, I was never asked to show money. Based on my personal experience, should I tell people who are going to enter as a tourist that they don't need to carry cash?

You are deliberately trying to be disingenuous.
You (or rather Brit Tim) brought up the TM6 example which has no relevance to the topic on hand which is about showing funds.
Showing funds for a METV is to prove sufficient resources for the holiday/visit, not for living in the kingdom. Those being asked for proof of funds are suspected of living here, not just visiting for a short holiday.
Coming here on tourist visa/visa exempt means a tourist and immigration can rightly ask to see funds. This also happens in many countries around the world, if the IO suspects that the traveler may not have sufficient funds. I don’t recommend that these travelers travel without the necessary funds. In my case, I was on extension of stay so I never bothered to make sure that I had the funds on my person.



Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blue bruce said:

And the T A T wonders where all the Westerners went and won't come back

 A perfect example

Why? The answer to the OP is no.

So what are you complaining about? Don't listen to posters who doesn't have a clue about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

Why? The answer to the OP is no.

So what are you complaining about? Don't listen to posters who doesn't have a clue about anything.

No matter what the facts are, another fact is that people such as the OP get worried. That's a problem that comes with any crackdown - those you want to crack down on will know (or learn) how to evade it, while those you don't want to be affected will end up as roadkill / collateral damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Caldera said:

No matter what the facts are, another fact is that people such as the OP get worried. That's a problem that comes with any crackdown - those you want to crack down on will know (or learn) how to evade it, while those you don't want to be affected will end up as roadkill / collateral damage.

That is true but a ‘crackdown’ by definition only applies to people who are cheating.  I worked outside UK with frequent holidays and chose to visit Thailand during European winters, I had a bed and bank account in Thailand, a Visa on arrival with Travellers Cheques was good enough then.  There must be others doing something similar now, does the ‘crackdown’ affect them I wonder. It seems that if a person is entering on the wrong type of visa then, they can expect to be turned away nowadays.   

 

The OP returning with a re-entry permit is unlikely to be asked to show funds.  However is not unreasonable to ask a person holding a non-Immigrant visa who is to be given permission to stay for 90 days to show funds or the documentation which would enable access after entry, to Thai currency.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tgeezer said:

That is true but a ‘crackdown’ by definition only applies to people who are cheating.  I worked outside UK with frequent holidays and chose to visit Thailand during European winters, I had a bed and bank account in Thailand, a Visa on arrival with Travellers Cheques was good enough then.  There must be others doing something similar now, does the ‘crackdown’ affect them I wonder. It seems that if a person is entering on the wrong type of visa then, they can expect to be turned away nowadays.   

 

The OP returning with a re-entry permit is unlikely to be asked to show funds.  However is not unreasonable to ask a person holding a non-Immigrant visa who is to be given permission to stay for 90 days to show funds or the documentation which would enable access after entry, to Thai currency.  

The OP do have a 1 year extension based on retirement,right? He doesn't have to leave every 90 days,or have I missed something? He did show funds when he applied for the last extension, hence, he doesn't have to show any money. No one have heard about anyone on retirement extension being denied entry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

The OP do have a 1 year extension based on retirement,right? He doesn't have to leave every 90 days,or have I missed something? He did show funds when he applied for the last extension, hence, he doesn't have to show any money. No one have heard about anyone on retirement extension being denied entry. 

Not even one year ago i opened a thread which said that TM30s are required in BKK, many replies were like  "i'm sure this is wrong", "they will never enforce TM30s in BKK" and so on. Look at the situation today and you will notice how fast such things can change.

 

The order which says that people entering as tourists, or retirees, or one of the other types, need to carry cash exists probably as long as the immigration act (so round about 40 years). About 38 years no tourist was ever asked for cash, then maybe two years ago they started asking people for it and denying them entry if they didn't have it.

Maybe retirees won't be asked for another 40 years, who knows. But it could also happen that somebody is asked tomorrow and will be denied entry if he can't show it.

 

Edited by jackdd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even one year ago i opened a thread which said that TM30s are required in BKK, many replies were like  "i'm sure this is wrong", "they will never enforce TM30s in BKK" and so on. Look at the situation today and you will notice how fast such things can change.
 
The order which says that people entering as tourists, or retirees, or one of the other types, need to carry cash exists probably as long as the immigration act (so round about 40 years). About 38 years no tourist was ever asked for cash, then maybe two years ago they started asking people for it and denying them entry if they didn't have it.
Maybe retirees won't be asked for another 40 years, who knows. But it could also happen that somebody is asked tomorrow and will be denied entry if he can't show it.
 

So far, no one who has an approved extension of stay has been asked to show funds so please stop scaremongering.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

The order which says that people entering as tourists, or retirees, or one of the other types, need to carry cash exists probably as long as the immigration act (so round about 40 years).

The current order is from 2000 and refers to a previous order it revises from 1980 (presumably with lower amounts that were raised in 2000 by issuing that new order), so I'd say you're spot on.

 

Source: http://www.thaiembassy.org/hanoi/th/services/1761/46327-Announcement-on-the-amount-of-money-that-the-forei.html

 

This English translation of the order only mentions "visa" and lists non-immigrant visa as a category; maybe the Thai original is more clear as to whether or not it applies to those foreigners who are on an extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

The current order is from 2000 and refers to a previous order it revises from 1980 (presumably with lower amounts that were raised in 2000 by issuing that new order), so I'd say you're spot on.

 

Source: http://www.thaiembassy.org/hanoi/th/services/1761/46327-Announcement-on-the-amount-of-money-that-the-forei.html

 

This English translation of the order only mentions "visa" and lists non-immigrant visa as a category; maybe the Thai original is more clear as to whether or not it applies to those foreigners who are on an extension.

There is nothing wrong with the translation and there is logic there if you care to see it. 

The advice is from the embassy for for visitors to Thailand. The minimum amount of spending money or *payable document is relative to the length of time the visa allows for the visa. The longest period is Tourist and Non-Imm both 90 days and both require Bt  20,000. Someone returning on a re-entry permit could have 300 days left of his permission to stay the logic that Bt 20,000 is sufficient for that length of time is ludicrous. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...