"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"
Aren't Thai bank accounts only insured for up to 1 million THB?
That is true. If you wish to save more than 1million baht and you feel concerned, you can open a second bank account.Originally Posted by cdnmatt
I wouldn't start worrying about this. First, this applies only to the Los Angeles Thai Consulate and only about O-A visas which, in my opinion, these days is the most foolish visa to get with all the nonsense going on about it. What I noticed, but he did not mention, when he was showing the paperwork the proof of 65,000 baht per month income was now 100,000 baht per month.
Consulates, just like immigration, can be very good at making up their own rules. Sometimes when you walk into immigration, you can't be sure what you're walking into. In my opinion, for those who wish to retire in Thailand, do everything within Thailand for obtaining your visa. That way you will have an O visa, not an O-A. If you already hold an O-A, I would look into whatever is necessary to do to get it switched over to an O visa, even if it requires a Thai attorney or a visa agent to help get it done. And, as my dad used to say. "Do it now. RIGHT now!"
The way things are happening in Thailand, if you are going to retire in Thailand, you definitely want your retirement visa to be the O visa, not the O-A. And the only way to get the O visa is to get it within Thailand.
Other than that, I see no reason to be worried about any upcoming changes.
You're recommending to people holding O-A Visas to switch over to an O visa, even if it requires an attorney or agent, because, in your opinion, the O-A Visa is definitely not the way to go. If that's what you feel comfortable recommending to our readers, than by-all-means, continue on.
I'm fully aware of the fact that the "O" Visa requirements outlined on the foreign consulate sites pertain to those applying for this Visa in their home countries. The language has changed very recently which, in my opinion, could be part of a restructuring going on with the Thai Visa Program. There are other indications that this is going on as well. Not knowing what the end result will be, would tell me that it wasn't a good time for anyone to jump-the-gun and be making any changes until the dust is settled. And that's the only piece of advice I would have for our readers.
With all due respect, if anyone ran out and switched their Visa's from "O-A" to "O" and then found out that Type O was no longer used for retirement purposes, they could have a real mess on their hands... understanding that the O and O-A are inherently the same, and the O Visa was never really intended for this purpose from the beginning - and Immigration knows it. Only time will tell...but it's certainly not the time to be running out in a panic mode to make visa changes.
I don't know what you're talking about. If there is a way - within Thailand - to change from O-A to O and avoid all these O-A visa hassles, I don't understand why you find fault with that. What am I missing?
Meanwhile, I think the question is academic. I've had some farang friends try to do it, but to make a long story short they essentially were told once you have the O-A, you always have the O-A.
In my opinion the best thing to do is get the retirement visa within Thailand. That way you'll have the O visa and problem solved.
the Non O visa is, and always has been, a short-stay visa - the permission to stay on arrival is 90 days
the Non O-A visa is, and always has been, a long-stay visa - the permission to stay on arrival is 12 months
don't be confused by the fact that you can do a 12 month extension of a permission to stay for retirement based on a current permission to stay from either visa - though the requirements are different
both the Foreign Ministry (embassies and consulates) and the Interior Ministry (Immigration Police) seem comfortable with this distinction at present - though the speculation is that this may change at some stage, and this is certainly possible
I don't know about new - I have been told twice in the last 20 years by the consulate in Sydney that it is not their policy to issue a NON O visa for people wishing to retire in Thailand - this in their opinion is a policy of the Immigration Police in Thailand only - instead they suggest either applying for a Non O-A visa in Sydney, or enter Thailand on a Tourist visa and apply for a NON O visa in Thailand. the Honorary Consulate in Perth seemed to disagree with this, I am not sure about the embassy in Canberra!
Obviously different consulates and embassies have had their own interpretation of this at different times, as have different Immigration Police offices in Thailand, and there may well be a policy change happening now or in the future from the Foreign Ministry or the Interior Ministry but it all seems to be a bit unknown at this time, particularly in relation to NON O visas and extensions of permission to stay
and GB, despite your constant protestations, not everyone is in the same situation as you are, and even with the current insurance requirements for entry and extension of permission to stay with a NON O-A visa there are still a number of scenarios where a Non O-A visa may be a better choice - perhaps not for you but for other people, and they need to consider their requirements and read and understand the significant differences between the two visa classes and the differences between getting extensions on permission to stay based on these visa classes, if they actually even need to do this.
I can’t even be bothered to be apathetic these days!
Interesting video, but as the person notes, he and his Thai legal staff have seen nothing officially of a change in financial requirements for retirement. But he does note that it may be a an indication of changes that will come about in the (near?) future.
Will such change come about -- IMO it is possible. The current requirement for 800,000 baht has been in place for more than 20 years. Needless to say, costs in Thailand have increased over those years. But, if it does come about, it most likely will only impact those obtaining visas or doing first extensions after rules are officially changed (which, as yet have not happened).
In the past, when changes were made, those already on extensions of stay were "grand fathered" in and so long as they keep their extensions continuous, the old amount (800k for most of us. Section 2.22 of the current Immigration Police order governing extensions has the following re those that were on extensions of stay prior to October 21, 1998:
(6) An alien who entered the Kingdom before October 21, 1998 and has been
consecutively permitted to stay in the Kingdom for retirement shall be subject to the following
criteria:
(a) Must be 60 years of age or over and have an annual fixed income with fluids
maintained in a bank account for the past three months of no less than Baht 200,000 or have
a monthly income of no less than Baht 20,000
(b) If less than 60 years of age but not less than 55 years of age, must have an annual
fixed income with funds maintained in a bank account for the past three months of no less
than Baht 500,000 or have a monthly income of no less than Baht 50,000
Dodger (November 9th, 2021)
The fact that the Managing Director of the Law Firm speaking in this video didn't contact the Royal Thai Consulate in LA directly to question this erroneous requirement BEFORE broadcasting this video publicly is both negligent and totally unprofessional in my opinion.
Law firms like this have a track-record of fear mongering when it serves their best interest, and personally, I won't pay any heed to this piece of flimsy speculation at all.
There are 63 Thai embassies and 40 consulates operating around the world and not a single one (other than LA) has mentioned this erroneous requirement. According to the Managing Directors own statements, there has been no mention of this policy change in Thailand at all. And that includes the Thai lawyers who work in his office, who, one would assume, are connected to the network over here and have their ears close to the train tracks. And one has heard anything?
He should have contacted the LA Consulate before opening his mouth...Bottom Line.
React as you choose. But I wouldn't go changing your visa classification (O, O-A, etc.)...messing with your bank account(s), or anything else based on this nonsense.
As 2Lz2p mentioned, if changes like this were to occur in the future they would probably apply the "grand father" clause anyway.
Maybe the Integrity Legal Law Firm who produced this video should look at the LA Thai Consulates web site again. It appears as if the error has already been corrected. Go figure!
(Site link below)
O-A Visa Requirements:
4. Bank statement or evidence of adequate finance showing
– a deposit of the amount equal to and not less than 800,000 Baht; or
– an income certificate (an original copy) with a monthly income of not less than 65,000 Baht; or
– a deposit account plus a monthly income totaling not less than 800,000 Baht.
– In the case of submitting a bank statement, a letter of guarantee from the bank
(an original copy) is required.
https://thaiconsulatela.org/en/visa/...-category-o-a/
This is there original site the video references the new updatesd site.
"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"
Reply With Quote
