What is the best way to show proof of finances when entering Thailand as an Australian on a visa exempt arrival?

@Brandon ***********

ok so it's just a rule in the book. No actual logical reason. Cheers

@Brown *******

it's actually quite logical, they typically only ask for the cash if they have already decided they want to deny you for other reasons. In that case, it's the legal justification for the denial. As not having money is written in the law, while "spending too much time / living in Thailand on tourist entries", which is more often the actual reason for the denial, is not.

So in this circumstance, where they want to deny you for another reason, it makes sense they interpret the 20k cash rule as narrowly as possible. Because it's not about the money, it's about finding a reason for the denial.

As

@Bra****

said, they're only going to ask if they already want to deny you and are looking for a reason. And that's typically frequent visitors without long term visas. Very unlikely they'd ask a new or infrequent visitor.

@Ivan ***********

how on earth is that logical exactly? Let's let someone fly all the way here because the rule book says they can but then use other rules to stop them entering if we feel like they have spent to much time in our country. That is fuked up logic if you ask me and I'm amazed you would think that is logical to be honest as it is far from it

What's logical is to sit down and actually map out and write in the rule book exactly the amount of time a person is allowed in the country within a calendar year under tourist visas. Make it public so people know the rules and only have themselves to blame if they get it wrong and get denied.

@Brown *******

how is that logical? My thought, based on the way things are done in Thailand; they only ask to see the cash if there's other reasons for them to deny you entry, then it's easier for them; they can extract a bribe from you with cash, where they couldn't with money in a bank account or credit card 🤣🤣🤣

@Colin ********

bribery is logical. Ok I can see that

@Brown *******

I was actually only joking, having a bit of fun based on everything I read on Facebook about Thailand Immigration and Police Officers.

@Colin ********

I was agreeing jokingly to mate as it is logical that they set their own rules for their benefit lol

@Brown *******

I feel you showed you’ve lost the script, a few comments back when you said “…spent to much time in our country.”

This isn’t your country, never was, never will be. As such your rules and logic (which are written for Thai advantage) do not apply. Period.

@Justin ****

where the hell did I say it was my country and what's your point ?

@Br***

the Immigration Act dates to 1979 and sets out a list of very specific reasons that a person can be denied. In the absence of the Thai parliament updating that Act, they have to go by this. If you have been here any length of time you surely realise this is how it works with so many things, the actual laws are ancient and are liberally and variously interpreted by people to get the required results at the time.

The reality is, in 2023 they want to deny certain people entry. But it's the same law on the books as was written almost half a century ago and they have to follow that law and choose a specific reason out of section 12 of the Immigration Act. So it's logical, *from their point of view*, if they WANT to deny someone, they pick a reason for that denial. And it's logical that they insist it be cash, BECAUSE the whole purpose of this is to deny someone they want to deny for other reasons. So it is not logical they make it easier for someone to wiggle out of this, they choose the most restrictive interpretation BECAUSE they have decided they don't want them.

Map out and write in the rule book and further tie the hands of the police/immigration as to what they can and can't do- that isn't necessarily the goal. And if they DID map and write down in the rule book and rigorously enforce a set of rules, if you mean they had immigration rules similar to a Western country- is that what you really want? I think a lot of people would be gone if Thailand suddenly decided all immigration was going to be handled similarly to the US or UK.

Incidentally part of the whole issue with this is that Thai immigration DO have to pick a reason from the enumerated reasons in section 12. Most Western immigration actually have far more discretion in who they want to reject and they would reject a lot of people who get away with staying in Thailand for a much longer time than they would if they tried this in a Western country.

I get it's different and can be frustrating with the uncertainty but an element of uncertainty is central to how this place works, and sometimes it works in your favour too, many people rely on the ability for stuff to get "fixed" for them not strictly by the book. It is what it is and I sometimes wonder what those calling for a more Western approach really want, and if they wouldn't be very disappointed by the results of that.

@Ivan ***********

yeah look mate I get all that but it doesn't make it logical. Logical for them? That makes it logical? You say is that what I want for them to actually have set rules when the alternative is to get denied just because a couple of individuals don't want you in the country.

Man that's some pretty weird viewpoint you got there that its logical for a tourist to guess, and that's what it is, how often they can enter Thailand.

I mean you can get 2 60 day visas, 2 extentions, 2 border runs plus 2 other extensions on those visa runs in a year. So yeah thai logic maybe when you can get denied doing this yet there's nothing to say you can't. But that ain't logic at all

@Br***

the informal rule of thumb for air entries is if you are in Thailand more than you are out of Thailand. 90 days in 180. For land, it's 2 without a visa per year. For embassies, they'll look at your history.

I get the 90 day in 180 is not law. But it is a rule of thumb they use and it is repeated on both official embassy websites and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

"Furthermore, foreigners who enter the Kingdom under this Tourist Visa Exemption Scheme may re-enter and stay in Thailand for a cumulative duration of stay of not exceeding 90 days within any 6-month period from the date of first entry."



If they were actually to formalize this, and have it as a hard limit (like Europe/Schengen), a lot of people would probably be very upset, it would be less flexible than it is now, where it's only a rule of thumb- people can still do a land bounce now, for example, and that's pretty reliable.

As it is now, if you try the sort of in out staying a long time somewhere like the UK, even as another Westerner, you'd probably run into issues. Plenty of stories of Americans being denied into the UK because they were just there a little too much. They have discretion, and it's not a hard rule either.

People who are keeping it under the levels that would be acceptable in a Western country are very unlikely to have issues. OP, who sounds like a first time traveller, is virtually guaranteed to have no issues.

It's people who are pushing it to the limit that have issues... but at least in the current system they have the option of trying it. If they formalized this, it would likely be more restrictive than the informal cut-off they apply now (and not to everyone).

@Ivan ***********

yes I agree on all that but it still doesn't make it logical in my opinion

@Br***

it's logical within the context of what they are trying to do, it's a logical means to get the result they want within the framework they are operating in. It's only not logical if you are looking at it the wrong way, thinking it's actually about proving you have the money which it's not.

@Ivan ***********

yeah ok mate if you say so

@Brown *******

you know better than that! Logic 😂

@Brandon ***********

well showing 20,000 in cash to prove you can afford your month in Thailand when a 100,000+ account balance in a Thai bank doesn't kind of makes you wonder how they decide on these rules.

@Brown *******

I read somewhere that they take the "cut chickens head off, let it run around on a boards and see where it lands" approach to making laws here.

@Brown *******

they havent updated them since the 70s. TIT