Anonymous participant 324 De jure it’s classified as a tourist visa — that part is true.

De facto it allows continuous long-term stay for up to 5 years via repeat 180-day entries.

The discussion is about this gap between legal labeling and real-world use — long-stay residents being treated as short-term tourists for basic services like banking. That inconsistency is the actual issue, not the visa’s name.

Mockery usually comes from weakness.

People laugh not because the issue is wrong, but because it’s easier to accept being pushed around than to question a broken system.

Silence and sarcasm require no effort. Speaking up does.

Making fun of someone who raises a legitimate problem doesn’t solve anything — it just shows who is too lazy or too afraid to demand better.

Change never comes from those who ridicule.

It comes from those who refuse to quietly accept nonsense.

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

disagreement is fine — personal remarks like “sleeping under a rock” are not.

I understand your point about the new liability rules and risk transfer to banks.

That explains the situation — it does not justify the outcome.

When people hold a legal multi-year long-stay visa, pushing them into cash-only living or fintech workarounds is bad policy and poor AML practice.

Forcing legitimate residents out of the regulated banking system increases risk — it does not reduce it.

Complaining is not about “getting my way.”

It is about questioning policies that produce irrational or unsafe results.

Rules have only ever changed because people challenged them — not because everyone silently accepted them.

Saying “just leave” avoids the issue instead of addressing it.

I’m here legally, I contribute economically, and I have every right to speak up when a rule makes no sense.

Difference of opinion is welcome.

Talking down to people isn’t expertise — it’s just attitude.

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

Brandon, being a “group expert” does not make you an authority on Thai law, banking policy, or other people’s rights.

You don’t speak for the government, banks, or regulators — you only share a personal opinion, and you present it as if it were fact.

Telling people to “just leave” is not an argument; it is avoidance of discussion.

I’m not asking for privileges — I’m questioning a policy that forces legal long-stay visitors into cash-only living instead of normal banking. That is a valid public discussion, whether you like it or not.

Difference of opinion is fine. Dismissing others and talking down to them is not.

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

Arrogance isn’t authority.

You don’t speak for the Thai government, the banks, or the law — so ordering people to “leave” adds nothing to the discussion.

The only thing that has any real effect is filing formal complaints, not arguing online.

For anyone interested, here are the official contacts:

Bank of Thailand – Consumer Protection:



Tourism Authority of Thailand



You can add your embassy in copy.

You submit your complaint directly there, attach a brief explanation of the issue.

Public pressure only works when combined with official action — individual silence changes nothing.

DTV_BegPecker I don’t care what label anyone wants to use — “resident”, “visitor” or anything else.

With a valid DTV I proved sufficient funds and a legitimate purpose to stay, and I am legally allowed to reside in Thailand repeatedly for up to 5 years.

During that time I live here, spend here, rent here, pay here.

There is no rational reason why someone who is legally allowed to stay and live here long-term should be forced to carry physical cash instead of using normal banking services.

This is not a semantic debate — it’s basic common sense.

@Elías *******

The loudest voices aren't always the smartest ones.

(As we say in Czech: “An empty barrel makes the most noise.”)

@Robert ******

This has nothing to do with citizenship or being “a tourist”.

The difference is purely financial: retirement visas REQUIRE 800,000 THB deposited in a Thai bank account, which makes the client low-risk and profitable for banks — DTV does not. It’s not a visa issue, it’s a money/compliance equation.

DTV_Begpacker Not every Vladimir is Putin — just like not every Joe is President Biden.