Transcript of the above video: 

So look, I know there are people out there that get really angry with me over the DTV; I'm going to discuss it. I'm discussing this to do you a favour because I'm trying to help you. I really feel like what Gandalf in Lord of the Rings where he was like, "I am not trying to rob you, I'm trying to help you." The reason I don't like the DTV is because it was ill-created it was obfuscated in its terms and conditions in order to create more demand for it at the outset because there was a political exigency at the time on the part of the political actors that created it - and by the way didn't ask for any consensus from internal authorities within Thailand - just created this Visa in order to basically juice if you will, tourism numbers to spike them, to cause them to spike as Paetongtarn Shinawatra was coming into office here in Thailand. That's the backstory, that's the history. 

Now people are out there directly talking about me on the internet in various forums, but one in particular I recently came across was on asq.in.th so Ask: Thailand under the title: What are the Challenges and Misconceptions surrounding the Digital Nomad Visa (DTV) in Thailand? "OK, I don't want to look like a bore posting links on videos made by Benjamin Hart (as this has been done before)" - that's news to me - quoting further: "because he's otherwise a fairly good guy" - well thanks - "but I think the analysis he has made about the DTV and general working authorization is a bit off base." Well neat. I'm glad you think that. I'm not quoting this out of nowhere, okay? This is based on literal statements made by the Thai Government. Quoting further: "and general working authorization is a little bit off base. This time he even seems to have a problem with the Pattaya Mail article he quotes from, which he would previously constantly praise." Well I'd appreciate you not attributing my intentions. Quoting further: "He claims that the reason the DTV holders can't get bank accounts (for the most part ... though exceptions still seem to exist here and there)" - no they are just getting away with it. The policy is, DTV holders are not to have bank accounts. I'm not saying this because I like it, I'm saying this because it's a fact and because obfuscating that fact in the spin cycle that is the ether, especially the expat internet here in Thailand, especially the old forum days I remember from Thaivisa.com, creates a situation where foreigners detrimentally rely on nonsense on the internet and then get themselves into problems, which I'll explain here in a moment, which is literally practically happened regarding work authorization and matters pertaining to status in Thailand.

That said, quoting again: “He claims that the reason DTV holders don't get can't get bank accounts (for the most part... though exceptions still seem to exist here and there)" - again not exceptions, just people getting away with it - is because it's "not work authorized". Well LOL- the Elite Privilege and Retirement Visas aren't work authorized either and you need a bank account to qualify for retirement extension, so there's already one flaw in his argument." How? It's a different Visa category. They're not the same things and Retirement Visa terms are explicitly non-work authorized. In the stamps that they used to give and at some Immigration Offices they still give, there's a stamp that says "not work permitted". Why? Because as I discussed in another video, it was created in the shadow of Basel II. Thailand didn't want to mess around with all those international regulations, they affirmatively non-work authorized the Retirement Visa, and they said you can have a bank account, but it's for the specific purpose of putting in the money you use to prove to keep the Visa. Comparing different visas is worthless. This is the difference between a lay person and a professional. They stove-piped the requirements if you will for different Visa categories; they just are what they are. They're incomparable; you cannot compare them. They are not the same thing. You're talking about apples and bowling balls but let me continue to quote you. Quoting further: "Also, Consulates and Embassies abroad allow you to show your proof of funds in a Thai Bank Account, not to mention some Immigration Offices insist on sighting the 500K needed for a 6-month in-country extension in a Thai Bank Account." - yeah that's because internally immigration didn't create this visa. This was created entirely as a brainchild by the Pheu Thai Party faction within the last Government. They only created it within the auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so yeah Consulates and Embassies are issuing all kinds of stuff and then internal immigration here in Thailand has to deal with it. They were never asked for their consensus on this and as I'll get to here in a moment, they have spoken their mind on their consensus and it goes against your reasoning, okay? I have talked about this at length since the creation of the DTV, alright? It was created by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and foisted on internal Thailand. It was badly implemented as I've discussed. Quoting further: "Secondly, even if not all stakeholders agreed on the terms of the DTV, but the DTV DOES allow for working remotely. Like the Retirement and Privilege Visas, it's a "employment prohibited Visa" but all that means is you can't work in Thailand for a Thailand-based entity." - No, it doesn't, as I'll get to here in a moment. Quoting further: "You CAN work for a foreign entity that does not impinge on the Thai economy and has no relationship with Thailand." Can you? Really? 

Okay, first of all I do appreciate that they bring up this impingement thing, because impingement is a key factor in this entire analysis, so let's go back to where that word “impinge” comes from. And it actually comes from the late great Barry Kenyon over here at Pattaya Mail under the article: Thai Government tweaks guidelines on latest visas. This is from September 2024, quoting directly: "The Interior Ministry has issued fresh guidelines for the much-discussed Destination Thailand Visa". So this is after this is all created, foisted upon internal immigration here in Thailand, they're told to throw in their two cents as to what they think and here's what they said. Quoting further: "The Interior Ministry has issued fresh guidelines for the much discussed Destination Thailand Visa (DTV) and the boost for visa-exempt tourists from 30 to 60 days." What we're talking about here though is the DTV. Quoting further: "The DTV is seen as groundbreaking as it frees remote workers from needing a Work Permit as long as their employment is with overseas companies or contractors. The Ministry has now doubled-down by insisting that "such work must not impinge in any way on the Thai economy", a very broad restriction." And that is well put by the late Mr. Kenyon. It is a very broad restriction to the point that anything could in theory be determined to be said work, should the situation arise. And this is the point I'm trying to get at.

All of these people who are out there sort of I don't know, backhandedly slapping me over this thing, aren't looking at why I'm bringing this up. I'm bringing it up because I'm trying to cause you not to have problems, okay? If you come here to Thailand and you're openly seen to be working, you're going to run into problems, just like recently happened in a posting I found on X. Let's go ahead and throw that up on screen. This is over on x.com, it's under Bangkok-Boy, that's @Bangkokboy17 under the title: The Girlfriend's Revenge: A Digital Nomad's Visa Run Ends in a 5-year Ban. Quoting directly: "This video tells the cautionary tale of Aiden, a Digital Nomad and UX designer who had been living and working remotely in Chiang Mai, Thailand by relying on frequent Visa Runs to Laos." Now to be clear, this person wasn't affirmatively using a DTV, but I think had they been based on the facts in this case, they would have had the same problem. Quoting further: "Aiden leaves for an early Visa Run to Vientiane, Laos following a major argument with his Thai girlfriend." As I have discussed in other videos, the personal elements of this played in as well but look at the totality of the facts and you will get your conclusions regarding the legal standing of foreigners working in any way in Thailand. Quoting further: "Aiden leaves for his early Visa Run to Vientiane, Laos, following a major argument with his Thai girlfriend Nat, believing the drama would cool off. Pulled aside by an Immigration Officer, the Officer uses Google to find Aiden's LinkedIn profile which openly lists him as a UX Designer, remote base in Chiang Mai." He basically admitted to working in Chiang Mai. That in my mind is enough. I mean that's a pretty overwhelming fact in favour of working in such a way that could be determined or deemed to "impinge upon the Thai economy". Quoting further: "directly contradicting his claim of being a tourist living on savings." Quoting further: "The turning point occurs when the Officer calls Nat, Aiden's Thai girlfriend. Despite their recent fight Aiden believed she would cover him. However, when asked by the Officer in Thai, Nat simply confirmed his illegal work status." So this is where the rubber hit the road, okay? And this is where I see people having problems with the DTV in the future, because they call someone up and they could say, "he work on computer every day, he make money from client online." Quoting further: "That single confirmation is the evidence immigration needed. Aiden is immediately denied entry, has his Tourist Visa revoked and is blacklisted from re-entering Thailand for a minimum duration of five years." Now to be clear, so I'm not viewed as being somehow disingenuous toward this post, quoting further: "The story serves as a stark warning to other Digital Nomads: the video argues that the days of endless Visa Runs and working under the radar in Thailand are over." They always were. It was never possible to work illegally in Thailand and think that if you got caught there wouldn't be any repercussions. I have talked about this stuff for nearly a decade, and I talked about it for a decade prior to that when I was blogging. That said, quoting further: "and anyone serious about staying must legalize their status, such as obtaining a Digital Nomad Visa. I think they mean DTV (Destination Thailand Visa), but as I've discussed, again going back to Pattaya Mail, quote: "Such work must not impinge in any way on the Thai economy." If this person had been viewed by immigration, even on a DTV, under these under this fact pattern where the Immigration Checkpoint Officer goes to their LinkedIn and it says, "working remote in Thailand". Okay, I mean how is it not impinging on the Thai economy? It says working in Thailand. It's like this whole magic word "remote" changes everything. How? They are physically still present Thailand. The nexus of work is occurring in Thailand; it's not a big stretch that you could get an Immigration Officer that takes the position that "okay you are working in Thailand." Meanwhile, then they go ahead and call your girlfriend and she says, "yeah he's working in Thailand." If you think the DTV is going to hold up under that scrutiny and that fact pattern, I got some bridges to sell you. It's just not. 

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I don't want to see more people put in this set of circumstances. That is a fact; that is why I'm doing this and the reason that I'm so adamant about people understanding it. Now if people come here and use the DTV for what it is ostensibly intended for, just sort of like six months at a time you can just lawfully be here. If you just want to sit on a beach for 6 months, fine, that's what it was intended for. It’s where we are getting into this work authorization stuff and everybody wanting to play word games with everything, that's a bad place to go. Word games aren't going to get you anywhere when you are dealing with an Immigration Officer, scrutinizing your activity here in the Kingdom of Thailand.