@Thaimer *****

it's not millions but it's still a little too much to carry. Not many do that.

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

in no circumstance is not having the cash a reason to deny entry. As I said; can you imagine the headlines if it would happen, even just once?

If they're looking for a reason to deny entry, then they'll find one. They don't need one. If they can use an outdated cash requirement that nobody ever complies with because it's ridiculous as a stick to slap with, then they might. But don't tell people that having your money in the bank is not acceptable for entering Thailand. Of course it is.

@Lynnette ******

20k is too much, you cannot expect travelers to carry that. If you think it's little then you have strange perceptions about the value of money. The US is not requiring that sort of money. Neither is Thailand; they've just forgotten to sanitize their laws.

@Lynnette ******

in 1979 it was realistic to require a certain amount in cash as you needed to pay your entire holiday from the amount. In 2024 people do not carry 20k in their wallet. It is way too much to require. If you think it is normal to carry this amount, maybe redo the math?

@James ******

so you can't read it? How did you reply to it then?

@Thaimer *****

you may need cash every now and then (whether this amount is needed is up for discussion) but you don't need to carry all of it at once right. It's not that cash is the safest thing to carry a lot of in your pockets.

@Lynnette ******

all true, but the point is that (officially) it is required to be in cash. Hence the question.

But obviously the requirement is unrealistic. It may not have been in 1979 but it is very unrealistic today. And everyone knows that, immigrations officers as well.

Can you imagine what happens if one person is refused for having money in the bank? It wouldn't go down well.

Not so long ago the Thai authorities investigated a supposed case where someone was refused entry for the said reason, as they too understand it is a little strange to ask for that. The outcome of the investigation was that it had not happened; the influencer posting it had just made it all up.

@James ******

the one referred to in the opening post, for instance.

@Colin ********

ah right.

Then either have it mailed or go for the switch.