BANGKOK, THAILAND – A routine bank transfer for a German retiree’s winter stay in Hua Hin ended with hundreds of euros missing, highlighting growing risks in sending money to Thailand.
Retiree loses 20,000 baht on “convenient” option
A 67‑year‑old retiree from Munich sent 10,000 euros to his account at Bangkok Bank for a long‑planned winter stay in Hua Hin and chose the option at his German bank to transfer the amount “in Thai baht”. When the funds arrived in Thailand, almost 20,000 baht – around 540 euros – were missing from the credit. He had not been warned, and his case illustrated one of the most common and expensive misunderstandings in international payments.
How SWIFT and intermediary banks cut into transfers
SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, was described as a pure messaging system rather than a money transporter. When a customer sends money from a German savings bank to Kasikorn Bank, the bank transmits an encrypted instruction instead of moving physical cash. Because many institutions lack direct relationships, they rely on intermediary banks, each of which charges its own fee, so less money often arrives than was sent unless customers understand the fee structures in detail.
Fee codes OUR, SHA and BEN decide who pays
Customers completing transfer forms encounter the abbreviations BEN, SHA and OUR, which determine who bears the costs. Under BEN, the recipient pays all fees and the amount arrives heavily reduced, making it unsuitable when an exact sum such as rent is due. SHA is the default, with the sender paying the home‑bank fee while the recipient covers intermediary and Thai receiving‑bank charges, whereas OUR is intended to let the beneficiary receive the full amount, though some correspondent banks still deduct their own fees.
Exchange rate choice proves the “mother of all errors”
The core mistake in the Munich retiree’s transfer was not SWIFT itself but his choice of currency. German banks often offer to convert euros directly into Thai baht (THB), which may appear convenient but typically results in a poor rate that boosts bank margins. Sending euros to Thailand instead allows the receiving bank to apply its TT Buying Rate for telegraphic transfers, which in the example given meant 10,000 euros converted by a Thai bank at 36.75 THB, or 367,500 baht, instead of 350,000 baht at a 35.00 THB rate in Germany.
Tighter tax rules redefine Thailand’s appeal in 2025
Thailand’s image as a tax haven for foreign income changed from 1 January 2024, with rules tightening further in 2025. Anyone spending more than 180 days a year in the country was classified as a tax resident, and all foreign income transferred into Thailand – including pensions, rental income and dividends – became in principle taxable. Thai banks reported incoming transactions above certain thresholds, usually around 50,000 US dollars, to the Anti‑Money Laundering Office (AMLO), and SWIFT transfers required a mandatory purpose code.
Transfers flagged and shared between authorities
For expatriates, a transfer labelled “living expenses” was recorded in the system and could be matched against tax filings. Those who did not submit a Thai tax return despite being liable faced growing risks as automatic information exchange between the tax authorities of Germany and Thailand made account data increasingly transparent. The article noted that this combination of reporting thresholds and data sharing had raised the stakes for anyone relying on regular international transfers to fund life in the kingdom.
Fintech challengers and the limits of SWIFT alternatives
Services such as Wise and Revolut were presented as cheaper and faster alternatives that often bypass the SWIFT network by using local accounts in each country. Nevertheless, SWIFT remained important for high‑value transfers, particularly for condominium purchases where buyers needed a Foreign Exchange Transaction Form, previously known as Tor Tor 3, issued by the Thai receiving bank for foreign‑currency inflows. For amounts above 50,000 euros, many people still preferred the perceived security of their traditional bank over a smartphone app.
Digitalisation and stricter scrutiny ahead
The article said the digital transformation of Thailand’s financial sector was advancing quickly, with “PromptPay International” already linking Thailand to Singapore and other ASEAN states for real‑time payments. It suggested connections to Europe were likely to become faster and cheaper as these systems expanded. At the same time, it expected banks to question the source of funds more rigorously on SWIFT inflows, making simple transfers without follow‑up queries increasingly rare as compliance demands intensified.
Checklist aims to protect senders from hidden losses
To address frustration about opaque fees, worse‑than‑Google exchange rates and banks blaming each other, the article offered a concise checklist. It advised always transferring in euros, US dollars or Swiss francs and letting the Thai bank convert, checking the TT Buying column on Thai bank websites for the relevant rate, and choosing SHA for standard payments, as Thai receiving fees typically ranged between 200 and 500 baht. For property purchases, senders were urged to state “funds for purchase of condominium” to obtain the required FET form and to note whether incoming money constituted pre‑2024 savings or current income for future Thai tax returns.
Responsibility shifts to customers at the screen
The report concluded that those who followed these points could avoid the retiree’s experience of losing thousands of baht through a single tick in the wrong box. While SWIFT might appear old‑fashioned, it was described as a precise tool when used correctly. The real error, it argued, usually lay with the person in front of the screen rather than in the banking servers, and it stressed that the information provided did not amount to tax or financial advice and that laws and fees could change at short notice.