Shoplifting shock for Suvarnabhumi’s image
July 1, 2009 by TTRweekly Staff
Filed under News
A Sunday Times report, last week, reveals the possibility that tourists at Suvarnabhumi Airport are being falsely accused of shoplifting.
Thailand’s Tourist Police deny they have a connection to a foreign volunteer and interpreter identified in a UK newspaper report that claims two UK tourists were falsely accused of shoplifting at a King Power duty-free outlet at Suvarnabhumi Airport, last April.
Tourism Authority of Thailand’s deputy governor for marketing said an investigation was underway led by the UK TAT office and the PR department to check out the extent of shoplifting at the airport and the action taken by relevant authorities.
The report in the Sunday Times, published 28 June, says “a British couple, who were falsely accused of shoplifting and were forced to pay UK₤8,000 in bribes to secure their release, are to take legal action for compensation.”
The story alleged that payments were made to “an intermediary named Sunil “Tony” Rathnayaka, a Sri Lankan national in his fifties who works as a volunteer interpreter for Thailand’s tourist police.”
However, Tourist Police Station, Suvarnabhumi Airport, chief Inspector Station 4, Major Napatpong Supaporn, said his officers were not involved in shoplifting cases at King Power as the duty-free shop always contacted Rachatewa Police Station, which has jurisdiction in Suvarnabhumi to arrest suspects.
“I know Sunil “Tony”, but he work for Rachatewa Police Station, not for the Tourist Police. We only have Thai interpreters,” the police major explained.
Other small discrepancies in the report surfaced, but not enough to challenge the core allegations made by the Sunday Times. It suggests authorities need to investigate the possibility of a sophisticated extortion racket preying on foreign tourists at Thailand’s showcase gateway airport.
A source at Rachatewa Police Station did confirm that the British couple Stephen Ingram and Xi Lin were arrested on suspicion of shoplifting on the evening of 25 April, as they attempted to board a QF 1 flight to London. They finally left the country on a British Airways flight five days later on 1 May.
The police source confirmed: “There was an arrest on 25 April and the couple posted bail of Bt200,000 on 26 April.
“As far as I know they did not come to claim back the bail before they left the country,” the police officer explained.
“I would suggest they contact us to get the bail back. If a suspect is not found guilty, they are entitled to claim back bail.”
Two Thai language documents issued by the police and the Thai prosecutor’s office indicate the couple were not guilty and were free to leave the country.
The two documents are posted on a blog site http://www.andrew-drummond.com/2009/06/28/809 with details of the arrest and a full report of the couple’s complaint.
Full Sunday Times story at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6590584.ece
Rachatewa Police Station also denied it had a relationship with Mr Rathnayaka, who was interviewed by telephone by the Sunday Times and confirmed he had met the couple and offered bail agency services that included posting bail and arranging for them to transfer to a small hotel, Valentine Resort, outside the airport complex.
A source from the Valentine resort said it gave Rachatewa Police Station a special rate of Bt600 a night for these kinds of cases.
“If the suspects cannot pay the police station pays. It happens frequently I have seven to eight of them recently.”
There was no record of the British couple checking in on 26 April, but a room was booked under the name of Rathnayaka.
Hotel staff added there was no police presence at the resort.
“As far as we can see guests who were checked in by the police were free to come and go as they pleased.”
In the Sunday Times report the couple claimed they “sneaked out of the hotel, 27 April, and found their way to the British embassy where they met pro consul, Kate Duffal, who put them in contact with Prachaya Vijitpokin a lawyer.”
He apparently advised them to stay in the country and fight the case. Instead a “terrified” Mr Ingram decided to pay the broker’s fees and costs estimated at between UK₤7,000 and UK₤8,000 to ensure safe passage out of the country.
They were given back their passports and copies of the Thai prosecutor’s documents that authorised them to pass through immigration and leave the country.
Those documents are now viewed as pivotal evidence if the couple go ahead with their threat to seek compensation from Thai authorities.
Other similar cases publicised on the internet relating to Malaysian and Danish citizens lacked documentation and were not widely reported in the media.
This case was, and since then the newspaper site and Mr Drummond’s blog site have been inundated with outraged comments that clearly attack the country’s image as a safe and hospitable destination.
However, King Power’s legal department views it differently. They feel “like the victims” as the UK media swings into action.
A legal department official said King Power duty-free had explained the shop’s position carefully to the Sunday Times reporter stating it had sufficient evidence to back its allegations.
“We have a clear standard when dealing with the shop security. The shop’s security department at the airport collects evidence of a crime, before they call the police to arrest the suspects. If there is not enough evidence, no action is taken. After the report is presented to the police, it depends on the prosecutor’s office whether it proceeds with the case.”
In the case of Ingram and Xi Li, the office issued a letter that states there was insufficient evidence and the case was dropped.
It is understood King Power presented CCTV footage and a detailed report from its security officers who apprehended the suspects outside the shop area without any stolen property in their possession.
“There was a very similar case involving a Malaysian shoplifter,” said the King Power Legal expert, “It was spread around by email without identifying the source. However, our evidence was based on a security camera, which showed him stealing cigars.”
The Malaysian suspect claimed that he thought the stolen goods were a gift given to him by the shop staff, but the evidence indicated that he had picked up the cigars that were placed on the counter by another customer who was about to make a payment.
He elaborated on King Power’s position regarding the British couple.
“We sent the evidence, which was a stolen Givenchy wallet and a clip from security camera to the police. We did not find any evidence on them. Security found the wallet in a garbage bin in front of the toilet. However, we felt there was sufficient evidence from the camera clips to justify police intervention,” said the executive.
When asked to comment on the fact that the local Thai prosecutor’s office subsequently issued a statement saying “there was insufficient evidence”, the executive said King Power would have to review it with the prosecutor as shoplifting was a serious problem at the airport.
“We feel like we are the victim because our goods were stolen but we end up with a very negative image,” he continued.
Asked for a comment on the long-term impact on the country’s image if scandals persist at the airport, TAT deputy governor for international marketing, Juthaporn Rerngronasa, said she was aware of the publicity in the UK.
“I have asked the TAT office in London, as well as the PR office here in Bangkok to provide a full report. Whether it is true, or not, we cannot say, as it comes from the UK media and not from Thailand,” she said.
She promised to check with the Airports of Thailand and seek clarification on the degree of shoplifting and the claims that there were cases of extortion.
“I am of the understanding that it was an isolated case, but I will seek clarification on that,” she added.
Getting bored of these things. See Kingpower ‘s CCTV clips and its explaination of the 3 cases. Then judge it by yourselves.
http://www.kingpower.com/2009/popup/pop_case1.html
http://www.kingpower.com/2009/popup/pop_case2.html
http://www.kingpower.com/2009/popup/pop_case3.html
Sorry foreigner in Thailand, but the evidence presented by Kingpower does not establish guilt. If you truly believe otherwise, I have the Brooklyn Bridge I would like to sell you.
This British couple were shoplifting. The CCTV of King Power has shown very clearly that Mrs. Xi Lin stole the Givenchy wallet.
Why is this couple making a big story?
I think this couple did similar things somewhere else. Probably, they forgot that Bangkok airport has CCTV. Also BBC should have checked with King Power before they wrote a story.
If someone steals something from a duty-free shop at Heathrow airport, they would also be arrested.
Regarding what happened in the police station, they cannot sue the police according to Thai Law, because this British couple contacted the bail agency which paid the bail. No direct contact with the police.
I believe that Mr. Rathnayaka of the Bail agency also gave something to certain police officers. Similar things happen in this part of the World. If the British couple is really clean, then they should come back to claim bail of Thai Baht 200,000 .
- Of course this matter is ruining Thailand’s reputation.
- But if this British couple did not steal Givenchy wallet, then this kind of story would not have happened.
- King Power has right to report to the police. If this matter happens in a duty-free shop at Heathrow airport, I am sure the shop would alsol report it to the police in London.
- This British couple can tell any story they wish to the BBC, or to anyone else but they cannot lie to themselves.
It is imperative that stories like this one are widely reported in an effort to combat the proliferation of scams in the so-called “Land of Smiles,” which more aptly should be termed the “Land of Scams.”
The Royal Thai Police are in dire need of wholesale reform.
The only way that genuine impetus to effect reform of the Royal Thai Police can be gathered and directed is by exposing the wrongs for public scrutiny. There is an obsession with matters of “face.” Broadly disseminating incidents like the Suvarnabhumi extortions embarrasses the force and attracts needed attention from cabinet ministers who are in a position to exert influence.
Such reform efforts would also have a sustained impact on the health of the Thai tourist industry. As long as tourists continue thronging to Thailand, they will be exploited. When tourists cease visiting Thailand, there will be a corresponding effort to clean up the country’s image.
What is critical, however, is that such efforts be genuine, and not mere window-dressing.
From the footage,the two clips are quite clear and can’t be interpreted differently. They’re really shoplifting things.
Didn’t mean to take sides of the country but the clip is undeniably factual.
The videos are in fact inconclusive. We don’t even know if they are the same persons in the case of the UK couple (maybe that is why they “changed clothes”) The video defintely has had frames edited out because it is jumpy. There is no time stamp. In the case of the Irish, the video quality is poor, it lacks sufficient detail to show the number of items being presented. But let the butt covering begin.
I had trip booked to Thaïlande for month August, but I now change to Vietnam. No for Thailande.
This story is disturbing, partly because it has been so badly reported and the absence of proper facts is glaring. But it does discourage one from shopping at that great Suvarnabhumi mall with planes attached. The prices are often way above city levels and the rugby tackling that is now going on to grab the odd passer by is unseemly. Kingpower is a Thaksin front and should be ignored. Shop at your destination, and stop shopping at Kingpower. If that couple were stitched up the cost of silencing them would have been a lot less than this is costing those empty boutiques. Every foreigner I have spoken to about this says they have categorically stopped using the stores at the airport. Nuff said.