Jump to content

Sleight of hand nets gold thief tourist 60,000 baht necklace


webfact

Recommended Posts

Sleight of hand nets gold thief tourist 60,000 baht necklace

 

2pm.jpg

Picture: We Love Pattaya

 

PATTAYA: -- A tricky tourist was caught on CCTV stealing a three baht weight gold necklace on Saturday evening.

 

The man - thought to be Indian or Arab - had come into the Bangkok Gold Lotus shop in North Pattaya with a woman and asked to see necklaces.

 

He took two but as the sales woman was distracted returned just one to the tray, reported We Love Pattaya on Facebook.

 

He then asked what the commission on a card purchase was and after being informed it was 3% said he would go to an ATM to get cash.

 

The saleswoman's suspicions were alerted when the couple moved off rapidly so she checked the tray and found one necklace missing.

 

If anyone knows the couple they can call 089 994 7007.

 

Source:  FB We Love Pattaya

 
tvn_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2017-09-04
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One necklace at a time my dear, never put a whole tray out in front of someone, from my observations of the footage, he has done this many times before, smooth, but stupid, didn't case the place beforehand to see if CCTV cameras were about, won;t be log Mr Farang, your BUSTED !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

One necklace at a time my dear, never put a whole tray out in front of someone, from my observations of the footage, he has done this many times before, smooth, but stupid, didn't case the place beforehand to see if CCTV cameras were about, won;t be log Mr Farang, your BUSTED !!!

To be precise in using Thai loan words, Mr Farang, Mr Khaek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mikebell said:

3% CC charge is a scam anyway. 

All gold shops in Thailand charge 3% and it's legal as price of gold changes usually daily and credit card companies pay back the amount after a month or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MadMuhammad said:

1.5 to 3% is pretty standard these days. Small business trying to claw back some costs.

The transaction charge for VISA is 2.5% plus VAT so the charge by the Bank is 2.7% so pretty close, if American Express would be greater than 3% hence retailers reluctance to take AE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mecons1 said:

The transaction charge for VISA is 2.5% plus VAT so the charge by the Bank is 2.7% so pretty close, if American Express would be greater than 3% hence retailers reluctance to take AE.

Amex is quite high because it's main revenue stream is merchant fees. Up to 60% of the companies revenue from memory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mikebell said:

3% CC charge is a scam anyway. 

scam ? you have never in your life conducted any business if you call this a scam .  the card validity risk , the wait for your money , the risk of the charge  being challenged ,  less stock & no money to purchase new  stock . if  you want the item pay for in cash . 0% charge to your card .  so many whiners these days that do not own a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out ...... wa wa wa  call a wawa wambulance  quickly .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

One necklace at a time my dear, never put a whole tray out in front of someone, from my observations of the footage, he has done this many times before, smooth, but stupid, didn't case the place beforehand to see if CCTV cameras were about, won;t be log Mr Farang, your BUSTED !!!

He is not a Farang. The article states cleanly he was Arab or Indian. Thus not Farang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, balo said:

He doesn't look like an Arab too me.

The person who has given the description will be the shop assistant. I suspect she has used the term khaek which is the Thai term covering all peoples from Egypt to Indonesia. This creates a problem when translating to English which does not have such a catch-all term. It is often translated to "Indian or Arab". Thais use less differentiation when referring to foreigners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The manic said:

He is not a Farang. The article states cleanly he was Arab or Indian. Thus not Farang.

Thanks for the correction, although white skinned, he is not European, therefore I had to refer to my Thai dictionary (my wife), who came back with Farang khi nok, translated: Farang bird s..t for Arabs and Indians, learn something everyday 555

Edited by 4MyEgo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Thanks for the correction, although white skinned, he is not European, therefore I had to refer to my Thai dictionary (my wife), who came back with Farang khi nok, translated: Farang bird s..t for Arabs and Indians, learn something everyday 555

I am afraid there has been a misunderstanding between what you wanted from your "dictionary" and what the "dictionary" gave you.

 

Farang khee nok (colloquial meaning) is a perjorative term for a cheapskate Westerner. (Its literal meaning is a type of forest fruit, not grown commercially also known as farang sii chomphoo)

 

Khaek is the Thai term for Arab or Indian. Khaek khao can referred to the paler-skinned ones.

 

I thought it better to warn you in case you mistakenly called your Indian friends farang khee nok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.







×
×
  • Create New...