A taxi driver from Thailand’s Samut Prakarn province, just outside of Bangkok, has been arrested by the local police. The charge: fleecing over 10,000 baht (£230) from a passenger who had left her belongings, including her cash, unattended in his car. The catch? The suspect allegedly spent most of the money on a lavish bash with female entertainers.

 

The 57-year-old victim, a lady by the name of Waleeporn, had filed a complaint with the Bang Kaew Police Station on May 10th. This followed an incident where the driver, later identified as Yo Buddasook, aged 43, took off in his taxi while Waleeporn's possessions were still aboard. She had furnished the police with clear CCTV footage as evidence supporting her accusation.

 

The video clip shows Buddasook's taxi obstructively parked, compelling Waleeporn to make a quick exit due to an impatient motorcyclist waiting to get past. Waleeporn attempted to collect her belongings, but the taxi sped off, the driver ignoring her frantic calls to stop.

 

With more than 10,000 baht's worth of cash in her bag, Waleeporn was left helpless as the taxi sped away. The stolen cash amounted to approximately £230 — certainly not an insignificant sum.

 

Arrested this morning, Yo initially insisted he was unaware of Waleeporn’s forgotten items until serving his next customer. He then claimed he planned to return her belongings once found but failed to locate Waleeporn's address. Interestingly, he also cited advice from a fellow cabbie who recommended he should keep the cash.

 

The plot thickened as Yo admitted to spending the majority of the money — to the tune of 9,000 baht — at an entertainment joint, generously doling out tips to female entertainment staff and waitresses.

 

Waleeporn has demanded Yo return her money in full by the end of the day, promising she will not press for legal action if he complies. Reports suggest that Yo is attempting to raise the necessary funds to reimburse Waleeporn, though it remains uncertain whether he will manage to do so.

 

Photo courtesy of The Thaiger

 

-- 2024-05-13

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

14 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

The suspect allegedly spent most of the money on a lavish bash with female entertainers.

 

Has Bob Smith started driving taxi's ????  

15 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

Waleeporn has demanded Yo return her money in full by the end of the day, promising she will not press for legal action if he complies. Reports suggest that Yo is attempting to raise the necessary funds to reimburse Waleeporn, though it remains uncertain whether he will manage to do so.

 

Will the Police press charges of theft anyway... or is this just a crime with no penalty if caught, if they say sorry and return the stolen money ?

 

 

Next 'Taxi Headline'....    'Taxi driver returns 1 Million Baht a tourist left in a taxi'...  

 

10 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The plot thickened as Yo admitted to spending the majority of the money — to the tune of 9,000 baht — at an entertainment joint, generously doling out tips to female entertainment staff and waitresses.

 

Waleeporn has demanded Yo return her money in full by the end of the day, promising she will not press for legal action if he complies. Reports suggest that Yo is attempting to raise the necessary funds to reimburse Waleeporn, though it remains uncertain whether he will manage to do so

Police should confiscate his taxi [as it was used in a crime] sell it and give the proceeds to her.

Then send him to jail for 6 months to re-think his actions.

 

Time to start a lottery  how long before we get the usual returning of lost tourists wallet, money bag, phone etc... I'm going with 2 days

This is the part that I myself don’t like.. I don’t think the ability of the accused to “settle” with the plaintiff then somehow ends the states obligation to bring the appropriate criminals charges.

 

In end the, yes the accused “settled” (at an assumed fair amount to the plaintiff) but that still doesn’t extinguish the reality that there was an alleged criminal act committed and IMHO, the state has the onus and obligation to file charges accordingly.. sure the judicial can take into account the fact that the accused settled- but settling should not end the process.

Shocked' He must have been going around a roundabout on his way to the police station surely 🤔

 

12 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

 

A taxi driver from Thailand’s Samut Prakarn province, just outside of Bangkok, has been arrested by the local police. The charge: fleecing over 10,000 baht (£230) from a passenger who had left her belongings, including her cash, unattended in his car. The catch? The suspect allegedly spent most of the money on a lavish bash with female entertainers.

 

The 57-year-old victim, a lady by the name of Waleeporn, had filed a complaint with the Bang Kaew Police Station on May 10th. This followed an incident where the driver, later identified as Yo Buddasook, aged 43, took off in his taxi while Waleeporn's possessions were still aboard. She had furnished the police with clear CCTV footage as evidence supporting her accusation.

 

The video clip shows Buddasook's taxi obstructively parked, compelling Waleeporn to make a quick exit due to an impatient motorcyclist waiting to get past. Waleeporn attempted to collect her belongings, but the taxi sped off, the driver ignoring her frantic calls to stop.

 

With more than 10,000 baht's worth of cash in her bag, Waleeporn was left helpless as the taxi sped away. The stolen cash amounted to approximately £230 — certainly not an insignificant sum.

 

Arrested this morning, Yo initially insisted he was unaware of Waleeporn’s forgotten items until serving his next customer. He then claimed he planned to return her belongings once found but failed to locate Waleeporn's address. Interestingly, he also cited advice from a fellow cabbie who recommended he should keep the cash.

 

The plot thickened as Yo admitted to spending the majority of the money — to the tune of 9,000 baht — at an entertainment joint, generously doling out tips to female entertainment staff and waitresses.

 

Waleeporn has demanded Yo return her money in full by the end of the day, promising she will not press for legal action if he complies. Reports suggest that Yo is attempting to raise the necessary funds to reimburse Waleeporn, though it remains uncertain whether he will manage to do so.

 

Photo courtesy of The Thaiger

 

-- 2024-05-13

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Good invested catch???😵‍💫

3 hours ago, new2here said:

This is the part that I myself don’t like.. I don’t think the ability of the accused to “settle” with the plaintiff then somehow ends the states obligation to bring the appropriate criminals charges.

 

In end the, yes the accused “settled” (at an assumed fair amount to the plaintiff) but that still doesn’t extinguish the reality that there was an alleged criminal act committed and IMHO, the state has the onus and obligation to file charges accordingly.. sure the judicial can take into account the fact that the accused settled- but settling should not end the process.

 

That's the way Thai Justice works.

The Police can hold the case hidden from the courts for unlimited time while "getting evidences" (see the Red Bull case).
If the perpetrator settles the case with the Police (brown enveloppes) the case will be clasiffied vertically and will never reach the court.
A Court case can only be reached if the perpetrator files a charge, which is not done if the "crime" is settled with the Police.

6 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Police should confiscate his taxi [as it was used in a crime] sell it and give the proceeds to her.

Pretty good chance that it was rented and not his. 

6 hours ago, new2here said:

In end the, yes the accused “settled” (at an assumed fair amount to the plaintiff) but that still doesn’t extinguish the reality that there was an alleged criminal act committed and IMHO, the state has the onus and obligation to file charges accordingly..

You know those "onuses and obligations" to be the case in Thailand, do you, or do you think that your interpretation of US laws apply here?

Edited May 14, 20242 yr by Liverpool Lou

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Pretty good chance that it was rented and not his. 

Same applies.... as for the true owner they might do a few more background checks on who they rent to.

1 minute ago, hotchilli said:

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Pretty good chance that it was rented and not his. 

Same applies....

You think that a rented co-operative's vehicle could be seized and sold?   Really?

3 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

as for the true owner they might do a few more background checks on who they rent to.

What "background" did this taxi driver have?

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You think that a rented co-operative's vehicle could be seized and sold?   Really?

If it was proved to be used in the act of a crime why not?

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

What "background" did this taxi driver have?

I have no idea... probably like the taxi co-op

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

9 hours ago, new2here said:

In end the, yes the accused “settled” (at an assumed fair amount to the plaintiff) but that still doesn’t extinguish the reality that there was an alleged criminal act committed and IMHO, the state has the onus and obligation to file charges accordingly..

You know those "onuses and obligations" to be the case in Thailand, do you, or do you think that your interpretation of US laws apply here?

 

 

So its down to the discretion of the Thai Police as to whether or not theft is a crime then ??....     

 

If the thief says sorry and returns the money its not a crime ?....    do the the laws that are in place here not apply because 'Thailand different from country you' ???

 

 

So much "Thainess" in this story.  

On 5/13/2024 at 9:27 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

Has Bob Smith started driving taxi's ????  

So a case of Grab & Snatch, but he got the snatch a bit later.

On 5/14/2024 at 2:11 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

You think that a rented co-operative's vehicle could be seized and sold?   Really?

Yes, I don’t recall - from

arms length - there is anything that explicitly says that property used in the commission of a crime isn’t subject to judicial action (call me a seizure etc) even if the “owner” isn’t or wasn’t a direct participant.  Now, to be fair, I’m sure the judicial would look at to what extent did the actual owner have - ie did they know or have reasonable expectations to know .. or were they essentially “blind” to its use.