webfact 78,793 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 Twice in a night! Woman tries change scam at Nonthaburi shops Picture: Sanook Sanook reported what they described as an attractive woman with blonde hair who tried to con sales staff twice on Sunday night in the Pak Kret area of Nonthaburi. On both occasions first at a KFC then at a Mini Big C she claimed that staff had not given her enough change. In reality she deliberately dropped 500 baht. In the first incident at KFC near the entrance to Muang Thong Thani on Tiwanon Road the woman was buying some spicy wings for 50 baht and handed over 1,000 baht. The staffer handed back 950 baht then an argument developed because she said she was only given 450 baht. A manager came and suggested looking at the CCTV. The customer then "found" the money on the floor and walked out without buying anything. Later at Big C in Soi Wat Ku, Sukhaprachasan 1 Road, the same woman bought something worth 60 baht and handed over 40 baht. The staffer said it was not enough so she gave them 1,000 baht. The correct change of 940 baht was then given. Again she dropped 500 on the floor and discovered it after the staffer suggested looking at CCTV. Staff went online to warn about the woman because if she was successful employees could find they would lose salary. There was no suggestion that the woman was a foreigner, notes Thaivisa; she probably has dyed hair. Soure: Sanook -- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2020-12-01 - Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you - Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Rimmer 10,754 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 Troll post and reply removed Link to post Share on other sites
Popular Post ukrules 20,833 Posted December 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted December 1, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, webfact said: if she was successful employees could find they would lose salary That's part of the problem right there. Where do they draw the line? How about armed robbery? Do the staff collectively owe whatever's stolen? Employees are not and should not be held accountable / liable for the day to day troubles of a small business operator. Edited December 1, 2020 by ukrules 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Popular Post ronaldo0 1,702 Posted December 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted December 1, 2020 There is a guy right beside her the second time . How would he not notice her throwing the money on the floor ? 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Popular Post hotchilli 16,469 Posted December 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted December 1, 2020 23 minutes ago, ukrules said: Employees are not and should not be held accountable / liable for the day to day troubles of a small business operator I think you'll find this regulation is to stop the employees taking money out of the till saying it must have been a change issue. When an operative starts a shift at the till it is checked, again at end of shift, they are liable for any money missing. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
RJRS1301 9,745 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, hotchilli said: I think you'll find this regulation is to stop the employees taking money out of the till saying it must have been a change issue. When an operative starts a shift at the till it is checked, again at end of shift, they are liable for any money missing. Under those conditions they should be able to keep any "overs" in the till 1 Link to post Share on other sites
ukrules 20,833 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, hotchilli said: I think you'll find this regulation is to stop the employees taking money out of the till saying it must have been a change issue. When an operative starts a shift at the till it is checked, again at end of shift, they are liable for any money missing. Yes, it's to protect against theft by the employee. However if there is no theft by the employee - it is still applied - that's the problem. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
tgw 1,448 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, ukrules said: Yes, it's to protect against theft by the employee. However if there is no theft by the employee - it is still applied - that's the problem. the problem is that it's mostly not possible to prove there was no theft by the employee. I would be interested to know how both CCTV recordings got together. Edited December 1, 2020 by tgw Link to post Share on other sites
hotchilli 16,469 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 24 minutes ago, ukrules said: Yes, it's to protect against theft by the employee. However if there is no theft by the employee - it is still applied - that's the problem. Yes it's still applied... it's called prevention. Link to post Share on other sites
jobsworth 463 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 It would be nice if ATM's were to deliver more 100 THB notes so that we are not dependent on the likes of 711 to change 1000 and 500 THB notes. I am weary of the 500 THB scam in which change is given for 100 THB and not 500 THB. They do look a bit the same. Link to post Share on other sites
Almer 1,034 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 6 hours ago, tgw said: the problem is that it's mostly not possible to prove there was no theft by the employee. I would be interested to know how both CCTV recordings got together. Yes me also Link to post Share on other sites
Salerno 3,943 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 6 hours ago, tgw said: I would be interested to know how both CCTV recordings got together. 5 minutes ago, Almer said: Yes me also Not sure what you mean by "got together"? Sanook (or whoever) got copies of CCTV footage from each of the venues, the pic above is a composite of a grab of each video. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
tgw 1,448 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Salerno said: Not sure what you mean by "got together"? Sanook (or whoever) got copies of CCTV footage from each of the venues, the pic above is a composite of a grab of each video. obviously the mysterious part is how did Sanook (or whoever) know about the CCTV footage showing the same woman at these precise times doing her scam in these locations. Edited December 1, 2020 by tgw Link to post Share on other sites
Salerno 3,943 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 1 hour ago, tgw said: obviously the mysterious part is how did Sanook (or whoever) know about the CCTV footage showing the same woman at these precise times doing her scam in these locations. Ahh, got you now. The usual super sleuthing that happens to tie incidents together. Suspicious activity gossiped about, passed onto other retailers to "watch out" for, story makes it's way through the grape vines, report made to police, police gather CCTV footage, local journos get hold of it via normal contacts. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
brianthainess 1,868 Posted December 2, 2020 Share Posted December 2, 2020 11 hours ago, tgw said: obviously the mysterious part is how did Sanook (or whoever) know about the CCTV footage showing the same woman at these precise times doing her scam in these locations. On 12/1/2020 at 9:04 AM, webfact said: Staff went online to warn about the woman because if she was successful employees could find they would lose salary. So mysterious init, Doh 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now