Lawyer Reports GPS Tracker Placed Under Car by Influential Gang
A Buriram lawyer told provincial police that a GPS tracker and a listening device were found attached to his car, which he suspects was placed by an influential gang after his involvement in a public‑assembly case in Amnat Charoen. He said he has been threatened, monitored, and had his travel details posted online, and that police have refused to release CCTV footage that could verify his claims. The lawyer says his life has changed since the incident and he no longer feels safe.
Lawyer An reported to the provincial police that a GPS tracker and a listening device had been attached to the underside of his car, suspecting the work of an influential gang. He said his life has not been the same since his trip to Amnat Charoen province. On October 16, 2026, at the Central Investigation Bureau, Mr. Phattharaphong Supakorn, known as Lawyer An from Buriram, gave a statement after claiming he had been threatened and monitored. This follows his visit to Amnat Charoen on October 12 to receive charges under the Public Assembly Act of 2015 related to the 'Rat Chase, Grab Power Amnat Charoen' operation at the municipal clock tower and a public rally in front of the Amnat Charoen City Police Station on August 16, 2026. Instead, he was chased away by a crowd of locals, after which someone photographed his home and posted his travel details on a local Facebook page. Lawyer An said he came to the provincial police because he feels his life has changed since the Amnat Charoen trip, noting that on October 12 he was shouted down by villagers and a prominent provincial council member was seen near the mob's location, saying he wanted to see his face and admitting he was part of the crowd, while the protest leaders were relatives of that figure. Afterwards, upon returning home, he discovered that someone had filmed a video in front of his house in Buriram, captured still images, and posted them on the Facebook page 'Hug Na Amnat Charoen' along with real-time travel information stating he had arrived home at about 9:00 p.m., which matched the actual time. The next morning he intended to file a complaint with Region 3 Police, but found that his movement data had been shared again by a person suspected to be the same individual who photographed his house—a man wearing a black shirt with short hair, initially thought to be a police officer, internal security official, or someone collecting his travel data in the area, so he did not suspect anything. However, after checking CCTV footage, he saw the man matched the suspect's description. In the afternoon, another image of him was circulated in the group with a comment saying he looked familiar and his phone number was displayed, leading him to suspect the man had been following his car before sending the information to someone in Amnat Charoen to post on the 'Hug Na Amnat Charoen' page. Lawyer An said the most troubling thing was that even before going to bed, an image of his car—showing parts he had previously concealed—was posted with a message wishing him a safe journey. On the same day, after the incident, he went to the Region 3 Police headquarters to request CCTV footage, feeling his safety was at risk, and told officers he no longer felt safe and asked to view the recordings, but was told to return the next day because officers were unavailable. The following day he went to check the CCTV evidence but was only given a document to write a petition, questioning whether, if such an incident occurred, he could request CCTV from a convenience store or private agency, and criticized the Region 3 Police for not releasing the footage as requested. Lawyer An said that because he did not receive cooperation in checking the CCTV, he lost trust in the police and wondered how he could rely on officers if his request for evidence to ensure his safety was ignored.