The ONCB Secretary-General called a joint meeting with Australian police to expand the investigation into the Thai Airways flight attendant’s heroin smuggling case. Reviewing CCTV footage uncovered a new figure: a delivery rider who met police to declare his innocence. It was confirmed he is a different person, and there are two parcels involved. Authorities are urgently working to clarify the facts to determine whether the flight attendant is a victim or complicit in the trafficking network.
On 1 July 2026, Ms. Areepak Nganbamrung, ONCB Deputy Secretary-General and spokesperson, reported progress in the case involving a Thai female flight attendant arrested by Australian authorities. Today, Pol. Lt. Col. Suriya Singhakomol, ONCB Secretary-General, invited officers from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to discuss expanding the case, including reviewing the flight attendant’s statements, travel details on the relevant day, and the list of parcel recipients before her arrest. They also exchanged intelligence on the transnational drug trafficking network from all angles.
However, the flight attendant’s delivery on 25 June was part of her scheduled work flight to Melbourne Airport, Australia. Initial findings show she did not swap flight assignments with colleagues, commonly known as 'On duty'. She frequently flew to Melbourne, and so far, there is no indication she is involved in drug trafficking. Authorities remain open to both possibilities, raising various questions because Australian drug enforcement is strict. They wonder why she accepted parcels to carry to the destination country, especially since most flight attendants avoid accepting such items. Accepting parcels to Australia presents high risks, yet the fee she received was low, only 8,800 baht.
It remains questionable whether this arrangement was reasonable. The flight attendant’s family residence and lifestyle do not appear lavish. It is premature to conclude if she is a victim of the transnational drug trafficking network. The investigation must be thorough before drawing conclusions. The investigative team is tasked with questioning and examining all aspects to resolve doubts and verify facts.
Regarding today’s ONCB discussion with Australian police, officials want to identify who received the parcel from the flight attendant, the time of receipt, and whether she had to deliver it further. The parcel contained a recipient’s name in English, but it is unclear if the name belongs to a Thai person or a foreign national.
Ms. Areepak said the Facebook account named 'Rose Rose,' which messaged the flight attendant between 18-19 June to arrange parcel delivery, is under intensive investigation. The account was closed immediately after the incident. ONCB IT specialists are examining the account’s usage history and found it contacted multiple crew members.
As for a TikTok account named 'Paeng the One Who Criticized Paeng' that messaged crew members requesting parcel delivery to Australia, it is unclear if it is the same person behind 'Rose Rose' who contacted the arrested flight attendant. The timeline shows the flight attendant publicly announced on Facebook that she accepted parcel delivery jobs, prompting 'Rose Rose' to message her. Authorities cannot yet conclude if these accounts are linked or part of internal trafficking group tactics. The timing is close, and accounts were closed soon after the arrest.
On the night of 30 June, a male delivery rider came to Samrong Nuea Police Station in Samut Prakan to file a statement confirming that he only delivered parcels and was covering a colleague on Tuesday off. Normally, he did not deliver on this route. Reports indicate this rider is not the same person who delivered parcels to the flight attendant’s condo on 22 June because this rider delivered there on 23 June. Authorities thank him for showing his innocence. Media footage caused public confusion identifying him as the parcel sender, but the actual delivery person has not yet contacted authorities.
Reviewing condo CCTV revealed two parcel senders with similar timelines related to deliveries to the flight attendant. One was a male rider on a motorcycle (private delivery app) who delivered parcels around noon on 22 June. The other was a sedan driver who also delivered large parcels. Investigations continue to determine who actually sent the parcels. After noon deliveries, the flight attendant returned to the condo around 2 pm carrying the parcels upstairs.
Reporters learned that at 10:45 am, the rider who visited Samrong Nuea Police Station also met ONCB officials to declare his innocence. Later that day at 2 pm, ONCB officials held a meeting with Australian police.
It was reported that at 1:00 am on 1 July 2026, Mr. Kittikorn, a private parcel delivery worker, came to meet Pol. Col. Wiroj Tatsos, Superintendent of Samrong Nuea Police Station, to declare his innocence after CCTV showed him delivering a parcel to the Thai Airways flight attendant arrested in Australia for drug trafficking.
Mr. Kittikorn said he had worked for the delivery company for about 1 year and 2 months. On 23 June, he handled the parcel in question along with others from a main warehouse for sorting in Samrong Nuea. He then loaded parcels onto his motorcycle for delivery following standard procedures. The parcel’s origin was marked as Tientalay area, and all QR codes were scanned as per system requirements.
He delivered the parcel to a condominium in Bang Na, the flight attendant’s residence, placing it at the property management’s parcel table before leaving to continue his work. He confirmed he did not know the parcel’s contents and noticed nothing unusual about it, asserting no involvement in drug trafficking.
Mr. Kittikorn said after seeing his image in the media, he immediately approached investigators to explain and affirm his innocence, fearing public misunderstanding about his involvement in drug trafficking. He emphasized that his work followed company protocols at every step without any intent or suspicious behavior.
Preliminarily, police recorded his statement as evidence and checked parcel delivery records, finding no irregularities in the delivery process. He was allowed to leave but will be called for further detailed questioning to gather evidence and assist ongoing investigations.