A cunning duo is accused of orchestrating a sophisticated theft, making off with an exclusive $4,000 cognac from an upscale Arizona steakhouse, leaving the staff astounded as they grapple with the audacity of the act.
Security footage from the Three Thirty Three Restaurant in Tempe captures the exact moment on May 4 when the pair allegedly executed their plan, smoothly snatching a coveted bottle of Louis XIII cognac.
The video reveals the woman discreetly placing the valuable cognac, which boasts a $4,000 price tag, into her handbag.
“There was no need to rob us,” stated John DeVries, a seasoned restaurant professional with over 40 years of experience, in an interview with KSAZ-TV. “You didn’t have to resort to theft. Taking from me and this family here is not something we’re going to overlook. We’re determined to catch you and pursue legal action.”
The footage further shows the woman allegedly concealing the $4,000 liquor bottle in her purse, before escaping with a man in a black SUV, as reported by Kaos Hospitality Group.
Staff members suggest the pair’s actions were far from impromptu.
They allegedly booked a table under a fake name and phone number, arrived late and ordered only appetizers before causing minor complaints.
Surveillance video captured the woman allegedly hiding the bottle in her purse while the man blocked the manager’s view. (Kaos Hospitality Group)
The man reportedly blocked the manager’s view while the woman slipped back inside, grabbed the luxury bottle from a rolling service cart and tucked it into her bag.
Moments later, the pair bolted.
The identity of a couple suspected of stealing a bottle of cognac’s is unknown, but they were seen leaving in a black SUV. (Kaos Hospitality Group)
The suspects fled in a black SUV, according to the Kaos Hospitality Group, which owns the restaurant.
Now, the restaurant is asking for the public’s help tracking down the duo behind the heist.
Police have been notified.
In a statement, the Tempe Police Department said the investigation remains ongoing and that it had “no additional information.”
–>
