Some days ago, the grandson of the man who co-founded the Red Bull company in Thailand, was let off by the authorities in a case of hit-and-run dating back to 2012. The charges against him were dropped by the prosecution without any clear reason. This led to great anger on social media as well as claims that the money power of the accused saved him.
Now, there is a response from many voices on social media platforms who are calling for a boycott of Red Bull's products. Vorayuth Yoovidhya is the grandson of Chaleo Yoovidhya, the creator of the energy drink and founder of the brand which is now known globally.
Vorayuth was accused, in 2012, of driving his Ferrari car into a policeman who subsequently died from the injuries. The young man was also accused of dragging the body of the cop to some meters away and then leaving the scene.
The case dragged on for all these years but on last Friday, the country was in for a shock when the police announced that all charges against Yoovidhya – speeding, rash driving leading to death, and hit-and-run – were being dropped.
As expected, the suspicion was present among the general public that the accused's VVIP status saved him. Vorayuth had left the country some years ago and hasn't returned. At the moment, his whereabouts are also not known. The handling of the entire case has been under the cloud of suspicion.
Now, as the company's reputation faces the serious danger of getting a beating, it has decided to distance itself from the young Yoovidhya. In a statement released by the company, it announced that the former accused has never been officially part of the company's organization.
"TCP Group would like to clarify that Mr. Vorayuth Yoovidhya has never assumed any role in the management and daily operations of TCP Group, was never a shareholder, nor has he held any executive position within TCP Group," the statement from TCP Group, the parent company of Red Bull read.
It's Vorayuth's uncle who is currently heading the organization in Thailand. However, the father of Vorayuth is involved with the brand but as a partner in the overseas aspect of the company. This statement, while providing some clarity on the status of the person in question, is not likely to satisfy the discontented public.