This was fascinating, but also terrible!
I'm no expert, but this struck me as suspicious: In possibly the strangest twist on the KitKat trail, Bokksu announced in September that it had acquired Japan Crate. But NYTimes discovered that the acquisition had actually been completed back in June. So Bokksu, through a wholly owned subsidiary, had in effect overseen the loading of its own KitKats onto the original two fraudulent trucks.
My suspicion is that Danny Tiang may have orchestrated the loss of his valuable Japanese KitKats in order to try to recoup an insurance payment. This may have been simply in response to him doubting an ability to sell the product, or due to a temperature excursion he was notified of en route that made them unsalable, but which he concealed to facilitate their loss and subsequent, admittedly failed, insurance fraud. Is that plausible?
I'm not saying it happened and I feel terrible for the guy to not get his KitKats, but the acquisiton casts a bit of doubt on his story I feel.
I'm no expert, but this struck me as suspicious: In possibly the strangest twist on the KitKat trail, Bokksu announced in September that it had acquired Japan Crate. But NYTimes discovered that the acquisition had actually been completed back in June. So Bokksu, through a wholly owned subsidiary, had in effect overseen the loading of its own KitKats onto the original two fraudulent trucks.
My suspicion is that Danny Tiang may have orchestrated the loss of his valuable Japanese KitKats in order to try to recoup an insurance payment. This may have been simply in response to him doubting an ability to sell the product, or due to a temperature excursion he was notified of en route that made them unsalable, but which he concealed to facilitate their loss and subsequent, admittedly failed, insurance fraud. Is that plausible?
I'm not saying it happened and I feel terrible for the guy to not get his KitKats, but the acquisiton casts a bit of doubt on his story I feel.