Bangkok: A group led by Yi Thanakun, President of the Santi Prachadham Club, has filed a complaint with Thailand’s Crime Suppression Division against a prominent online brand. The complaint centers on alleged unfair changes to the company’s distribution system, which reportedly led to significant financial damages for several victims.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Thanakun brought approximately 10 victims to the authorities, highlighting that the system changes have affected a total of 70 individuals, resulting in damages exceeding 50 million baht. The company in question, identified only by the initial “R,” is noted for its substantial investment value and celebrity endorsements. The complaint does not allege any wrongdoing by the endorsing celebrities but focuses on the company’s business practices.
Victims allege that the company altered its product distribution system without prior notice, complicating the process of claiming products for which they had already paid. The system reportedly involved
a pyramid-like structure of team leaders and subordinates, raising suspicions about its legality. Additionally, incentives offered by the company, such as trips and exclusive experiences for meeting sales targets, allegedly failed to materialize as promised.
Ms. A, one of the affected distributors, explained that the company’s unexpected changes limited product withdrawals and introduced sales cuts, severely impacting distributors’ ability to sell. Despite repeated requests for resolution, nearly 11 months have passed without any corrective action from the company.
Further complicating matters, some victims who attempted to sell products in Cambodia found themselves competing with the company’s own sales efforts in that market. When victims attempted to claim substantial refunds, their access to the company’s website was reportedly restricted, hindering their ability to monitor sales.
The victims are now seeking legal recourse against the company’s owners on charges of fraud under the Computer Crimes Act a
nd are questioning whether the contract changes violate the Consumer Protection Act.