Miss Thuy Tien was arrested: Collected 7 billion VND from Kera candy despite knowing the product was fake
Before being prosecuted and temporarily detained on the evening of May 19, Miss Nguyen Thuc Thuy Tien earned about 7 billion VND from selling Kera candy products, a type of vegetable candy that is currently being investigated as counterfeit.
According to the investigation, Thuy Tien cooperated with Chi Em Rot Group Joint Stock Company since December 2024 as a shareholder and co-founder of the Kera candy brand with Quang Linh Vlogs and Hang "Nomad". In the initial agreement, Thuy Tien received 30% of the profits from the distribution of this product.
In more than three months of operation, Chi Em Rot Company has sold more than 135,000 candy boxes, earning nearly 18 billion VND in revenue. Miss Thuy Tien is confirmed to have received a commission of up to 7 billion VND from this deal.
However, the Ministry of Public Security's Investigation Police Agency said that Thuy Tien knew clearly that the product's test results showed that the actual fiber content was only 0.935%, much lower than advertised.
This makes the product almost ineffective in supplementing fiber as advertised. In addition, the actual ingredients of Kera candy are not clearly declared.
Nguyen Phong, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Asia Life Joint Stock Company, was identified as the person who organized the production of Kera candy. Instead of using VietGAP-standard vegetable powder as announced, Phong directed his employees to buy raw materials with very low content, only from 0.61% to 0.75% while the product label stated up to 28%.
In addition, Nguyen Phong also directed the addition of sorbitol (a laxative) into the product at a rate of up to 35%, along with many other additives without clearly informing consumers.
Notably, by the end of February 2025, when a wave of doubts about product quality erupted on social networks, Thuy Tien proactively proposed to re-sign the contract in the form of hired advertising, in order to eliminate her role as a shareholder in the brand.
This move is believed to be aimed at legitimizing the new role and avoiding legal responsibility in the context of the case attracting increasing public attention.
