This wouldn't be the first supply chain disruption. Only a short while back Covid disrupted global supply chains. It'd absolutely make sense for this company to get the supply chain in house for a safer supply chain.

If something like this happens while such an acquisition is still ongoing, that wouldn't be suspicious, it'd just be a sign you made the right call.

Yeah, that's reasonable. Without further information we don't really know what prompted the purchase, but it's reasonable to speculate it is as you say: in response to pre-existing supply chain issues.

Taking it further, it would seem a pretty dumb fraud if the trail could be traced back so easily via ownership, making that suggestion less likely perhaps.

Indeed your defense of Tiang via the alternate interpretation of it being a sign he'd made the right call if the theft occurred during the acquisition, is also plausible.

It's good to keep in mind the different possible interpretations!

It's interesting how much we don't know given limited information. For example, I would never have considered that this kind of strategic theft would be so common a thing that it would touch a guy doing a "subscription box" service. So sad!

But then, we don't really know whether it was fraud or not by him. The timing of the acquisition suggests that as a possibility, indeed, but it's hard to say how likely that is.

I think this interesting discussion has highlighted how inadequate our knowledge of a remote situation really is to be able to judge it at a distance with any surety or authority. None of us are really equipped to make any judgements on this, and hopefully none of us have that intention. Discussing possibilities is okay, as long as we keep in mind our limitations! :)

Haha...I think this highlights the importance of carefully considering the evidence, and withholding judgement until you reach a very clear standard. It seems we have not yet reached that here. You have to consider the possible violations, for sure, but presumption of innocence is also very important!

With enough skill, it's possible to defend or vilify almost anything. That's why it's so important to avoid prejudice and to keep an open mind.

In this case, we don't have enough information to know what happened, but as this comment chain has shown, we can find many reasonable explanations for what might have happened.

It might be mundane rather than nefarious. If your business empire intersected a disaster at multiple points, figuring out which of your many insurance policies should pay out could be non-trivial, and reviewing the various terms, you might lean towards a preferred narrative. I guess that's a bit nefarious, but not as much as he stole his own candy.

That's an interesting point that I didn't consider as well!

On brief reflection I wouldn't consider that really nefarious as long as it was largely true. It's just "insurance optimization", as often unfortunately those terms seem strongly biased against claimants.