Correction: The Yoovidhya family
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.On 17 August 2017, The Independent published an article under the headline ‘Red Bull family’s tax haven secrets revealed after fugitive son allegedly kills police officer in Ferrari hit-and-run”. Referring to the offshore investments of the Yoovidhya family, the article suggested that the family’s financial arrangements were outlined in the ‘Panama Papers’ and that auditors had raised concerns that documents verifying the ownership of their companies had been missing in 2010 and 2013.
Representatives of the Yoovidhya family have contacted The Independent to say that the Panama Papers do not give a complete or accurate view of the family’s financial arrangements and that neither Mossack Fonseca not its auditors raised any concerns with their companies about missing documents. Furthermore, they say that Mossack Fonseca never did anything for the Yoovidhya family beyond providing a registered office address for two of their companies.
The Yoovidhya family believe that the article implied that they had engaged in money laundering activities. The Independent wishes to make clear that it did not intend to imply anything of the sort and it is happy to correct any such impression to the contrary.