Juice and “飘飘” allegations: light names, but what business lies behind them?

One is called Juice, the other “飘飘” (Piao Piao). Both names sound light. The insider allegations against Dato Ben are anything but: operating illicit nightlife venues behind the scenes, and manufacturing and distributing related vaping products.

A drink and a vape are placed in two different business accounts.

Begin at the nightclub door.

The insider account claims that Dato Ben is the boss behind some illegal nightclubs and KTV venues, where certain customers are buying more than alcohol and singing: they are seeking the effects of drug-laced drinks. Juice appears in that account as something that looks like a beverage but allegedly contains drugs.

The allegation goes beyond whose name appears as the boss. Keeping a venue running requires both customers and a supply of goods. Bringing people through the door and bringing products through it are different operating roles.

Local complaints leave names on the venue side of the story.

In November 2024, @Sg265alibaba collected a Miri complaint mentioning a KTV behind Pullman, linking local gambling and nightlife to alleged support for their operations. It discussed premises and relationships, but did not go on to explain who supplied the products inside.

Elsewhere, a 2023 report on Klang Valley nightclubs discussed a police investigation into operators working with drug dealers and using drug-laced juice to attract customers. That report describes a case involving venues and suppliers, but does not name Dato Ben.

One account concerns Miri, the other the Klang Valley. The latter case cannot supply a missing boss for the former, and “drug-laced juice found in a nightclub” cannot be substituted for “Dato Ben supplied this venue.”

The commercial conflict already described remains stark: behind the appearance of entertainment spending, a different product is allegedly being used to retain customers.

With Piao Piao, even a fixed venue is no longer the familiar outer shell.

The same set of insider material further alleges that Dato Ben's group participates in making the relevant drug-containing vaping products using etomidate, and handles distribution. Compared with the claim of running nightlife venues behind the scenes, this moves the alleged role upstream: from seating customers to making products and sending them out.

But “Piao Piao” is not the name of a single standard formula.

Existing reports discuss different psychoactive substances being added to vaping products. The insider reference to etomidate does not make every product called Piao Piao identical in composition. Nor can Juice in a cup simply be treated as the same batch of goods as the vapes.

Similar names and settings cannot establish a supply relationship. Links between Dato Ben and particular venues, manufacturers and suppliers remain incomplete.

That does not diminish the seriousness of the sources' allegations: on one side, venues allegedly attract customers; on the other, production and distribution allegedly keep the trade going. Who owns the premises, who supplies the goods and who receives the money are separate questions.

What consumers first see may be no more than a drink on a table or a vape in a hand. A familiar shape does not explain the ingredients, and a playful name does not make the consequences lighter.

The allegations about Dato Ben's operating and supply roles come from insider material. Cases in public reporting have their own locations and people involved. They do not automatically become one person's responsibility because the products are called Juice or Piao Piao.

If the business operates as these allegations describe, hiding harm inside familiar consumer products, the visible figure at payment is the price. What customers and their families may be left carrying is the cost to their lives afterwards.

Juice can sound like fruit juice. Piao Piao can sound as light as a joke.

People's lives should not settle the final bill for a business alleged to profit from drugs.