Mr. Tran Qui Thanh in court on the morning of April 24 – Photo: HUU HANH
Mr. Tran Qui Thanh agreed to cancel the land purchase transaction
Mr. Tran Qui Thanh said he did not know Mr. Chung, but with the desire to resolve the case, the defendant agreed to receive 35 billion and at the same time cancel the transaction related to the land plot.
Regarding the Minh Thanh project, he agreed with Ms. Kim Oanh’s proposal, but as for the amount of money, he asked the council to consider according to the records.
Regarding Ms. Dang Thi Kim Oanh’s request for 10% compensation due to loss of business opportunity, he said that the two sides have not reached an agreement and the real estate is becoming more and more valuable.
Ms. Tran Uyen Phuong and Tran Ngoc Bich also agreed with the proposal to resolve the above 4 cases.
Defendant Tran Qui Thanh and his two daughters admitted lending money to the victim
Previously, the victims confirmed that they wanted to return the money borrowed from Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and receive back the land use rights.
Answering the prosecutor’s representative’s question about the source of money used to buy the real estate of the four victims, Mr. Tran Qui Thanh said it was family money, not company money.
Mr. Thanh said he was very busy so he did not go to the real estate to see the real estate and only checked the legality of the documents.
When asked when the victims wanted to buy back the real estate, Mr. Thanh said: “I am always ready to resell it to the victims when they want to buy it back. If the victims buy it back, I will pay the brokerage fee.” . I do property business.”
The prosecutor said that through the developments in court and the testimony of other people in court, there was a basis to determine that Mr. Thanh lent money to the victims, not transferred assets as he stated during the investigation. .
“Is the defendant aware that his actions are lending for interest or does the defendant still think he is a person buying and selling assets?” – the prosecutor asked.
“The defendant agreed. The defendant was aware that he was a trafficker, but after the defendant heard the jury’s explanation, the defendant accepted responsibility and the defendant agreed with the trial panel’s opinion” – Mr. Thanh reply.
Similarly, Ms. Tran Uyen Phuong said she helped Mr. Thanh in lending money with interest. As for Ms. Tran Ngoc Bich, the prosecutor said yesterday Ms. Bich honestly admitted that she was conscious of helping Mr. Thanh lend money, so the prosecutor did not ask further.
Mr. Nguyen Hoang Phu in court – Photo: HUU Hanh
The prosecutor said the broker made false statements
The representative of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Procuracy asked Mr. Nguyen Hoang Phu (the broker for Mr. Lam Son Hoang and Ms. Dang Thi Kim Oanh to meet Mr. Tran Qui Thanh).
Accordingly, Mr. Phu affirmed that he maintained his testimony in court and that his testimony in court was accurate.
The prosecutor continued to ask Mr. Phu if his testimony at the investigation agency was accurate. Mr. Phu said that during the investigation process, the investigator asked many questions so he could not remember clearly which testimony.
The prosecutor said that Mr. Phu’s testimony in court and the testimony at the investigation agency were different in nature. The prosecutor cited a series of statements during the investigation of Mr. Phu about brokering loans for Mr. Thanh’s Mr. Lam Son Hoang and Ms. Dang Thi Kim Oanh.
Mr. Phu still believes that at first he only brokered for Ms. Oanh. Mr. Hoang met Mr. Thanh. At that time, he did not know whether it was a loan or a buying and selling relationship. Later, when the investigator explained, he understood that it was a lending relationship.
The prosecutor said he might consider handling Mr. Phu for making false statements.
Mr. Phu said he did not make false statements, but what he declared was his perception when the investigation agency explained.
Similarly, the prosecutor asked Ms. Lam Hoang (the broker for Mr. Nguyen Huy Dong to meet Mr. Tran Qui Thanh). Ms. Hoang said her testimony in court was accurate.
She said that the initial purpose of her bringing Mr. Dong to meet Mr. Thanh was because there was an advertisement for a cheap piece of land. Meanwhile, her testimony at the investigation agency was that she took Mr. Dong to meet Mr. Thanh to borrow money.
Explaining this, Ms. Hoang said that the testimony was not contradictory because her perception was different depending on each stage.
In the loan “deal” between Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and Ms. Dang Thi Kim Oanh, Mr. Nguyen Hoang Phu was also the broker.
Specifically, Mr. Nguyen Hoang Phu said that he only brokered for Ms. Oanh to meet Mr. Thanh.
“I signed a contract with Ms. Oanh, introduced Ms. Oanh to Mr. Thanh for business cooperation, transfer of project shares, and I did not participate in buying, selling or lending.
In the contract, Ms. Oanh agreed to pay me 5% of the brokerage fee. Ms. Oanh said that Ms. Oanh borrowed money from Mr. Thanh, and Mr. Thanh said that Mr. Thanh transferred shares to Ms. Oanh, I don’t care, I only care that I get paid for the broker meeting” – Mr. Phu speak.
Asked about his relationship with Mr. Nguyen Hoang Phu, Mr. Tran Qui Thanh said that Mr. Phu was just a broker, not an employee, and not close to the defendant. Phu is a freelance broker, receiving commissions from buyers and sellers.
Tags: Tran Qui Thanh daughters agreed admit lending money victim
-
