On the morning of April 25, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City announced the first instance verdict against defendant Tran Qui Thanh (former Director of Tan Hiep Phat Trading and Services Co., Ltd.) and his two daughters, Tran Uyen Phuong (born 1981), Tran Ngoc Bich (born 1984).
Throughout the court’s sentencing process, Mr. Thanh sat with his head bowed.
The jury sentenced Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and his son
The jury said that in addition to considering criminal behavior, the court also applies aggravating circumstances (committing the crime twice or more). Along with that, apply circumstances that mitigate criminal liability for each defendant such as: good character, first offense; proactively influenced relatives to pay more than 183 billion VND to overcome consequences; In fact, the defendants only appropriated the victim’s property on paper, but currently this property is still used by the victim; The defendants have contributed to economic and social development; Phuong and Bich committed the crime of dependency under the direction of their father…
From there, the jury sentenced defendant Tran Qui Thanh to 8 years in prison; Tran Uyen Phuong 4 years in prison; Tran Ngoc Bich was given a suspended sentence of 3 years in prison (5-year probationary period) for the crime of “Abuse of trust and appropriation of property”.
The jury found that defendant Tran Qui Thanh was the main responsible person in the case and was responsible for the entire value of the appropriated property. During the trial, the defendants admitted their crimes.
According to the jury, there is enough basis to determine that during the period from 2019-2020, Mr. Thanh, through a broker, lent money to 4 individuals – including Lam Son Hoang, Nguyen Huy Dong, Nguyen Van Chung, and Dang Thi Kim Oanh. Interest rate 3%/month.
Defendant Tran Qui Thanh and her two daughters
However, the parties did not make a loan contract, but instead made a contract to transfer assets/shares of the projects owned by the borrower to hide the nature of the case. After that, Mr. Thanh let his two daughters carry out the procedures to transfer the borrower’s property. Both parties commit to letting the borrowers buy back the property when they have paid the principal and interest within the agreed time.
When the borrower wanted to repay the principal and interest, Mr. Thanh and his son complained that the debt was overdue or caused difficulties to refuse payment, increasing interest and penalties, making the borrower unable to complete the debt repayment. Since then, Mr. Thanh and his son have said that the borrower did not comply with the loan commitment, determining that the borrower “lost the right to repurchase the property”.
The jury determined that the above civil transaction contracts for property transfer were fake and illegal. The total value of the assets that the father and son appropriated from the victims was more than 1,000 billion VND.
Individuals acting as brokers include Nguyen Hoang Phu and Doan Nguyen Minh Hoang. Nguyen Phi Long received brokerage fees according to the agreement based on the amount of money the victim needed to borrow. Of which, Nguyen Phi Long received 700 million VND, Doan Nguyen Minh Hoang 2.5 billion VND; Nguyen Hoang Phu 23.65 billion VND (from a loan from Ms. Dang Thi Kim Oanh and Mr. Lam Son Hoang).
However, after the brokerage, these people did not know that the purpose of Mr. Thanh’s father and son was to lend money to appropriate the victim’s property. The jury also determined that the individual brokers did not help Mr. Thanh and his children.
Regarding the parties’ loan transaction, the court also resolved it in this trial. Accordingly, the jury forced the victims to return the money borrowed from Mr. Thanh.
Specifically, Mr. Lam Hoang Son returned 115 billion VND, Mr. Nguyen Huy Dong paid 78.4 billion VND; Mr. Nguyen Van Chung paid 34.7 billion VND; Ms. Dang Thi Kim Oanh paid more than 235 billion VND. At the same time, cancel all transactions and documents related to the above amounts.
The jury also did not agree with Mr. Thanh to compensate for “damage to business advantage” as requested by Ms. Oanh.
In addition, the jury also forced the brokers to return the money, except Doan Nguyen Minh Hoang, because the victim did not request it.
