Why were the 3 people who helped in the Tran Qui Thanh case not criminally prosecuted?

These are Nguyen Hoang Phu (34 years old, residing in Thu Duc City), Doan Nguyen Minh Hoang (28 years old, both residing in Thu Duc City) and Nguyen Phi Long (43 years old, residing in District 11). All three are people working in the real estate brokerage field.

Mr. Tran Quy Thanh and his two daughters

The investigation concluded that these three people were assigned by Mr. Tran Qui Thanh (70 years old - Director of Tan Hiep Phat Trading and Service Company Limited, headquartered in Binh Duong) to find organizations and individuals who needed to borrow money but had to have valuable assets, to sign fake contracts of buying and selling. The three people received brokerage fees from these transactions.

Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and his son were accused of appropriating 767 billion VND of assets from 4 organizations and individuals. The three people mentioned above played a supporting role, but why were they not criminally prosecuted?

Loan broker, enjoy 1 million USD

The first person mentioned is Nguyen Hoang Phu, a broker in loan transactions totaling 615 billion VND and received a brokerage fee of 23.65 billion VND.

Specifically, in the case of Ms. Dang Thi Kim Oanh (Chairwoman of the Board of Directors of Kim Oanh Real Estate Group) borrowing 2 times a total of 500 billion VND from Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and his son by signing fake contracts to sell and then lose 2 projects Minh Thanh and Nhon Thanh (in Dong Nai), Phu played a significant role.

When he learned that Ms. Kim Oanh needed money to handle projects, Phu proactively approached the assistant of the real estate owner Kim Oanh and introduced himself as the assistant of Mr. Tran Qui Thanh.

Phu met Ms. Oanh 3 times to discuss the loan brokerage and sign a brokerage service contract; which clearly stated the loan disbursement progress and Phu's brokerage fee of 5%.

When Ms. Kim Oanh borrowed 350 billion VND from Mr. Tran Qui Thanh, with an interest rate of 3%/month, but had to complete the procedure to transfer 100% of Minh Thanh Dong Nai Company shares to Mr. Thanh's two daughters, Tran Uyen Phuong and Tran Ngoc Bich... Phu received a brokerage fee of 5% (equivalent to 14.65 billion VND).

When Ms. Oanh was worried about borrowing money and had to sign a sales contract, Phu was the one who influenced and created trust for Ms. Oanh to sign. In addition, Phu also influenced the people involved, delaying the payment of Ms. Kim Oanh's daughter, creating an excuse for Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and his son to take over the entire project.

Phu also brokered a loan of 150 billion VND to Ms. Kim Oanh at an interest rate of 3%/month from Mr. Tran Qui Thanh by signing a transfer of 100% of the capital contribution at Nhon Thanh project to Ms. Tran Ngoc Bich (Mr. Thanh's daughter). Phu received a brokerage fee of 5% (equivalent to 6 billion VND).

In addition, Phu also brokered for Mr. Lam Son Hoang to borrow 115 billion VND from Tran Qui Thanh, with an interest rate of 3% per month, and had to sign a transfer of 4 plots of land in Thu Duc City to Tran Uyen Phuong (Mr. Thanh's daughter). In this case, Phu received a brokerage fee of 3 billion VND.

Phu was the one who communicated with Mr. Hoang to grasp the progress of interest payment, penalty interest (4.5%/month) and urged him to pay interest on time. When Mr. Hoang negotiated to pay principal and interest, Phu brought him to meet Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and he declared that he had to pay 154 billion VND to redeem the 4 plots of land.

When invited to work by the police, Phu admitted to receiving brokerage fees totaling 23.65 billion VND.

The land plot in Ho Hoc Lam, Binh Tan district that Mr. Nguyen Van Chung borrowed 35 billion but had to sign a transfer contract with Ms. Tran Uyen Phuong (Mr. Thanh's daughter). Photo: Linh An

The investigation agency determined that Phu had signs of the crime of “Abuse of trust to appropriate property”, with the role of assisting Tran Qui Thanh and his two daughters in appropriating the property of Ms. Kim Oanh and Mr. Lam Son Hoang. However, Phu did not know clearly the purpose of Tran Qui Thanh and his accomplices giving reasons to appropriate the property of the above people and the decision not to return the property was made by Mr. Thanh and his son, so Phu's actions were not enough to constitute a crime.

Another case of assistance is the "money broker" Nguyen Phi Long, who, through social relations, brokered a loan of 35 billion VND to Mr. Nguyen Van Chung, with an interest rate of 3%/month, from Mr. Tran Qui Thanh.

Following Mr. Thanh's request, Mr. Chung persuaded the owner of the land plot on Ho Hoc Lam Street (Binh Tan District) to sign a purchase and sale contract with Tran Uyen Phuong (Mr. Thanh's daughter).

Long received a brokerage fee of 700 million VND from the above loan transaction.

Before the debt repayment deadline, Mr. Chung prepared 35 billion VND. At this time, Mr. Tran Qui Thanh requested to pay an additional 14 billion VND to receive the land back. Long knew that asking for an additional 14 billion VND was wrong, but still conveyed Mr. Tran Qui Thanh's opinion to Mr. Chung. As a result, Mr. Chung was unable to manage the 14 billion VND, so he lost the land.

The investigation agency determined that Long had signs of committing a crime, in an accomplice role, but did not know clearly that the purpose of Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and his son was to appropriate other people's property and did not know that the land plot was divided into 29 lots, and had been transferred to Ms. Tran Uyen Phuong before Mr. Chung's debt payment deadline.

Therefore, in Long's case, the investigation agency also believes that there are not enough elements to constitute a crime. Up to now, Long has returned 200 million VND out of the total 700 million VND in brokerage fees he received.

Similarly, the case of Doan Nguyen Minh Hoang was not criminally prosecuted because he did not know clearly the purpose of appropriating property of Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and his son.

In the case of Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and his son, three people were identified as having played a supporting role but were not criminally prosecuted. Photo: Internet

Hoang brokered for Mr. Nguyen Huy Dong to borrow 80 billion VND from Tran Qui Thanh with an interest rate of 3%/month; but instead of making a loan contract, he signed a contract to transfer 02 plots of land in Binh Tan district to Tran Uyen Phuong. Mr. Nguyen Huy Dong paid Hoang a brokerage fee of 2.5 billion VND.

Later, when Mr. Dong offered to redeem the property, Mr. Tran Qui Thanh refused to pay 80 billion VND but demanded an additional 15 billion VND.

To date, Hoang has returned 160 million VND from the brokerage fees he received.

Thus, all three “money brokers” declared that they simply found customers to borrow money from Mr. Tran Qui Thanh, from which they received brokerage fees. They were completely unaware of the purpose of Mr. Thanh and his son’s appropriation of property and that the decision to return the property to the borrowers was up to the father and son of Tan Hiep Phat’s owners.

Therefore, although the investigation agency determined that the above 3 people had signs of the crime of "Abuse of trust to appropriate property"; in the role of assisting Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and his son; but there were not enough elements to constitute a crime.

Source: https://vietnamnet.vn/vi-sao-3-nguoi-giup-suc-trong-vu-tran-qui-thanh-khong-bi-xu-ly-hinh-su-2219520.html