On the morning of July 21, continuing the debate at the trial of 54 defendants in the “Rescue Flight” case, the representative of the Procuracy holding the right to prosecute at the trial responded to the views and arguments for exoneration of the defendants and defense attorneys.
 |
Defendant Hoang Van Hung in court. |
The prosecutor affirmed that the investigation, prosecution and trial of defendant Hoang Van Hung (former Head of Department 5, Security Investigation Agency, Ministry of Public Security) is completely grounded and legally based.
Disclosing confidential information
The representative of the Procuracy analyzed that, according to Hoang Van Hung's request, the meetings, instructions, receipt of self-declaration and money of Nguyen Thi Thanh Hang (Deputy General Director of Bluesky Company) were all conducted at the house of Nguyen Anh Tuan (former Deputy Director of Hanoi City Police) and all after 8pm. The method of communication was that Hung did not contact Hang directly but through Tuan. Tuan and Hung both contacted each other using junk SIM cards, via the Viber application. In a short period of time, Tuan and Hung contacted each other 435 times, of which 165 calls were connected and 270 calls were missed.
In particular, there is information related to the investigation process of the case, if Hung did not say, Tuan, Hang, Son could not know. Typically, if Hang confessed, she would enjoy leniency under the law like the case of defendant Le Van Nghia - Nhat Minh Company. Or about the role of Le Hong Son (General Director of Bluesky Company), Hung gave a lot of information such as: because Son holds 70% of shares, he will have to take responsibility like the case of Hoang Dieu Mo - An Binh Company; named the investigator who worked with defendant Le Hong Son at B34 Detention Center in Ho Chi Minh City; the fact that the officers of the A01 Department of Professional Affairs had harsh views on Le Hong Son... These are confidential work information that Tuan, Hang, Son could not have thought of when reporting to the Investigation Agency.
During the trial, Hoang Van Hung always used the excuse that he contacted people with signs of violations to persuade them to surrender as following the instructions of the leaders of the Ministry of Public Security and the leaders of the Investigation Agency. However, in reality, Hung did not report to the leaders and did not have the approval of the leaders. The defendant arbitrarily contacted people in violation of regulations.
Hoang Van Hung met and instructed Hang and Son to make false statements for personal purposes. Specifically, he chose the meeting place at the defendant Tuan's private home outside of working hours, in the evening, late at night; did not contact Hang directly but through an intermediary, Nguyen Anh Tuan, by using a junk SIM card and the Viber application to conceal his actions. After being transferred to another job and no longer having the function, task, or authority to investigate and resolve the case, Hung continued to meet Hang, even after Son was arrested.
Inaccurate declaration
During the debate, Hoang Van Hung repeatedly stated that the defendant's testimony was consistent from beginning to end but was not considered by the prosecution agencies as a mitigating circumstance for the offender to honestly confess according to the provisions of Article 51, Clause 1, Point s - Penal Code.
During the investigation, Hoang Van Hung gave a piecemeal statement, only admitting what the investigation agency had brought up; at the same time, he was deceitful and made up stories to conceal his criminal acts. To prove this point, the representative of the Procuracy cited two statements of Hoang Van Hung. Specifically, in the minutes of the statement recorded on January 5, 2023, Hoang Van Hung stated: “I affirm that before, during and after the times I met Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Hang at Mr. Nguyen Anh Tuan's house, Mr. Tuan and Ms. Hang did not give me any money or any material benefits. I myself did not receive any material benefits from Ms. Hang, Mr. Tuan or any individual related to Ms. Hang, Mr. Tuan”. It was not until March 24, 2023, when the investigation agency released a video clip of the defendant receiving a suitcase delivered by Mr. Trinh Van Huy (nephew of defendant Nguyen Anh Tuan, who was asked by defendant Tuan to deliver the suitcase to Hung) in front of the gate of the Security Investigation Agency, Ministry of Public Security, that Hoang Van Hung admitted to receiving the suitcase and stated that it contained 4 bottles of wine inside to conceal the crime.
In the minutes of the interrogation of the accused on March 24, 2023, Hoang Van Hung did not admit to instructing Nguyen Thi Thanh Hang to write a self-declaration and receiving Hang's self-declarations. When the Investigation Agency organized a confrontation with Nguyen Anh Tuan and Nguyen Thi Thanh Hang, the accused admitted to instructing Hang to write a self-declaration, adding that the recipient was the Procuracy, and stating the difficulties and problems in the process of organizing the flight. After receiving these self-declarations, Hung took them home.
There is no basis for applying the presumption of innocence.
From the documents collected during the investigation and publicly questioned at the trial, the representative of the Procuracy analyzed, argued and affirmed that Hoang Van Hung had fraudulently appropriated 800,000 USD.
The prosecutor emphasized that Hung was a senior investigator, the head of the department, directly directing the Investigation Team to investigate the case of the “Rescue Flight”. While the investigators were verifying and collecting evidence day and night, fiercely fighting and clarifying criminal acts for handling according to regulations, the defendant, in his role as commander and leader, contacted and guided subjects with violations to avoid punishment by law. This act not only betrayed his comrades, teammates, and the heroic tradition of the People's Public Security Force that previous generations had worked hard to cultivate, but also discredited the investigation force in particular and the judicial agencies in general.
Furthermore, Hung himself knew that if Hang and Son both turned themselves in and confessed honestly, the law would show leniency, but taking advantage of the trust of these people, Hung instructed them to make false statements and continuously provided false information to ask Hang and Son to give him money and appropriate it.
The content of the case shows that the defendants Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Thi Thanh Hang, and Le Hong Son have no business relationship or conflict with the defendant Hoang Van Hung. The defendant Tuan and the defendant Hang could not have created a perfect "scenario" as mentioned above to falsely accuse Hung. Therefore, the determination that Hoang Van Hung had committed fraud and appropriated 800,000 USD from Le Hong Son and Nguyen Thi Thanh Hang is well-founded. The prosecutor applied the principle of presumption of innocence. However, in this case, the prosecutor found no basis to apply it.
The representative of the Procuracy concluded: As the person most knowledgeable about criminal law among the defendants sitting here, Hoang Van Hung should have fully recognized his mistakes, repented to correct them, and saved his conscience and morality. But the defendant used his knowledge to cope in order to avoid legal punishment. At the trial, the defendant Hung was always evasive, denied his crimes, had an inappropriate attitude, insulted the investigation agency, the Procuracy, and put pressure on other defendants.
Based on the results of the investigation and public questioning at the trial, the Procuracy maintains the presented indictment, requesting the Trial Panel to comprehensively evaluate, consider the attitude and level of crime of Hoang Van Hung to consider, and issue a strict and lawful sentence to educate the defendant.
According to VNA
"Rescue Flight" Case, Rescue Flight, Security Investigation Agency, Hoang Van Hung
Source link
Comment (0)