On March 26 and 27, Nguyen Dinh Bang, 75; Khang, 67; and Hoang Thi Xuan, 63, faced their third first-instance trial at the Hanoi People's Court on charges of property fraud.

The case has spanned 16 years. Khang was detained for 13 years, four months, and released on bail in 6/2024. Bang was previously detained for five years.

Defendants Bang (front row), Xuan, and Khang at court on March 27. *Photo: Danh Lam*

In 7/2008, Truong Sinh Industrial Co., Ltd., directed by Bang, was assigned by Ha Tay province as the investor for the An Khanh Commercial and High-End Housing Center project. Despite being a joint venture with another company and lacking city approval, Bang transferred shares to "illegally raise capital."

According to the indictment, in late 2009, Bang transferred 80% of the project shares to Khang. Although Khang only paid a deposit of 800 million VND, Bang confirmed him as the buyer of these shares.

Five months later, in 3/2010, Bang unilaterally liquidated the contract, citing Khang's inability to perform. Bang only called to cancel the contract without retrieving documents previously given to Khang.

Meanwhile, Khang allegedly mortgaged these documents, claiming to have purchased 80% of the shares. He then invited Toan, deputy director of Huy Phat Company, to invest and acquire the remaining 20% to reach 100% ownership. When Khang brought Toan to his home, Bang confirmed that he had transferred 80% of Truong Sinh Company to Khang.

Believing this, Toan agreed and signed an investment contract with Khang. In 4/2010, after receiving 22 billion VND from Toan, Bang initiated procedures to transfer the company and change the legal representative. However, the indictment alleges Bang forged the signature of the remaining shareholder, leading to rejection by the Department of Planning and Investment.

When Khang failed to complete procedures for Huy Phat Company to join the project, Toan repeatedly demanded his money back without success. In 6/2010, he filed a complaint.

According to the indictment, after the case was initiated, defendant Xuan, Khang's girlfriend, allegedly forged documents and falsely claimed to be deputy director of Truong Sinh Company to raise capital. She defrauded 4 individuals of over 57 billion VND, using 22 billion VND to repay Toan.

Victim never attended trial

During questioning, several lawyers and defendants argued for Toan's summons to clarify case details.

Bang stated that the 16-year incident originated from Toan's complaint. However, Toan never appeared in court despite summonses, instead providing authorization or requesting an absentee trial.

Citing inconsistencies in Toan's statements, the defendant requested the court summon him for confrontation.

The Prosecution representative asserted that Toan had provided full statements during the investigation and submitted a request for an absentee trial, thus not impacting the proceedings.

The court agreed with the Prosecution, stating that if developments during the trial necessitated it, Toan would be summoned later.

Previously, in 2016 and 2020, the first-instance court tried the case twice, sentencing Khang and Bang to 16-18 years in prison, respectively. Both maintained their innocence.

At this third trial, Bang testified that Toan's money transfer was essentially a high-interest loan disguised as a project investment contract. He claimed Toan only filed the complaint when Khang could not repay the debt.

Regarding the 22 billion VND allegedly embezzled, Bang stated it was money Khang used to purchase shares and deposit for company capital contribution.

Khang corroborated this testimony, asserting that the investment contract between him and Toan was merely a security for a loan, and no actual project investment occurred.

Khang also affirmed he only borrowed 19 billion VND from Toan at a high interest rate for one month. He stated Toan, who claimed to work at a bank with abundant funds, suggested disguising the transaction as a contract to avoid detection of the high-interest loan, with the contract value inflated to 34 billion VND.

Bang's lawyer presented evidence suggesting three case files were withdrawn and replaced with other documents, altering the case's nature.

Bang claimed that among these documents was a letter to the Department of Planning and Investment, allegedly fabricated by Toan, which Bang did not sign and was not genuine.

Given these issues, the Trial Panel determined that the case still required clarification of several points. Therefore, it returned the files for further investigation to ensure completeness and rigor.

Thanh Lam