On the afternoon of 12/8/2024, Nguyen Thu Van, 33, faced trial at the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City on charges of property fraud.
According to the indictment, the scheme began on 6/3/2024, when Van visited GONCY Trading and Service Company Limited (GONCY Company) in Ben Thanh ward for skincare services and cosmetic purchases. There, Van accessed a banking application and initiated a transfer from the company account she legally represented. She entered the payment amount, confirmed the transaction, and proceeded to the one-time password (OTP) verification step but did not finalize the transfer.
Van then photographed the uncompleted transfer order and showed it to a GONCY Company employee. Believing the payment was complete, the employee released the cosmetics to Van. Upon returning home, Van realized the account lacked sufficient funds for the transaction. GONCY Company, failing to verify the receiving account, did not detect the incomplete payment. This oversight led Van to devise a scheme to embezzle funds.
 |
Defendant Nguyen Thu Van in court today. Photo: Binh Nguyen
The indictment states that from 3/2024 to 2/2025, Van repeatedly visited GONCY Company for skincare services and cosmetic purchases. For each payment, she created a transfer order via the banking application, photographed the transaction, and sent it to an employee, though no money was actually transferred. Investigations revealed Van used services and bought cosmetics 49 times. She initiated 42 transfer orders but never completed the transactions, thereby embezzling over 1,2 billion VND from GONCY Company.
On 16/2/2025, Van placed another order for cosmetics valued at over 91 million VND, sending a photo of a transfer order to the clinic's Messenger account. The company, assuming payment was made, arranged for delivery. Later, an employee checked the account, found no payment, and called Van, who then evaded contact. Suspecting fraud, a GONCY Company representative reported the incident to the Ben Thanh ward police on 6/3/2025.
Two days later, Van paid over 900 million VND, and by 15/4/2025, she had repaid the full 1,2 billion VND. The victim received the total amount and made no further demands. In 11/2025, Van was formally charged.
**Defendant claims unaware of failed transfers due to bank rejections**
In court, Van and her lawyer presented new evidence: bank statements confirming 42 instances of rejected transactions. Van asserted she had no intent to embezzle the victim's assets. She attributed the problem to bank rejections and the company's failure to notify her about unpaid services or purchases.
When questioned by the court why she used services for nearly one year without noticing failed transactions, Van stated her account was not set up for balance change notifications, and she did not monitor transaction history. According to Van, it was only on 6/3/2025, after being summoned by ward police, that she reviewed her banking application, discovered the failed transactions, and subsequently paid the full amount to the company.
Beyond these transactions, Van mentioned that several other bank transfers during the same period were also rejected. However, she re-initiated those payments after partners notified her of non-receipt. After several hours, the court decided to return the case file to the People's Procuracy for additional investigation, citing new evidence and details.
Binh Nguyen
