On the afternoon of 14/7, Nguyen Le Minh, 50, also known as director Le Minh, and Tran Quoc Thang, 45, Minh's driver, faced trial at the People's Court of District 4, Ho Chi Minh City, on charges of property extortion. Both have been in temporary detention since September 2024.
The court also summoned Ms. Chau, the alleged victim, but she was absent from the proceedings.
According to the indictment, the director had a close relationship with Ms. Chau, a foreign wine businesswoman, since 2016. Years prior, he repeatedly lent Ms. Chau money without interest to expand her business.
After the Covid-19 pandemic, facing financial difficulties, Minh sought repayment of the debt, which both parties agreed amounted to approximately 750 million VND. However, Ms. Chau repeatedly avoided him.
Minh subsequently filed a lawsuit at a court in Ba Ria - Vung Tau. The court recognized the parties' agreement and ordered Ms. Chau to repay him 730 million VND. Despite this, the enforcement of the judgment was prolonged, and Ms. Chau consistently deferred payment, promising to pay 10-15 million VND monthly but failing to do so. This caused Minh significant frustration.
 |
Director Nguyen Le Minh and Tran Quoc Thang in court today. Photo: Hai Duyen |
Director Nguyen Le Minh and Tran Quoc Thang in court today. Photo: Hai Duyen
Investigations revealed that on the afternoon of 4/9/2024, Minh prepared red paint and shrimp paste in a plastic bag. He then had his driver, Thang, drive him to Ms. Chau's house in Tan Binh district. There, both men threw the bag of dirty substances at the victim's house before leaving.
During questioning by investigators, Minh admitted that due to economic pressure and the prolonged debt collection process, he threw the substances to "exert pressure" on Ms. Chau to repay the debt.
At the court session on 14/7, before the cross-examination began, the Trial Panel spent over one hour publicly disclosing the defendant's previous statements and the content of video recordings from multiple days of interrogation. In these statements, Minh admitted to the alleged actions.
However, during the court's questioning, Minh changed his testimony, claiming he was innocent. He asserted that throwing paint and shrimp paste at the victim's house was an act born of long-suppressed frustration, intended to "vent anger" rather than to demand money.
"Before and after the act, I did not send any messages demanding money from the victim. Due to long-standing frustration, I don't know what possessed me to do it," Minh stated.
The presiding judge then reminded Minh of his earlier statements to investigators, where he claimed the purpose of throwing paint was for Ms. Chau to "pay me some money to cover living expenses." But Minh maintained that when he threw the dirty substances, he had no specific amount in mind for Ms. Chau to repay.
Regarding his previous statements, Minh explained that he was in a panicked state after his arrest. He also claimed that suffering from a serious illness and not receiving medication for many days affected his mental state. He further suggested that the investigator had prepared these statements, but he provided no evidence to support this claim.
The judge inquired if Minh's request for Ms. Chau to pay 15 million VND per month was ever formally recorded. Minh stated that during the Covid-19 period, Ms. Chau was also facing difficulties, so he agreed to a gradual monthly repayment plan. He became frustrated when she failed to honor this agreement.
Similarly, defendant Thang also pleaded innocence. The presiding judge repeatedly asked if he agreed with the accusation of aiding Minh. After a moment of thought, Thang replied, "No."
The judge reminded Thang of his statements from the previous court session, where he also claimed not to know Minh's purpose for buying paint and shrimp paste. However, his earlier statements to investigators indicated he was aware it was for debt collection.
Following the questioning, due to the afternoon session concluding, the trial was adjourned and will resume on 21/7.
Previously, in early June, the court had opened the trial. As the defendants pleaded innocence, the Trial Panel decided to postpone the trial to summon the victim, ensuring objectivity in the proceedings.
