The District 3 People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City recently concluded the second first-instance trial in a deposit contract dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Duc, 47, and the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Tu.

After nearly three years of legal proceedings across multiple courts, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, contradicting the initial first-instance and appellate rulings.

The deposit contract and the claim of '4.5 billion VND in a scooter trunk'

Court documents show that on 15/1/2017, Mr. Duc signed a deposit contract for one billion VND with Mr. and Mrs. Tu to purchase a portion of a property in Ben Phu Lam, District 6 (now Binh Tay ward), Ho Chi Minh City.

On 6/1/2018, the parties canceled the previous contract and signed a new one. Under the new agreement, Mr. Duc would provide a deposit of 5.5 billion VND to purchase the entire property from Mr. and Mrs. Tu for 12.6 billion VND.

According to Mr. Duc, after the notarization of the new deposit contract that evening, he placed 4.5 billion VND in cash inside a black nylon bag and put it in the trunk of his scooter. He then delivered this money to Mr. and Mrs. Tu. No receipt was issued. When the agreed-upon deadline passed, Mr. and Mrs. Tu did not proceed with the sale. After repeated requests, they returned only one billion VND to Mr. Duc.

Claiming that Mr. and Mrs. Tu failed to return the full deposit, Mr. Duc filed a lawsuit demanding the remaining 4.5 billion VND plus a penalty, totaling 10 billion VND.

He presented two pieces of evidence to the court: a handwritten note with no date (allegedly written by Mrs. Tu at a cafe, promising to return the deposit in installments) and a video confirming the receipt of the 5.5 billion VND deposit.

The defendants: The second contract was not genuine, intended to help the plaintiff secure a bank loan

In their statement to the court, Mr. and Mrs. Tu acknowledged signing two deposit contracts with Mr. Duc. However, they claimed the cancellation of the initial contract and the signing of the new contract on 6/1/2018, with the increased deposit and sale price, were "at Mr. Duc's request, to help him secure a larger bank loan for the purchase."

Therefore, according to Mrs. Tu, they only received one billion VND as a deposit from Mr. Duc. His claim of delivering 4.5 billion VND in his scooter trunk was false. Had such a large cash transaction occurred, Mr. Duc would have requested a receipt.

The defendants further argued that despite just signing the deposit contract, Mr. Duc listed the property for sale online at a higher price. When the deadline for the transfer contract arrived, Mr. Duc had not completed the necessary land surveys because the property was part of a larger plot containing four houses owned by Mrs. Tu. Mr. Duc subsequently informed them he would not proceed with the purchase, demanding the return of the deposit and a penalty, totaling 11 billion VND (including the one billion VND already returned).

Additionally, according to the defendants, Mr. Duc repeatedly sent people to threaten and assault Mrs. Tu. On one occasion, while picking up her child, she was intercepted by Mr. Duc and others, forced into a cafe, and pressured to return the money. She reported these incidents to local authorities. The ward People's Committee summoned both parties. There, Mr. Duc admitted the deposit contract was for a property purchase price of 5.8 billion VND, not 12.6 billion VND.

A bailiff recreates the scenario of placing 4.5 billion VND (90 stacks of 100 500,000 VND bills) into a scooter trunk. Photo: Ben Thanh Bailiff Office

Conflicting rulings

In 10/2022, the District 6 People's Court, in its first ruling, partially accepted Mr. Duc's claim, ordering Mr. and Mrs. Tu to return the remaining deposit of 4.5 billion VND based on the contract dated 6/1/2018.

According to the judging council, Mr. Duc and his representative testified they had delivered a total of 5.5 billion VND as a deposit to Mr. and Mrs. Tu. Trusting each other, they did not create a receipt. Furthermore, Mr. Duc argued this was reflected in the notarized deposit contract, and he detailed the method, time, and location of the money transfer (which the defendants refuted). Neither side provided direct evidence.

The court considered the video provided by the plaintiff as evidence. It recorded a conversation with Mrs. Tu at a cafe. In the video, Mrs. Tu says: "You gave me 5.5 billion, how can I repay you... now I can only give you 6 billion..." Additionally, there was a handwritten note indicating Mrs. Tu had received and held the 5.5 billion VND deposit, along with a repayment schedule.

The judging council reasoned that Mrs. Tu's claim that these statements and the note were made under duress from Mr. Duc was unsubstantiated. Conversely, the video and the handwritten note did not indicate coercion. There was no basis to determine the money represented interest or damages.

The court acknowledged both parties shared responsibility for the failed contract and therefore denied the plaintiff's request for a penalty.

Rejecting this ruling, Mr. and Mrs. Tu filed an appeal. Mr. Duc also partially appealed, requesting the court to grant his full claim.

On 7/3/2023, the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court, in its appellate ruling, fully accepted the plaintiff's claim. It ordered Mr. and Mrs. Tu to return the remaining 4.5 billion VND deposit and a penalty of over 2.7 billion VND. In total, the defendants were to pay the plaintiff 7.2 billion VND.

The appellate court determined Mr. and Mrs. Tu were responsible for the failure of the property transfer.

Cassation appeal and the 'scooter trunk capacity' argument

Believing the two courts had not fully considered the evidence, the defendants filed for cassation.

In 8/2023, the Supreme People's Procuracy in Ho Chi Minh City (now the Appellate Procuracy under the Supreme People's Procuracy in Ho Chi Minh City) issued a cassation decision. It determined both the first-instance and appellate rulings contained serious procedural violations and errors in evidence assessment.

According to the Supreme People's Procuracy, the audio-visual recording provided by the plaintiff, used as evidence by both courts, was inadmissible because it was not obtained through proper procedures. Moreover, the defendants alleged the recording was edited and manipulated, not reflecting the entire conversation.

During the proceedings, the court failed to include all relevant parties. Before the deposit contract with Mr. Duc, Mr. and Mrs. Tu had sold a portion of the property to Mr. Thanh through a handwritten agreement for 2.5 billion VND. Mr. Thanh's family had taken possession and resided on the same plot. The agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Tu and Mr. Duc for the transfer of the entire property (including the portion occupied by Mr. Thanh's family) was unfounded. In reality, the agreement concerned only a portion of the land.

The Supreme People's Procuracy found "credible" the defendants' claim that the 6/1/2018 deposit contract, reflecting a 5.5 billion VND deposit for the transfer of the entire property at 12.6 billion VND, was intended to facilitate Mr. Duc's loan application.

The plaintiff's claim of placing 4.5 billion VND in his scooter trunk was deemed unfounded, as the trunk's dimensions could not accommodate that sum (even with 500,000 VND bills, the highest denomination).

Therefore, the Supreme People's Procuracy recommended the High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City to overturn both rulings and remand the case to the first-instance court for retrial.

A month later, the High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City (now the Appellate Court under the Supreme People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City) accepted the cassation appeal and overturned both rulings.

The 'scooter trunk' experiment and the new ruling

During the second first-instance trial, the parties maintained their positions. To provide evidence, the defendants requested the Ben Thanh Bailiff Office to conduct an experiment to determine if 4.5 billion VND could fit inside a scooter trunk.

The bailiff placed 90 stacks of money (each containing 100 500,000 VND bills) into the trunk. However, whether bundled or loose, the seat could not close.

On 20/8, after the trial, the District 3 People's Court analyzed and highlighted inconsistencies in the plaintiff's details, evidence, and testimony, echoing the Supreme People's Procuracy and the High People's Court's earlier findings.

The judging council accepted the bailiff's report concluding that placing 4.5 billion VND in a scooter trunk was impossible, and dismissed Mr. Duc's claim.

"The sum of 4.5 billion VND is substantial. The plaintiff and defendants were not previously acquainted, making it improbable that such a handover would occur without a receipt or confirmation of the amount. This is highly illogical," the ruling further analyzed.

Hai Duyen

*Names of parties involved have been changed