On 12/8, Nguyen Tho Lap, 38, a former police officer in Tien Lu district, and preschool teacher Tran Thi Thuy, 36, stood trial in Hung Yen Provincial People's Court for fraud and misappropriation of assets.

Hoang Van Hai, 67, and his wife, Nguyen Thi Tiep, 63, were also charged with concealing the crime.

The case revolves around the alleged fraudulent sale of 23 plots of land orchestrated by Thuy. The indictment states that Thuy, a preschool teacher who had been involved in real estate transactions from 2015 to 2024, incurred substantial debt, leading her to devise the fraudulent scheme.

Her first victim was Ms. Khuyen, the vice principal of the preschool where Thuy worked. In 3/2015, Thuy borrowed money from Ms. Khuyen for a purported "phone SIM card business," promising to repay 1.5 times the amount within two weeks. By the end of the year, the debt had reached 900 million dong, which Thuy failed to repay.

Thuy then lied about purchasing land and persuaded Ms. Khuyen to lend her more money for a joint investment, promising to sell her a portion of the land at a discounted price. Ms. Khuyen agreed and transferred more funds.

Whenever Ms. Khuyen pressed for repayment, Thuy would show her a random plot of land, falsely claiming ownership or an ongoing purchase. She then presented forged photocopied land titles and transfer contracts in her name to reassure Ms. Khuyen and deceive her into providing more money over 10 years. The prosecution alleges Thuy misappropriated a total of 4.3 billion dong from Ms. Khuyen, repaying only 900 million.

Subsequent victims of this scheme included Ms. Khuyen's friends, her cousin, and two of Thuy's friends. The indictment alleges Thuy employed the same tactic of borrowing money and then fabricating documents and showing photocopies of land titles, falsely claiming ownership or purchase, to entice them into "pooling money" for cheap land deals when she couldn't repay.

Thuy also claimed to have numerous plots of land mortgaged at banks, borrowing money with the promise of reselling the land at a significant profit after retrieving the titles. She defrauded each victim of between 1.2 and 3.4 billion dong.

The former police officer’s involvement occurred on two occasions.

Among the 23 fraud cases, the prosecution identified Ms. Hue, the cousin of former police officer Nguyen Tho Lap, as the victim with the most substantial loss. Thuy defrauded Ms. Hue in 18 instances, totaling 11.2 billion dong. Lap aided Thuy in two of these instances, resulting in the misappropriation of 4.85 billion dong.

According to the investigation, Thuy exploited Ms. Hue's close relationship with her cousin Lap by falsely claiming a "deep, marriage-like relationship" with him, adding they were business partners and collaborated on various projects.

In 7/2022, Thuy attempted to purchase a plot of land but failed. She then used the existing sales contract and a notarized copy of the land title from previous dealings with the landowner to deceive Ms. Hue, claiming it was her land. Ms. Hue agreed to purchase the land and transferred one billion dong.

When Ms. Hue pressed for the land title, Thuy lied, claiming she and Lap had jointly mortgaged another plot of land (referred to as A) to secure a bank loan. She claimed both plots had to be handled simultaneously to release the mortgage.

The prosecution established that the two plots were mortgaged separately, but "to help Thuy deceive Ms. Hue," Lap corroborated Thuy's lie to his cousin.

Thuy offered to sell plot A to Ms. Hue if she paid another billion dong to retrieve both land titles. In 10/2022, Lap and Thuy signed a deposit contract with Ms. Hue and received the money but failed to fulfill their commitment, the indictment stated.

Each time Ms. Hue inquired about the land, Thuy fabricated stories about jointly investing with Lap in other land plots to extract more money from her.

Around the end of 11/2022, Thuy again enlisted Lap's help in deceiving Ms. Hue, claiming Lap was buying two plots of land (referred to as B and C) in Hung Yen City. Thuy presented these as two of five plots they had purchased from Mr. Hai and Ms. Tiep, claiming they still owed over three billion dong. Lap then persuaded Ms. Hue to buy both plots.

Lap, following Thuy's instructions, spoke with Ms. Hue, assuring her that plots B and C were free of any encumbrances, as he had directly handled the transactions and had full authority over them.

Lap guaranteed Ms. Hue that "just paying the remaining three billion dong" to Mr. Hai and Ms. Tiep would conclude the deal. He promised to transfer both plots to Ms. Hue. Ms. Hue and her husband, trusting Lap, agreed.

Meanwhile, Thuy contacted Mr. Hai and Ms. Tiep, falsely claiming that Lap was borrowing money from Ms. Hue to buy their land. She asked them to pre-sign sales contracts with Lap to reassure Ms. Hue and secure the loan.

On 28/11/2022, Thuy, Lap, Ms. Hue, and her husband met with Mr. Hai and Ms. Tiep to exchange money and sign contracts.

The prosecution alleges that, at Thuy's request, Mr. Hai and Ms. Tiep lied about an "ongoing transaction" with Lap for two plots, claiming they needed three billion dong to complete the deal. They presented three land titles. Trusting them, Ms. Hue and her husband transferred 1.4 billion dong to Lap to be given to Mr. Hai and Ms. Tiep.

Lap, Mr. Hai, and Ms. Tiep signed the contracts. Thuy then called a notary public, asking them to expedite the process. However, that same evening, Mr. Hai and Ms. Tiep contacted the notary, instructing them not to affix the seal and to return the land titles, according to the prosecution.

Over the next 8 months, Thuy defrauded Ms. Hue and her husband 12 more times using the same land sale scheme.

Upon his arrest, Lap confessed to "exaggerating" information about the land plots to gain his cousin's trust and secure the money quickly, claiming his intention was "solely to facilitate a successful transaction between the parties."

Meanwhile, Mr. Hai and Ms. Tiep pleaded not guilty, asserting that the 1.4 billion dong received from Lap was payment for a different land plot unrelated to the case. They presented text messages as evidence of this transaction.

As landowners, they argued they were free to sell to anyone, negating the need to deceive or collude with Thuy and Lap. They claimed Thuy had not informed them of the plan to deceive Ms. Hue and that they were unaware of the loan arrangements between the individuals. They attributed their trust in Lap to his position as a police officer and his friendship with their child, stating they had not suspected any fraudulent activity. They also explained that Thuy had purchased other plots from them in the past, which led them to believe the information and funds provided by Thuy and Lap were legitimate.

Thanh Lam