On April 23, the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court opened the first-instance trial for the case of “Abuse of trust to appropriate property” committed by the defendant Tran Qui Thanh and his two daughters, Tran Uyen Phuong and Tran Ngoc Bich.
When questioned first, the defendant Tran Qui Thanh admitted to lending money to the victims. However, the defendant stated that he had a wrong understanding about lending money at the time the civil transaction relationship was established with Mr. Lam Son Hoang.
The defendant Thanh explained that when Mr. Lam Son Hoang came to meet him through a broker, he said that if he wanted to borrow money, he should go to the bank with low interest rates and no brokerage fees. As for the defendant, he only bought and sold, not lent money at high interest rates.
“After 3 months, Mr. Hoang did not have the money to buy back, and asked for a one-month extension. The defendant said that if he wanted to buy back, Mr. Hoang had to make a deposit, and the defendant was ready to sell it back. The defendant did not buy it to use it, but to do business,” Thanh explained.
Defendant Tran Qui Thanh. Photo: Nguyen Hue |
Meanwhile, Mr. Nguyen Hoang Phu (the broker) stated that he only introduced Mr. Hoang to the defendant Thanh and did not know what was discussed between the two.
“Mr. Hoang said he needed money and wanted to mortgage 4 land plots, so I talked to Mr. Tran Qui Thanh,” said Mr. Phu.
The victim Lam Son Hoang stated that he needed 100 billion VND, so he went through Mr. Phu to meet Mr. Thanh to discuss the loan. Regarding the 4 land plots, Mr. Hoang stated that he did not agree to transfer them, but because Mr. Phu said that Mr. Thanh was reputable, he agreed.
According to the victim, the signed contract was a “bonus for loan support”, which recorded a loan of 100 billion VND and a bonus of 3%.
Mr. Hoang also stated that, as requested by Mr. Thanh, he had to pay an interest rate of 3%/month and pay in advance for 3 months. Therefore, although he only needed to borrow 100 billion VND, he had to borrow 115 billion VND to pay interest, taxes, and fees. After the agreement, he signed a contract to transfer the 4 land plots to Mr. Thanh’s daughter, Tran Uyen Phuong. The money was received by the victim through a bank account.
Testifying in court, the defendant Tran Uyen Phuong admitted to the acts as charged in the indictment.
The defendant Phuong stated that she received information that Mr. Lam Son Hoang was selling land, so she came forward to carry out the transactions. The defendant signed the land transfer contract in front of the notary public, but not at the notary office, and authorized her staff to carry out the subsequent procedures of the process.
Phuong repeatedly stated that she only knew that Mr. Hoang was selling 4 land plots and had no other information. The documents related to these land plots were sent to the defendant for review beforehand.
Regarding the money transferred to Mr. Hoang, Phuong stated that she did not have it readily available, so she borrowed it from her father, Mr. Tran Qui Thanh.
Defendant Tran Uyen Phuong. Photo: Nguyen Hue |
According to the accusation, from 2019-2020, through several brokers, Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and his two daughters lent money to a number of businesses and individuals.
The defendant Thanh forced the borrowers to sign contracts to transfer projects, shares in projects, and real estate, with values much lower than the actual value of the assets, and the defendants would sign “sale and repurchase agreements”, with loan interest legalized by receipts for deposits for project and real estate repurchases, promising to pay the full principal and interest and return the assets.
As directed by Mr. Thanh, his two daughters, Tran Uyen Phuong and Tran Ngoc Bich, were the registered recipients of the transferred assets. However, later on, Mr. Thanh and his daughters carried out procedures to change the ownership of the borrowers’ assets.
When the borrowers fully fulfilled their obligations to pay the principal and interest as agreed, Mr. Tran Qui Thanh and his daughters forced the property owners to pay additional fines. When the victims prepared enough money as requested, Mr. Thanh and his daughters still did not return the assets as promised.
Thanh Phuong
