The representative of the Procuracy stated the basis for charging the former investigator in the 'rescue flight' case.

On July 17, at the trial of the "rescue flight" case, the representative of the People's Procuracy presented the indictment of the defendants.

Regarding the group of defendants who gave bribes, the representative of the People's Procuracy determined that 23 individuals representing businesses gave bribes of more than 226 billion VND.

In which, defendants Nguyen Thi Thanh Hang (Deputy General Director) and Le Hong Son (General Director of Blue Sky Company) gave 63 times, a total amount of more than 63 billion VND to 12 people to get flight licenses.

The representative of the People's Procuracy said that both of them had bribed through defendant Nguyen Anh Tuan (former Deputy Director of Hanoi Police) with an amount of more than 2 million USD to avoid being criminally prosecuted.

Regarding the act of fraud and appropriation of property by former investigator Hoang Van Hung, the representative of the People's Procuracy stated the opinion: Defendant Hung did not admit to the act of fraud and appropriation of property and receiving money from defendant Nguyen Anh Tuan. However, based on the testimony and the results of the interrogation in court, there is basis to determine that defendant Tuan received 1 million USD from defendant Hang to transfer to defendant Hung; defendant Hung received 800 thousand USD from defendant Tuan.

According to the representative of the People's Procuracy, the defendants Hang, Tuan, and Hung contacted, met, and received money in the following manner: When there was a need to discuss, Hung used 2 unregistered SIM cards to contact and exchange with each other through the 2 phone numbers of defendant Tuan, or contacted each other through the Viber application.

Although Ms. Hang also used a junk SIM card, defendant Hung asked Ms. Hang not to contact him directly, and to communicate everything through Mr. Tuan.

The representative of the People's Procuracy said that between the defendants Hung and Tuan from 2019 to before January 1, 2022, there were only 5 calls. But from January 1, 2022 to January 21, 2022, which was the investigation period of the "rescue flight" case, there were more than 400 calls mainly via Viber and non-owner SIM cards. There were no calls between the defendants Hang and Hung.

In addition, the defendants often met in the evening at defendant Tuan's private home to ensure confidentiality. The money transfer was carried out in a way that Mr. Hung requested money many times, according to the progress of the case.

On average, once a month, Mr. Hung would make excuses to ask for money. At Mr. Hung’s request, Ms. Hang did not give the money directly but through defendant Tuan.

The representative of the People's Procuracy determined that the defendant Hang had given a bribe of more than 2 million USD and was defrauded of more than 800 thousand USD.

Regarding defendant Hung, the representative of the People's Procuracy said that the defendant did not honestly confess, did not repent, and did not remedy the consequences, so a severe penalty should be applied.

"Prosecuting defendant Tuan for bribery brokerage and prosecuting defendant Hung for fraud and property appropriation are well-founded," said the representative of the People's Procuracy.

According to the indictment of the representative of the People's Procuracy, because they believed that Mr. Hung could help, from February 2022 to December 2022, Ms. Hang and Mr. Son gave bribes of more than 2.6 million USD and transferred all of this money to Mr. Tuan so that he could transfer it to Mr. Hung.

At the investigation agency and at the trial, the defendants Son, Hang, and Tuan honestly confessed to all acts of bribery and bribery brokerage.

The statements of the defendants Hang, Son, and Tuan are consistent with each other in terms of time, location, and reason why Mr. Tuan arranged for Ms. Hang to meet Mr. Hung so that Mr. Hung could help Ms. Hang and Mr. Son avoid criminal prosecution in the case that Mr. Hung was directing the investigation.

Regarding the amount of bribes and bribery brokerage, defendant Hang stated that she gave Mr. Tuan 2.8 million USD (this amount was taken by Ms. Hang and Mr. Son from the company and individuals) to transfer to Mr. Hung. Defendant Tuan stated that he only received more than 2.6 million USD from Ms. Hang.

From the defendants' statements at the authorities, the statements of the people involved, along with related grounds,The People's Procuracy determined that defendants Hang and Son gave bribes of more than 2.6 million USD, and defendant Tuan brokered bribes of more than 2.6 million USD, equivalent to 61.6 billion VND.

Regarding the act of appropriating property of defendant Hoang Van Hung, the representative of the People's Procuracy said that, before September 15, 2022, defendant Hung was the Head of Department 5 (Investigative Security Agency, Ministry of Public Security), the main investigator handling the case.

When contacted by defendant Tuan, Mr. Hung met Ms. Hang many times at Mr. Tuan's house, discussing with Tuan and Hang that he was the Head of Department 5, the main investigator handling the case.

When asked by Ms. Hang to help her and Mr. Son avoid criminal prosecution, Mr. Hung instructed Ms. Hang to confess, and through Ms. Hang, instructed Mr. Son to unify the content of the declaration so that Ms. Hang would take full responsibility for bribing individuals with authority in licensing, approving flights and medical quarantine to enjoy lenient policies of the law; and Mr. Son was not involved in this behavior so he did not have to bear responsibility.

Mr. Hung’s exchange with Ms. Hang created trust in Ms. Hang that Mr. Hung could help Ms. Hang and Mr. Son avoid criminal prosecution. Therefore, during this period, Ms. Hang and Mr. Son gave Mr. Tuan more than 1.6 million USD for Mr. Tuan to give to Mr. Hung.

Although defendant Tuan stated that he gave Mr. Hung more than 1.2 million USD, the results of the investigation and interrogation at the trial showed that there was not enough basis to conclude that Mr. Hung received this amount of money.

Defendant Hung admitted that he had told Mr. Tuan that he was the main investigator handling the case. Mr. Hung had met Ms. Hang and Mr. Tuan many times at Mr. Tuan’s private home.

With the times Mr. Son confessed to the investigation agency, this behavior has signs of violating judicial activities, it is recommended to continue verifying and clarifying for handling in the later stages of the case.

According to the representative of the People's Procuracy, on September 16, 2022, Mr. Hoang Van Hung was reassigned from Head of Department 5 to Head of Department 2, no longer having the duties, powers, or authority to investigate and resolve the case, but Mr. Hung still worked with Ms. Hang many times at Mr. Tuan's house to provide some case information related to Ms. Hang and Mr. Son that Mr. Hung knew.

Based on the defendants' statements at the investigation agency, Mr. Hung instructed Ms. Hang and Mr. Son on how to make statements when working with investigators, giving reasons that were not true to reality, and had to pay money to other individuals and units so that the relevant individuals would support the view that Ms. Hang and Mr. Son should not be criminally prosecuted.

Mr. Hung gave false information about his role in the investigation and handling of the case; through Mr. Tuan, Mr. Hung requested that 800,000 USD be transferred to him. Mr. Son gave Mr. Tuan 1 million USD; Mr. Tuan transferred 800,000 USD to Mr. Hung.

At the investigation agency, the defendants Hang, Son, and Tuan all confessed to the events of the above incident. During the investigation and at the trial, defendant Hung did not admit to committing the crime and receiving money from defendant Tuan. However, through the results of the defendant's statements, witnesses, and other evidence,, the People's Procuracy determined that defendant Tuan received 1 million USD from defendant Hang and transferred 800 thousand USD to defendant Hung.