Proposal to prosecute former National Assembly member Chau Thi Thu Nga

On May 27, the Ministry of Public Security's Investigation Police Agency completed the investigation conclusion and transferred the case file to the Supreme People's Procuracy to propose prosecuting Chau Thi Thu Nga (born in 1965), former Chairwoman of the Board of Directors and General Director of Housing Group Real Estate Investment and Construction Corporation, and 6 accomplices for the crime of "fraudulent appropriation of property".

Ms. Chau Thi Thu Nga

Ms. Nga was a member of the 13th National Assembly. In January 2015, the Investigation Police Department of the Ministry of Public Security issued a decision to prosecute Ms. Nga for the above-mentioned acts.

In June 2015, the National Assembly passed a resolution to remove Ms. Nga from her position as a delegate.

According to the investigation conclusion, although the apartment and villa project at lot B5 Cau Dien (Hanoi) has not been granted an investment license by the competent authority, Ms. Chau Thi Thu Nga directed her subordinates to post information about Housing Group as the project investor, draw their own designs to invite customers, and mobilize capital from more than 600 people with a total amount of more than 377 billion VND.

Of the total amount raised, Ms. Nga used it for purposes such as paying brokerage commissions, buying shares of other companies, paying bonuses to employees and personal expenses.

Notably, during the investigation, Ms. Nga confessed to using nearly 150 billion VND to “lubricate” the project. However, the individuals Ms. Nga confessed to giving money to all affirmed that they did not receive any money from Ms. Nga.

Regarding the B5 Cau Dien project, the Investigation Police Agency determined that a number of officials from the Departments and branches were irresponsible when they allowed Housing Group Company to drill piles without a construction permit, assigned the Joint Venture to research and build the B5 Cau Dien project at the CT5+HH2 land plot, but did not inspect and urge the joint venture to implement the project and complete legal procedures.

However, before the investigation agency initiated the case, the inspection agency had proposed administrative sanctions against these officials. Therefore, the investigation agency did not continue to propose sanctions.

According to Dan Tri