Impersonating police officers to commit inter-provincial fraud.
(Baonghean.vn) Believing the promises of individuals claiming to be "officials" in the Hanoi City Police Department, many families in Nghe An and Ha Tinh provinces handed over hundreds of millions of dong to scammers hoping their children would secure positions in the police force. The case, brought to court, serves as a warning to families seeking shortcuts to secure jobs for their children, disregarding legal regulations...
The appeal trial of Vo Viet Hung, Than Van Tuan, Luu Quang Dieu, Tran Phuc Huong, and their accomplices was quite sparsely attended. Only a few family members of the defendants, who had traveled from Hanoi, were present on the benches. The fatigue from a sleepless journey from Hanoi was still evident on their faces. Because of this, almost no one spoke a word to each other throughout the trial. Standing in the dock were four men, all in their forties. The youngest was Tran Phuc Huong (residing at No. 1, Alley 1, Nhan Hoa Street, Nhan Chinh Ward, Thanh Xuan District, Hanoi), born in 1959. The oldest was Than Van Tuan (No. 12, Alley 162/28, Ha Dinh Ward, Thanh Xuan District, Hanoi), 54 years old. He had served in the army, participated in battles, and was wounded; he is currently receiving a 4/4 disability pension.

The defendant before the court
This sophisticated "fraudulent appropriation of property" scheme began when Tran Phuc Huong possessed a photocopied decision (No. 9752/QD - V26 (P10) dated October 25, 2008) stating that the V26 Department of the Ministry of Public Security was recruiting 27 additional officers to strengthen the force for guarding, supervising, and managing the prison. Seeing this as an easy opportunity to "make money," Huong called Than Van Tuan to her house to "show off" the decision, along with 20 sets of standard recruitment documents, and instructed Tuan to find people interested in joining the police force, charging each person $2,500. Tuan, knowing full well that the photocopied decision was worthless, but facing financial difficulties, agreed.
Following that initial agreement, a fraudulent scheme was devised, with the amount demanded from victims at each intermediary stage increasing many times over. First, Tuan met with Luong Quang Dieu (No. 4, Lot 3, Group 70, Thanh Nha Ward, Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi) to "broker" a deal of 3000-3200 USD per application. Then, Dieu met with Vo Viet Hung and agreed on a price of 60,000,000 VND per application. When Hung met with Pham Thi Lan, he raised the price to 70 million VND for securing a position at Department V26. Lan then went to Ha Tinh to meet Nguyen Hoa Binh and stated that the price for each application would be 80 million VND. Binh then traveled to various locations in Nghe An and Ha Tinh provinces to find people wishing to work long-term in the police force, creating application forms and collecting 90-120 million VND from each person.
Using the above tactics, by the time the fraud was discovered, 15 people in Nghe An, Ha Tinh, and Hanoi had been deceived by the scammers into promising jobs in the police force, totaling 1,460 million VND. To gain the trust of the victims, Vo Viet Hung even impersonated an officer currently working at X28 of the Ministry of Public Security, taking the "candidates" to the Nghe An Provincial Police Clinic for health checks and fabricating a notice under the name of V26 School - Ministry of Public Security, claiming to have recruited officers. Later, although the case was exposed and prosecuted, Hung used the same trick to deceive Ms. Nguyen Thi Hien Luong (residing in Block 5, Quang Trung Ward) and took 3,500 USD to secure a job for her nephew in the police force.
Although the fraudulent behavior had been confirmed by the investigating agencies, while Than Van Tuan, Luu Quang Dieu, and Vo Viet Hung did not dispute the charges, Tran Phuc Huong insisted on a reduced sentence. According to Tran Phuc Huong, he did not give a photocopy of the decision to Tuan. He admitted that he accepted the money from Tuan out of deference, thus prolonging the time for Tuan and his accomplices to return the money they had received from the victims.
Despite numerous defense arguments from the lawyers, the presiding judge concluded that the defendants' guilt of "Fraudulent appropriation of property" was well-founded. Depending on their actions and roles, the defendants were sentenced to terms ranging from 3 years of suspended imprisonment to 9 years. Several other individuals involved were acquitted because they had fully repaid the money and their charges were not clearly established.
Song Hoang


