Wrongly convicted bank employee, court must apologize

Mr. Duong lost his career because someone else created fake evidence and "pushed" him into prison with a 30-month sentence.

On December 25, at the headquarters of the People's Committee of Tho Quan ward (Dong Da, Hanoi), Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy, Deputy Chief Justice of the High People's Court in Hanoi, represented the prosecution agencies.The organization publicly apologized to Mr. Vu Ngoc Duong (29 years old) for the investigation, prosecution, and wrongful trial..

Deputy Chief Justice Thuy said according to Law TIn order to compensate the State, the Court of Appeal must compensate Mr. Duong for damages during the investigation, prosecution, and wrongful trial.This agency is working with Mr. Duong and his family to resolve appropriate compensation, according to the law.

Mr. Duong shared that when he was sentenced, he was extremely indignant because he did not do the things the investigation agency accused him of. In addition to losing his job, he was scorned and shunned by his neighbors and acquaintances. He lost his job at the bank.

Currently, he still cannot find a job because of his "black mark" of being in trouble with the law. In total, he was detained for four months and 15 days.

According to the indictment against Mr. Duong, on November 18, 2010, the Director of the Dong Anh Vocational Training and Humanitarian Guidance Center accused Mr. Duong of taking advantage of his position as a volunteer at the center to embezzle 100 million VND in sponsorship money from two companies.

On July 25, 2011, Dong Anh District Police initiated a criminal case and detained Duong for three months to investigate the act of abusing trust to appropriate property. Subsequently, the authorities said they received a complaint that Duong had borrowed nearly 200 million VND from his aunt and not paid it back.

On November 21, 2012, the Hanoi People's Court sentenced Duong to 30 months in prison. One year later, on September 10, 2013, the Hanoi Supreme People's Court of Appeal upheld the original criminal verdict. Duong continued to protest his innocence.

During the investigation, the Supreme People's Procuracy's investigation agency determined that Ms. Duong Dieu Thu (Mr. Duong's aunt) and Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Van forged documents accusing Duong of receiving sponsorship money as a volunteer but not paying it into the fund. The complaint was sent to the Director of the Dong Anh Center for Vocational Training and Humanitarian Guidance, who then sent it to the authorities.

The two directors of the company involved affirmed that they did not provide any funding for the center; the company did not issue any payment vouchers, and that there was no money given to Duong. Ms. Thu, Van, and Mr. Nguyen Van Hien (Ms. Thu’s husband) admitted that their previous statements to the investigation agency, at the first instance and appeal trials, were not true.

According to the conclusion of the Criminal Technical Examination Department (Ministry of National Defense), the notes of Duong on the documents were not written and signed by the same person. Meanwhile, the Criminal Technical Department, Hanoi Police concluded the opposite.

Explaining this, the Hanoi Police Department of Criminal Techniques said that at the time of the appraisal, the information provided about the case that needed appraisal was incomplete. The documents that needed appraisal were not systematic, and the methods of operation were very new and sophisticated, leading to the research, evaluation of documents, and conclusions of the appraisers being incomplete and inaccurate.

The Supreme People's Procuracy's investigation agency believes that the documents were falsified and did not reflect the truth, leading to the change of the entire truth about the content and nature of the incident. From here, the prosecution agencies have prosecuted, detained, investigated and prosecuted Duong.

On March 11, 2016, Hanoi police suspended the case and suspended the defendant against Mr. Duong due tonot guilty of the crime of abuse of trust to appropriate property.

According to VNE