Pregnant woman tricked into selling to foreign countries and then asked to write a commitment 'not to report'
(Baonghean.vn)- Even though he knew the victim was pregnant, Cut Van Hue still colluded with his accomplices to sell the victim to China for 30 million VND with a commitment "not to report".
On October 22, 2020, the High People's Court in Hanoi opened an appeal trial of Cut Van Hue (born 1978; in Pha Danh commune, Ky Son) for the crime of "human trafficking"The victim was Ms. Moong Thi X. (born in 1994; residing in Bac Ly commune, Ky Son). Previously, defendants Cut Van Ba (born in 1995) and Cut Thi Hanh (born in 1974) received sentences of 3 years and 6 months and 4 years and 6 months in prison, respectively, for the above crime.
 |
| Defendant Cut Van Ba at the first instance trial. Photo: An Quynh |
One day in April 2014, X went to Cut Thi Hanh's house to visit. Here, X. confided in her about her unhappy marriage. Hearing that, Hanh showed sympathy and confided to her that if she went to China to marry another man, she would have a comfortable life and could send money back to her family... Hearing that, X agreed and "bargained" to sell herself for 30 million VND.
Seeing that the “prey” had taken the bait, Hanh and her son Cut Van Ba contacted Cut Van Hue from China to return to take her to China. However, because X. was pregnant at the time, Ba asked Hue “can you sell her?” Cut Van Hue replied, “Pregnant women cannot be sold for as much as unmarried girls, but just bring them over, and we will calculate how much they can sell for later.”
After that, Ba and Hue gave X. to a woman Hue had known before. About a month later, X. was sold to a man in China for 70,000 yuan (equivalent to 180 million VND). Cut Van Hue received 31 million VND and divided 20 million VND between Hanh and her mother, the rest for personal expenses.
On November 10, 2018, Ms. X. fled back to Vietnam, then filed a complaint against Cut Van Hue, Cut Thi Hanh, and Cut Van Ba to the Ky Son District Police.
After the first instance verdict, the defendant Cut Van Hue appealed for a reduced sentence, believing the verdict was unsatisfactory.
During the trial, the defendant failed to provide new details to consider mitigating the sentence as prescribed. Therefore, the panel of judges rejected the appeal and upheld the sentence of 4 years and 6 months in prison for defendant Cut Van Hue.
