Fraud case, appropriating 15 billion VND in Gia Lai: The People's Procuracy said the investigation agency's records are full of contradictions.

Regarding the suspension of the case of "Fraudulent appropriation of property" of 15 billion VND against Ms. Le Thi Tuong Van, Gia Lai People's Procuracy maintains its stance, suspending the case because there is not enough basis to charge. The head of Gia Lai People's Procuracy - Nguyen Van Quan - said: The case file has many contradictions that were created by the investigation agency (Gia Lai Provincial Police), the contradictions are in the investigation file.

Gia Lai People's Procuracy affirmed its stance to suspend the case. Photo: D.V

Gia Lai People's Procuracy: Insufficient grounds for prosecution

Talking to reporters, the Chief Justice of Gia Lai People's Procuracy - Nguyen Van Quan said: It is necessary to determine the purpose of Ms. Van borrowing money from these 3 people (victims - PV) and when? The 3 victims stated that Ms. Van borrowed money from them, with an appointment, on the morning of November 6, 2009, for the purpose of buying 20 cars to sell for Tet, and paid 4 days later, with a debt note. The debt note did not clearly state the purpose, nor did it state the interest rate. But on the contrary, Ms. Van stated that she did not borrow from those 3 people that day, and it was not to buy a car.

Mr. Quan said the investigation agency's conclusion was that at about 9am, Ms. Van went to the house of 3 people to receive money. This was not convincing because it was impossible for them to go to the house of 3 people at the same time. Later, when the investigation file was returned for further investigation, the investigator asked again and the people gave different statements. The victim's own statement was contradictory and inconsistent.

Regarding the source of money, there are some families that come to receive money, the couple leaves the money right on the table, when Mrs. Van and her husband come, they just take the money and put it in their bag, without counting anything. It means that it is arranged. Usually the money is kept in the safe, the person who comes takes it out, not left on the table. Experimentally, the time of departure matches, but in terms of evidence, it is not guaranteed.

There was also a conflict in the case during the notary. Van and her husband and Van's mother stated that on November 6, 2009, they went to the notary office to "transfer" 2 houses and a car, not to the house of those 3 people to borrow money. If they actually went to the notary office, then the victim's statement is incorrect, meaning that morning they did other things, not to borrow money.

But at the notary office, it was stated that on that morning, Van and her husband came to do the house and car paperwork, but she couldn't remember what time.

Regarding that contradiction, they went to investigate again, took statements at the notary office, and the paperwork was done early in the morning until 8am. And before that, on November 5, Van and his wife brought the documents, saying that they were done in advance so that they could notarize the next day (November 6), but the documents required notarization were dated November 6, not November 5. Mr. Quan said that he felt that it was not normal. Even the notarization subject was deleted in the application, which was not normal. Those were the documents that the People's Procuracy considered to be not objective.

"With such contradictory documents and records, the contradictions were not caused by Ms. Van, but by the investigation agency. That is, taking the initial statements, for example, going to 3 people's houses at the same time to receive money, why didn't you detect and "fight" from the beginning or the contradictions at the notary office, those are unsecured evidences, not enough grounds to prosecute Le Thi Tuong Van", affirmed the Director of Gia Lai People's Procuracy - Nguyen Van Quan.

"The investigation agency's point is that they are right, because they believe Ms. Van borrowed money to buy a car, but there is no document stating that she borrowed money to buy a car. I have verified that in Gia Lai, the second largest enterprise sells at most 12 cars a month, how can there be 4 days when they sell 20 cars, that is not normal. And it is not easy for people to lend money, money is not like jackfruit leaves," Mr. Quan added.

Documents related to the case. Photo: D.V

Will prosecution cause injustice?

Gia Lai People’s Procuracy affirmed that Ms. Van did borrow money, she admitted it but did not deny it. The three victims have the right to sue in court to get the money back, but it must be a different case, civil, not criminal (!).

"The other day, a Chief Justice said: In that case, you should not have approved the indictment to prosecute the defendant. Does that mean I did something wrong last time, so I have to do something wrong now?", Mr. Quan analyzed.

Lao Dong reporter asked: So what was the reason for the Gia Lai People's Procuracy approving the previous indictment and prosecution order? "The viewpoint at that time was not that you directed it because you were not the Chief Prosecutor yet, but at that time it was the Chief Prosecutor - Nguyen Cong Loc. But the person who directly directed it was Mr. Nguyen Van Loc - Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Gia Lai People's Procuracy", Mr. Quan said.

"Now how can we say that the People's Procuracy does not cooperate? There have been 7-8 supplementary investigation conclusions, 3-4 indictments by the People's Procuracy, each time a little change. A case is not easy to evaluate, it is not clear so there must be changes like that," Mr. Quan analyzed.

Speaking to Lao Dong, Mr. Quan "summed up": There is not enough evidence because there is no basis to believe that Ms. Van borrowed money on November 6 to buy a car. There is no reason why the three lenders would completely end their debt with Van on November 6 (they had borrowed money before). The victim's testimony is inconsistent about the time for Van and her husband to come to receive the money, as well as the source of money mobilized for the loan. There are many contradictions about the time Ms. Van came to the notary procedure.

In terms of criminal theory, the money borrowed from the three victims was not to buy a car, so the disposal of assets (house, car) was independent. In fact, the money Van borrowed from the three people was to lend to Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Duong (born in 1980, residing in Yen Do Ward, Pleiku City) to pay off the bank loan.

Mr. Quan argued that the file had many contradictions because it was made by the investigation agency, the contradictions were in the investigation file, the contradictions were the conclusions on the same working day, the coincidence of time, and the victim's testimony was inconsistent. With that document, there was not enough basis to prosecute. As for the Gia Lai People's Court, it did not study the appellate judgments.

"The Gia Lai People's Procuracy's viewpoint is to request a civil trial, requiring Ms. Van to pay the three victims on the condition that they file a lawsuit," Mr. Quan said.

The reporter asked why Ms. Van was wrongfully imprisoned for 4 years and 3 months, but did not sue for compensation. Mr. Quan said: When they were released from prison, people were very happy. Maybe they did not know about it.

In a further discussion with Lao Dong reporter, Mr. Quan said that if the Supreme People's Procuracy revokes the decision to suspend the case, it must be re-investigated. If the case is brought to prosecution, it will cause injustice to Ms. Le Thi Tuong Van.

"I heard some public information about the case. I have a headache with this case," Mr. Quan said.

According to laodong.com.vn