A father in Nghe An province committed fraud to repay a debt after borrowing money for his child's overseas studies.
(Baonghean.vn) - When the loan repayment deadline for his child's overseas education arrived and he was unable to repay it, Ky boasted about his ability to arrange overseas study for others in order to swindle money. The victims, seeing that Ky's child was studying abroad, trusted him and fell into his trap.
The People's Court of Nghe An province recently held a first-instance criminal trial to hear the case of Nguyen Vinh Ky (born in 1952), residing in Nam Dan town, Nam Dan district, on charges of fraud and appropriation of property.
According to investigative documents, Nguyen Vinh Ky runs a gold and silver shop and is a jeweler. Ky has four children studying abroad in the United States, Canada, and other countries. While sending his children to study abroad, Ky mortgaged his land use rights certificate to borrow money from the bank.
 |
| Nguyen Vinh Ky in court. Photo: Tran Vu |
However, since 2018, Ky's business has not been doing well and has been incurring losses. Despite trying everything, he has been unable to salvage the situation.
Taking advantage of the fact that her children were studying abroad and that she herself had a tourist visa in Canada, Ky boasted to everyone that she could arrange the procedures for studying abroad. The price Ky quoted for a successful study abroad placement was 400-500 million VND.
Using this tactic, from August 2018, Nguyen Vinh Ky committed fraud by promising to handle procedures for studying abroad in countries such as Canada and the United States, swindling over 1.8 billion VND, with the largest amount lost by one victim being 1.2 billion VND.
At the trial, Ky admitted to the crime. The defendant confessed that due to business losses and the need to repay bank debts, he had defrauded people by claiming he could arrange overseas study programs in order to swindle them out of their money.
During the trial, the panel of judges determined that it was necessary to clarify the responsibility of the defendant's wife, to see if she was an accomplice in the case. After deliberation, the court decided to return the case file to consider the role of the defendant Ky's wife in this case.
