The People's Procuracy proposed not to give the former deputy minister of public security a suspended sentence.

Today, the third working day of the appeal hearing, arguing that the five defendants had "committed a particularly serious crime, causing loss of state assets", the High People's Procuracy in Hanoi proposed to maintain the original sentence for the five defendants.

Specifically, Mr. Bui Van Thanh (former Deputy Minister of Public Security) was sentenced to 30 months in prison, and Tran Viet Tan (former Deputy Minister of Public Security) was sentenced to 36 months in prison, both for the crime.Lack of responsibility causes serious consequences.Phan Van Anh Vu (Vu "Nhom") was sentenced to 15 years in prison, Phan Huu Tuan (former Deputy Director of General Department V) to 5 years in prison, Nguyen Huu Bach (former leader of Department B61, General Department V) to 5 years in prison for the crime ofAbuse of position and power while performing official duties.

Regarding Mr. Thanh’s appeal for a suspended sentence, the People’s Procuracy determined that the defendant had shown remorse and had submitted additional documents proving that his brother was a martyr. However, his actions had caused particularly serious consequences, angered public opinion, and damaged the reputation of the police force. The court of first instance determined that the charges and punishment were appropriate, and were applied below the lowest level.

Defendant Thanh holds a high position but fails to maintain the qualities of a police officer and a revolutionary. He needs time to reform, reflect, and set an example. There is no basis for accepting the appeal.

According to the People's Procuracy, former Deputy Minister Tan did not accept the verdict on the charges and punishment of the first instance, but the documents the defendant signed created the most favorable conditions for Vu "Nhom" to seize public real estate, causing great damage to the State.

Mr. Tan was irresponsible in managing General Department V, did not inspect, and thus failed to promptly prevent the criminal acts of defendant Vu. Given the dangerous nature and serious consequences of Mr. Tan's actions, the court of first instance found him guilty.Lack of responsibility causes serious consequencesis not unfair

At the appeal hearing, the defendant failed to present any circumstances that changed the nature of the crime or any new mitigating circumstances, so the Procuracy had no basis to accept the appeal.

Defendants Tuan and Bach expressed remorse, did not plead guilty, and only asked for a lighter sentence. The court of first instance applied the appropriate circumstances and charges, and the sentence was below the limit. The two defendants also had aggravating circumstances of committing the crime two or more times, but the court of first instance did not consider it. Due to the principle that the appellate court should not further disadvantage the defendants, the People's Procuracy did not add any aggravating circumstances today.

"The sentence imposed is light, so there is no basis to accept the appeal of these two people," the prosecutor stated.

Regarding the appeal of the entire sentence of Vu "Nhom", the People's Procuracy believes that the defendant's criminal behavior is clear. The defendant was recruited as an intelligence officer and deputy head of a department, but took advantage of professional activities to gain benefits when he received management and use of 7 plots of land and public property without auction, and even received a discount. The defendant's behavior was against his official duties and against land regulations on public land for personal gain.

At the appeal hearing, defendant Vu could not provide any additional circumstances that changed his behavior, and there were no mitigating circumstances. Vu also committed the crime two or more times, which is an aggravating circumstance, but the court of first instance did not consider it. The People's Procuracy believes that given the level of danger and serious consequences, the court of first instance's decision to find Vu guilty was well-founded, and the sentence "was light."

The High-level People's Procuracy in Hanoi said that Vu "Nhom" took advantage of the name of the front organization of General Department V, Ministry of Public Security to request the Ministry of Public Security, Ho Chi Minh City People's Committee and Da Nang People's Committee to lease land, transfer land use rights and assets on land of 7 real estates in prime locations without auction. The defendant also asked for a price reduction, a reduction in the profit coefficient and asked to enjoy many other incentives... contrary to State regulations.

Having been assigned the right to use land and assets on the land, Vu "Nhom" transferred the right to use land from the company to himself; or associated with business, transferred to other individuals and organizations to gain illegal profits; did not implement the project, did not have any professional activities serving the police force.

The first instance judgment concluded that Mr. Thanh signed an official dispatch requesting the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, the Department of Finance of Ho Chi Minh City, to submit to the Real Estate Valuation Council and the People's Committee to approve the selling price of the real estate at 129 Pasteur (District 3, Ho Chi Minh City) - 1 of the 7 projects mentioned above. This action was not within the prescribed functions and authority.

Due to lack of responsibility, when Vu "Nhom" transferred this house and land, Mr. Thanh did not detect it and report it to the competent authorities in time to prevent it.