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 viewpoint, suspending the case because there is not enough basis to charge. The Director of Gia Lai People's Procuracy - Nguyen Van Quan - said: The case file has many contradictions created by the investigation agency (Gia Lai Provincial Police), the contradictions come from the investigation file.

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

Gia Lai People's Procuracy: Not enough grounds to prosecute

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 money from those 3 people that day, and it was not to buy a car.

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

Regarding the source of money, there are some families who 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 and leave without counting anything. It means 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's husband and wife 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 3 people's house to borrow money. If they actually went to the notary office, then the victim's statement is incorrect, meaning that they did other things that morning, 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 they couldn't remember what time.

That conflict, went to investigate again, took statements at the notary office, then 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 in the application was deleted, which was also 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 initial statements, for example, going to 3 people's houses at the same time to receive money, why didn't you detect it, "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 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 a piece of cake," 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 file a lawsuit 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 and prosecution of the defendant in the first place. Does that mean that if I did something wrong last time, I must 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 with a little change. A case is not easy to evaluate, it is not clear, so there must be such changes," Mr. Quan analyzed.

Speaking to Lao Dong, Mr. Quan "summed up": There is not enough evidence because there is no basis to say that Ms. Van borrowed money on November 6 to buy a car. There is no reason why the 3 lenders would have completely terminated 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 do the notarization procedure.

In terms of criminal theory, the money borrowed from the three victims was not used 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 the investigation agency had created them. 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. The Gia Lai People's Court 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 in court," said Mr. Quan.

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

Speaking further with Lao Dong reporter, Mr. Quan said that if the Supreme People's Procuracy cancels 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