The victims all testified that they lent money because they saw that H. had a gas station, otherwise they wouldn't have been foolish enough to "hit their heads against the wall".
According to the records, working at a gas station, H. was assigned the task of collecting money from sales staff, monitoring issues that occurred during business operations, and reporting them to the station manager.
Forging a subcontracting agreement
Taking advantage of his position, H. forged a subcontracting agreement stating that the gas station manager had subcontracted the entire organization, operation, and business of the gas station to H. According to the agreement, H. was responsible for investing in equipment for the gas station...
Controversy over handling
The director of the gasoline company, working with the investigating agency (Ho Chi Minh City Police), affirmed that he was the one in charge of purchasing gasoline. The money for purchasing gasoline came from the company… The company did not sign any subcontracting contract with H. The signature on the contract is not his.
However, after reviewing the incident, the investigation agency decided not to prosecute the case because it believed that this was a civil relationship.
Based on the investigation report, the Ho Chi Minh City People's Procuracy reviewed the case file. This led to two differing opinions. One opinion argued that Article 139 of the Penal Code (fraudulent appropriation of property) stipulates: “Whoever, by fraudulent means, appropriates the property of another person... shall be punished with non-custodial correctional measures for up to three years or imprisonment from six months to three years.” Based on the circumstances, H.'s actions show signs of the crime of fraud, and a case should be initiated and the suspect prosecuted.
Another viewpoint argues that there is insufficient basis for criminal prosecution because all the relationships were based on lending with interest. Furthermore, the borrowing, lending, and debt reconciliation between the victims and the perpetrator could not be carried out. The process of resolving the case has dragged on from 2008 to the present, and H.'s testimony has not been obtained. The incident occurred too long ago…
There are signs of crime
Agreeing, lawyer Tran Ngoc Quy (Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association) also stated that H. had committed fraudulent acts to obtain money and gold from the victims. The appropriation of property by H. was complete from the moment the property owners handed over the money and gold to H. Whether H. paid interest or not does not change the nature of the crime, which is using fraudulent means to appropriate property.
|
Fleeing is considered misappropriation of loan money Recently, lawyer-Master Dinh Van Que (former Chief Judge of the Criminal Court of the Supreme People's Court) also had an analysis of this issue in the newspaper.Ho Chi Minh City Law Newspaper, December 22 (article "Borrowing money and not repaying it, when is it a crime?"). According to Mr. Que, when determining whether a borrower has committed embezzlement, it is necessary to base it on the specific circumstances of each case, the relationship between the borrower and the lender; the purpose and motive of the borrower regarding how to use the borrowed money... The following cases need to be distinguished: - If a person who commits fraud after borrowing money uses that money for criminal purposes such as smuggling, gambling, bribery, etc., leading to inability to repay the debt, it must be considered misappropriation. - If a person who commits fraud after borrowing money uses that money to invest in other areas not in accordance with the agreement with the lender (including legal and illegal businesses) leading to inability to repay the debt, it is not considered misappropriation. Depending on the case, if the act of using the borrowed money constitutes a separate crime such as the crime of illegal use of property or the crime of usury, they will be prosecuted for the corresponding crimes. - If a person who commits fraud after borrowing money uses that money for legitimate business but suffers losses and becomes unable to repay the debt, it is not considered embezzlement; only if they abscond is it considered embezzlement. |