HANOI – In a landmark case that has spanned fifteen years and tested the limits of the judicial process, the People's Court of Hanoi today, September 29th, reopened the trial of three individuals on charges of "fraudulent appropriation of property." The central figures, Nguyen Huy Khang, 66, and Nguyen Dinh Bang, 74, have consistently maintained their innocence throughout a grueling legal battle marked by lengthy detentions, multiple hearings, and annulled verdicts.
 |
| Photo: defendants at the trial held in May |
The case, which has captivated public attention due to its extraordinary duration, also involves defendant Hoang Thi Xuan, 62. It has seen numerous twists, including an appellate court decision to annul a first-instance verdict and repeatedly return the case file for further investigation, preventing a final judgment for over a decade.
The legal ordeal for the businessmen has been severe. Mr. Khang, the Director of Thuan An Technology Development Company, was held in pre-trial detention for 13 years before his release was ordered in June 2024. Mr. Bang, former Director of Truong Sinh Industrial Co., Ltd., was detained for five years before being released on bail. A previous attempt to hold the trial on May 7, 2025, was also adjourned, with the court requesting clarification of additional evidence.
The Core Accusation
The case originates from a complaint filed on June 21, 2010, by Mr. Thai Khac Toan, Deputy Director of Huy Phat Trading and Service Co., Ltd. Mr. Toan accused Mr. Bang and Mr. Khang of deceiving him to appropriate 22 billion VND and 17,000 USD.
According to the indictment, the defendants allegedly fabricated contracts and documents related to a real estate project in An Khanh, Hoai Duc, Hanoi. The prosecution argues that Mr. Khang falsely claimed to have acquired "80% of the An Khanh project shares" to entice Mr. Toan into making a capital contribution. It is alleged that upon receiving the funds, the defendants did not invest in the project but used the money for personal enrichment.
A Starkly Different Defense
The defendants present a narrative that fundamentally contradicts the prosecution's charges, arguing the case is a civil loan dispute disguised as a criminal fraud.
Mr. Nguyen Huy Khang testified that the transaction with Mr. Toan was a loan, not a capital investment. He stated he needed funds to complete the acquisition of Mr. Bang's stake in the project company. A witness, Mr. Nguyen Duc Thanh, who introduced the two men, has also testified that the nature of the deal was a loan. According to Mr. Khang, the "capital contribution contract" was signed merely as collateral to secure the loan. He claims the 34 billion VND figure cited in the contract included the loan principal plus the additional profit promised to Mr. Toan, a common practice in high-interest loans.
Mr. Nguyen Dinh Bang testified that his involvement was limited to a straightforward business sale. He was one of two partners in the Truong Sinh Company, which owned the 6,338m² project land with a proper title. In 2009, he agreed to sell his stake to Mr. Khang. He recounted that on April 24, 2010, Mr. Khang visited his home with Mr. Toan, who was introduced as his brother-in-law and remained silent throughout the meeting. Upon receiving proof of a 19 billion VND payment from Khang, Mr. Bang handed over all company documents, including the land title and company seal.
Crucially, Mr. Bang stated that after learning of a lawsuit about a month later and realizing Mr. Toan was not Khang's relative, he kept the 19 billion VND untouched in his bank account, awaiting a resolution from the authorities.
New Evidence and Unresolved Questions
The most recent hearing in May saw the introduction of new evidence. Mr. Bang submitted two USB drives containing five video clips that he claims prove his innocence. Concurrently, a lawyer presented evidence suggesting that the crime of usury (loan sharking) by the accuser may have been overlooked by investigators, lending weight to the defense's loan-dispute theory.
As the trial resumes, the court faces the complex task of untangling this decade-and-a-half-old dispute. The verdict will hinge on its interpretation of the transaction's true nature: a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud or a civil financial arrangement that went sour. For the public and the defendants who have spent years fighting the charges, the trial represents a long-awaited chance for a definitive resolution.
