[ad_1]
Mr. Nguyen Hai Nam (white shirt) and Mr. Lam Hoang Tung (blue shirt) in court – Photo: Q.Đ.
“I cannot be the subject of an accommodation violation”
Defending himself, the defendant Lam Hoang Tung claimed that he did not commit a crime of infringement of the residence of others. Because according to the 2014 housing law, only the owner has the inalienable right to accommodation. The inalienable right to accommodation at 29 Nguyen Binh Khiem (District 1, Ho Chi Minh City), if any, belongs to Ms. Chi and Mr. Tung, who were authorized by Ms. Chi and contributed capital to purchase this home with Mrs. Chi.
Second, according to Mr. Tung, the investigation does not prove that number 29 Nguyen Binh Khiem is Ms. Thao’s legal home. Mr. and Ms. Chi never assigned the project to Ms. Thao, they never registered her residence with Ms. Thao and the people who come here. The residence law has very clear provisions on legal accommodation and does not have a concept of real housing.
Mr. Tung determined that he did not use force or force to force the people of Nguyen Binh Khiem House 29 to leave this house. Tung said he took the children out of the house to ensure safety.
Furthermore, Mr. Tung said that Mr. Nguyen Hai Nam was not an accomplice. Because, Mr. Tung didn’t argue with Mr. Nam. He called Mr. Nam upstairs to see the room and rent it.
Mr. Nguyen Hai Nam defended himself in court – Photo: QD
District 1 has no authority to investigate
In defending the defendant Nguyen Hai Nam, the lawyer confirmed that his client did not commit crimes as alleged in the indictment.
According to the lawyer, Mr. Nam has never entered house number 29, Nguyen Binh Khiem, so there is no basis to determine that Mr. Nam has violated other people’s accommodation.
In addition, the defendant Nam’s lawyer proposed to prosecute the case of judicial violation against the police, District 1 Prosecutor’s Office. Because the police, the District 1 Prosecutor’s Office knows that Mr. Nam is a judge, deputy The President of the People’s Court District 4 Mr. Nam also worked for a long time in the District 1 People’s Court. In the above job records, this is shown. As a general rule, these bodies do not have the authority to initiate proceedings against Mr. Nam.
In self-defense, Mr. Nguyen Hai Nam said that he did not enter the house and did not commit offenses of infringing other people’s accommodation. Mr. Nam also said that he has self-esteem and does not take advantage of his image, name and profession.
Prosecuted when you didn’t know Mr. Nam was a judge?
Responding to the opinions of lawyers and defendants, the representative of VKS reserved the point of view of the prosecution and said that the impeachment is the right person and the right crime.
Regarding the authority to investigate, the VKS said that after the incident there was no document identifying Mr. Nam as a judge. The District 1 police also made a written request to the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court to provide documents proving that Mr. Nam was a judge.
Representatives of VKS responded to the lawyer and the accused – Photo: Q.Đ.
After identifying Mr. Nam as a judge, the police investigation agency of the District 1 Police sent a document to the Ho Chi Minh City Police regarding the transfer of the case to the investigating superior. Since then, the VKS determined that the process of investigation and prosecution of the case is in accordance with the regulations and the law.
The trial continues.
