[ad_1]
In the decision to change the deterrent measures, the High Level People’s Court stated: Taking into account that the defendants Nguyen Van Lam and Pham Thi Quyet had clear addresses of residence, at the request of their sons, daughters-in-law and younger brothers, should they see? It is necessary to apply measures to avoid detention, it must be replaced by a bail measure. The two defendants also confirmed that they were released on bail after the family requested, pursuant to article 121 of the 2015 Code of Criminal Procedure.
He has suddenly been denounced by others after accusing Tang “Nhue”
Excited and quite surprised by the decision of the high-ranking People’s Court, Mr. Nguyen Van Lam said: “I felt like falling from the sky and believed that my wife and my case would be reviewed. I hope that the High Court will cancel the first instance sentence, release my partner in the appeals court. That the competent authorities re-investigate the entire case, starting from the moment “Nhue” took over the company, ruining many of our assets. “
In June 1919, Mr. Lan and Ms. Quyet were sentenced to 14 and 13 years in prison by the Thai Binh Province People’s Court for “abusing their confidence in the appropriation of property”. During the process of prosecution, prosecution and trial, both members of the same family repeatedly petitioned, alleging that they paid 900 million dong to the accuser, Mr. Do Van Toi, with a receipt. However, the related documents were lost after the grandparents of Lam Quyet Co., Ltd. were usurped and taken away by some “Nhue” group.
In the first trial, the Panel found that Mr. and his wife borrowed Mr. To’s money through two loan contracts, the collateral being a car, with the promise that this property could not be compromised. sell, mortgage, give to anyone during the loan period without Mr. Toi’s consent. However, when the debt was not paid, the defendants sold the car to others; at the same time, deceiving the reason why Mr. Nguyen Xuan Duong (also known as Duong “Nhue”) appropriated Lam Quyet Co., Ltd, resulting in the loss of the receipt. The trial of first instance identified the defendants guilty of a deliberate error to appropriate 900 million VND of the victim.
According to the records compiled by Thanh Nien, in 2017, Mr. Lam and Ms. Quyet obtained a loan of Duong “Nhue” of 1.7 billion dong. Then Duong “Nhue” recovered the debt, Mr. and his wife asked for alms, but this person did not agree and asked to sell Lam Quyet Co., Ltd. to cancel the debt. On October 3, 2017, when Mr. and his wife were away, Duong “Nhue” led the people to occupy Lam Quyet Co., Ltd. During that time, Duong “Nhue” repeatedly called and insulted Mr. and his wife. On October 16, 2017, Mr. Mang’s family filed a complaint denouncing Duong “Nhue” about acts of appropriation, dispersal, destruction of property, threats of murder and insults. On October 19, 1919, “Nhue” Road withdrew all people from Lam Quyet Co., Ltd. “When young” Nhue “from Tang retired, all of my company’s papers also disappeared, including many documents, documents , confirmation documents from my husband and wife, including Mr. Toi, “Quyet said.
|
Mr. Yin and Mrs. Quyet (center) when they were released on bail |
Change preventive measures when new details are discovered
In the event that the accused is at the trial stage as Mr. Lam, the court did not isolate Ms. Quyet to avoid bail. For example, in 2017, in the case of Truong Ho Phuong Nga and Nguyen Duc Thuy Dung, Mr. Cao Toan My was accused of cheating over 16 billion dong (the sentence framework was prosecuted from 12 to 20 years, imprisoned together). After the trial court returned the additional investigation file because the defendant complained, on the afternoon of June 29, 2017, according to the Panel’s proposal, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City decided to change the preventive measure. of arrest. On bail, prohibited from leaving the residence in Phuong Nga, Thuy Dung. The case was subsequently suspended from the investigation.
Warranty conditionsPeople who are 18 years of age or older, have good personalities, strictly abide by the law, have a stable income and have conditions to administer what is guaranteed, can accept guarantees for suspects and accused who are relatives I like, and in this case at least 2 people. The guarantor must make a written commitment certified by the authority of the commune, neighborhood or municipality where he resides or the agency or organization where he works or studies. In guarantee statements, agencies, organizations, and individuals accepting the guarantee must ensure that the defendant or defendants violate the obligations prescribed in Clause 3 of this Article. The agencies, organizations and individuals that accept the bond are informed of the details of the cases related to the bond. Warranties and warranted defendants must make a written commitment to meet obligations: – Present in the call, except for force majeure or objective obstacles; Article 121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2015 |
Regarding the change in the court’s deterrent measures, a prosecutor at the People’s Prosecutor’s Office in Ho Chi Minh City said the detention could apply to suspects and accused of particularly serious crimes. According to the press release, Mr. and his wife were prosecuted under the penalty of the highest sentence of 20 years in prison, which is a particularly serious crime. Therefore, for the court to change preventive measures from temporary detention to bail for particularly serious crimes, the Appeals Panel must discover circumstances that may change the nature of the case. At that time, the court will rely on article 121 of the 2015 Code of Criminal Procedure to decide whether or not to change the preventive measure.
Meanwhile, lawyer Ha Hai of the Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association said that although the first instance verdict was sentenced by Nguyen Van Lam and Pham Thi Quyet 14 and 13 years in prison, this sentence has not yet had legal effect. the defendant is not guilty In addition, the nature of the arrest is to prevent suspects and defendants from affecting or obstructing investigations and trials. However, if the appeal level uncovers new details, signs of injustice, and considers that the defendant has a place of residence and is not fleeing, preventive measures may be changed to reduce damages if a wrongful case arises, later.
[ad_2]
