Principal sentenced to 7 years in prison for 'embezzling' 10.7 million has been released on bail

On August 16, the People's Procuracy of Region 5 - Ca Mau decided to replace the measure of temporary detention with the measure of bail for Mr. Tran Van Tam - former Principal of Tam Giang Tay Secondary School (Tan An Commune, Ca Mau Province), accused of embezzling more than 10.7 million VND and sentenced to 7 years in prison at the first instance (the appeal court annulled the sentence and reinvestigated).

Teacher Tam (blue shirt) was released on bail on the afternoon of August 16.

According to the decision, the People's Procuracy of Region 5 found that Mr. Tam had paid to compensate for the consequences of the money he was accused of embezzling, had a good personal history, a clear address, and his family had applied for bail, so it was not necessary to apply temporary detention measures.

Previously, as Tien Phong reported, more than a month ago, the family filed a petition for bail for Mr. Tam. After the first instance verdict was overturned, Mr. Tam is still in detention, with a total detention time of nearly a year to date.

Previously, on May 6, the People's Court of Ca Mau province opened an appeal hearing and annulled the entire first instance sentence of 7 years in prison for embezzlement of more than 10.7 million VND against Mr. Tran Van Tam for reinvestigation.

The appellate court determined that during the investigation, prosecution, and trial, the first instance court did not record statements or bring the school's legal representative to participate in the proceedings to determine actual damages, which was a "procedural violation."

Evidence in the file shows that the defendant Tam bought materials and hired people to work with him to make products for the school (chairs, TV shelves, shelves). Thus, it is possible that he bought materials and made them himself, then had surplus materials and used them to make other products for the school in practice.

However, the court of first instance only based on the defendant's admission of using paid materials to make new products and using invoices without real finished goods for payment, thereby convicting the defendant of not having a solid enough basis and not being convincing.

Therefore, the appellate court found that it was necessary to evaluate all the products that the defendant had made, and compare them with the amount of money the school had spent (payment for materials and welding labor). Only then would there be enough solid evidence to conclude damages.