Mr. Nguyen Cao Tri (born in 1970, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Van Lang Company) is known as the owner of two ecosystems including Capella Group with 28 subsidiaries operating in the fields of real estate, hotel and restaurant business... and Van Lang Education Group with 7 member units, operating in the fields of education.
In the above two ecosystems, the central role is played by two parent companies: Van Lang Education Investment and Management Joint Stock Company and Capella Group Joint Stock Company.
According to the testimony of Ms. Truong My Lan (Chairwoman of Van Thinh Phat Group), she knew Mr. Tri since around 2017, through an acquaintance named Ho Quoc Minh. During the acquaintance, Ms. Lan agreed with Mr. Tri to invest in buying shares of some of Mr. Tri's companies and projects.
Specifically, buying shares of Industrial Rubber Company (paid 21.25 million USD); Hai Ha project, Quang Ninh (paid 9.5 million USD); Saigon Dai Ninh project (paid 20 million USD).
The two sides then agreed on investments totaling 1,000 billion VND. To secure this 1,000 billion VND, Mr. Tri carried out procedures to transfer 10% of the charter capital of Van Lang Company (Ms. Lan did not stand in her name but let Mr. Ho Quoc Minh stand in his name to own the shares as designated by Ms. Lan; this was agreed upon with Mr. Tri).
Ms. Lan confirmed that Mr. Tri still holds the above 1,000 billion VND. For his part, Mr. Tri used the above amount of money to buy shares, stocks, small real estate in Ho Chi Minh City, and pay for the Saigon Silicon project...
It is worth mentioning that after Ms. Truong My Lan was prosecuted and temporarily detained, on October 21 and 22, 2022, Mr. Tri directed his assistant to draft documents to adjust prices and liquidate all contracts to transfer 10% of Van Lang Company's charter capital signed according to the agreement with Ms. Lan.
The documents were all created forged, validating the transaction date. Mr. Tri then completed the documents and completed the procedures to confirm the transfer of the above 10% charter capital from Ho Quoc Minh to Nguyen Cao Duc (Mr. Tri's younger brother) and Tran Le Diep Thuy (accountant of Van Lang Company).
Next, Mr. Tri made an appointment to meet Mr. Minh and asked him to sign the documents to liquidate the contract to transfer 10% of the charter capital of Van Lang Company and the liquidation of the investment trust contract of 31.22% of the charter capital of Industrial Rubber Company.
The investigation agency (IA) believes that Mr. Tri arbitrarily created and completed the documents to liquidate the transfer contract and liquidate the investment trust contract worth 1,000 billion VND, without discussing with Ms. Lan, in order to eliminate the ownership of 10% of the charter capital of Van Lang Company, to appropriate the amount of 1,000 billion VND received from Ms. Lan.
Initially, at the investigation agency, Mr. Tri denied receiving 1,000 billion VND from Ms. Lan and denied having any economic relationship with the female tycoon. Mr. Tri even asserted that Ms. Lan had slandered and defamed his reputation.
However, Mr. Tri's "lie" was assessed by the investigation agency as showing his intention to take possession of Ms. Lan's property to the end.
For her part, Ms. Lan filed a petition to clarify and handle Mr. Tri's behavior in appropriating her money, requesting the recovery of the above 1,000 billion VND to resolve according to the provisions of law.
On January 15, 2013, after being prosecuted for the crime of " Abuse of trust to appropriate property ", Mr. Tri confessed to his crime. The defendant submitted a petition asking his family to pay compensation. Mr. Tri's family paid more than 640 billion VND into the temporary account of the Investigation Agency.
Regarding Mr. Ho Quoc Minh, he has not yet entered Vietnam; the investigation results do not have enough documents and evidence to prove the relationship and role between Mr. Minh and Mr. Tri in appropriating 1,000 billion VND from Ms. Lan. Therefore, the Investigation Agency believes that there is not enough basis to determine Mr. Minh's responsibility.
According to the Investigation Police Agency, in addition to the 86 defendants proposed for prosecution in this case, there are a number of individuals whose related acts and violations are at different levels; there are individuals or acts that do not constitute a crime or do not have sufficient grounds to consider criminal liability, not to the extent of criminal prosecution or exemption from criminal liability.
Based on the nature and extent of the violation, based on the Party and State's policies and laws, the Investigation Agency concluded and issued a written recommendation to the competent authorities to strictly handle the violation in accordance with the regulations of the Party and the Government.
From the causes and conditions leading to the criminal acts of the defendants in the case, the loopholes and shortcomings in state management and in related legal documents, the Investigation Agency will make recommendations to relevant state management agencies to overcome and recommend supplementing and amending legal provisions accordingly.
Source
Comment (0)