Impersonating an officer of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, fraudulently settling complaints

The People’s Procuracy of Hanoi has completed the prosecution of defendant Vy Hong Tien (born in 1976, residing in Hong Giang commune, Luc Ngan district, Bac Giang province) on the crime of “fraudulent appropriation of property”. according to the provisions of Article 174, Clause 4, Point a – Penal Code 2015.

According to the prosecution’s indictment, Vy Hong Tien is a subject without a stable occupation. In 2017, through social relationships, Tien got to know Mr. Ly Minh Chanh (born in 1975, in Soc Trang) who is the Director of Vuong Heo Ty One Member Limited Liability Company (Vuong Pig Rat Company). . Tien intends to appropriate the money of the Company, so he introduced himself as working at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, capable of handling complaints in the production and slaughter of cattle. Mr. Chanh’s company. To create trust, Tien sent the concerned people a set of documents on the activities of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development via gmail to show that Tien is working at the Ministry.

Believing that Tien’s words were true, Mr. Chanh transferred VND 700 million to Tien to ask him to solve problems in the operation of the Company. After receiving the money, Tien met his friend, Mr. Nguyen Van Tien (born in 1981, worked at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development from 2005 to 2017). Tien gave Mr. Tien 400 million VND to ask him to solve problems for Mr. Chanh’s company. When giving money to Mr. Tien, Tien did not discuss, did not clarify the incident as well as the origin of the money to Mr. Tien. Due to not being able to solve the problem, then, Mr. Tien returned Tien the amount of 320 million VND and handed it back to the Investigation Agency the amount of 80 million VND.

The investigative agency determined, when he received an amount of 400 million VND given by Tien to help solve problems in cattle slaughter, Mr. Tien did not know the origin of this money. The results of the investigation determined that Mr. Tien did not discuss with Tien to appropriate Mr. Chanh’s money. After failing to solve the problem for Tien, Mr. Tien took the initiative to refund the money and did not benefit from this work. Because Mr. Tien’s behavior was not accomplice with Tien, the investigation agency did not mention handling.

After receiving the money, Tien did not refund Mr. Chanh but appropriated for personal use the entire amount of 620 million VND. Currently, Tien has not yet compensated and remedied the consequences for the victim in this case.

According to PV