Ending the trillion-dollar divorce of Trung Nguyen coffee couple
The Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court disagreed with the proposal of the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy to review the cassation decision of the Judges’ Council of the Supreme People’s Court on the divorce of Trung Nguyen coffee couple.
The Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court opened a meeting to consider the proposal of the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy to review the cassation decision (of the Judges’ Council of the Supreme People’s Court) on the dispute. divorce between Ms. Le Hoang Diep Thao and Mr. Dang Le Nguyen Vu (Chairman of the Board of Directors cum General Director of Trung Nguyen Group).
Accordingly, after considering, the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court did not agree with the above recommendation of the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy.
According to the provisions of the 2015 Civil Code, with the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court disagreeing to consider the proposal of the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy, this divorce case is considered to be closed temporarily.
(In case the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court agrees with the recommendation of the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy, then the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court will hold a meeting to review its own previous cassation decision)
Previously, the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy proposed to the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court to reconsider and cancel its own cassation decision and two first-instance and appellate judgments in the division of common property, handing the City People’s Court over. Ho Chi Minh City re-trial.
Mr. Vu and Mrs. Thao with a trillion-dollar divorce from 2018 to now. Photo: PLO
The Procuracy’s recommendation to analyze the above judgments contained many errors. It was wrong for the first instance court to use expired certificates and reports on asset valuation of enterprises as the basis for asset division.
Valuation results are only based on financial statements, the list of assets given by Mr. Vu, not confirmed by Ms. Thao, so it needs to be re-valuated. The Court of Appeals ignored this.
The petition analyzes Ms. Thao as a businessman, asking to be divided into shares and contributed capital, but the courts at all levels divide her money, letting Mr. Vu hold all the shares, which is a violation of Ms. Thao’s right to do business. .
The decision of cassation to force Ms. Thao to terminate her normal business activities is inconsistent with the right to freedom of business, the equal rights of men and women enshrined in the Constitution and the principle of division of marital property in the Law on Marriage and Family. Family.
Regarding the judgment of the courts that if Ms. Thao continues to be a managing shareholder, Trung Nguyen Group’s operations will be difficult, affecting the stability and jobs for thousands of workers, VK said that “unfounded”.
The companies in dispute between Mr. Vu and his wife were established in 2006. After 8 years of marriage, the court divided Thao’s value by 20% less than her husband’s value (more than 1,400 billion VND) which is not guaranteed. benefits for her. In addition, the Procuracy also said that Thao, besides being a housewife, was also directly engaged in business, contributing to the creation of common property between husband and wife and the development of Trung Nguyen Group.
In the divorce dispute, the courts at all levels did not fully consider Mr. Vu’s responsibilities in performing the husband’s obligations under the Law on Marriage and Family. From there, it is necessary to increase the percentage of Ms. Thao’s assets divided, instead of only receiving 40% and Mr. Vu receiving 60% as ruled.
Before that, the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court had reviewed the “thousand billion” divorce case due to the protest of the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy. Appeal to cancel the first-instance and appellate judgments on the part of marriage and division of common property, handing over the file to the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City to re-trial from the beginning.
According to the cassation review, Mr. Vu has filed an application to withdraw the request to divide 70 billion in the account named after Mr. Le Hoang Van (brother of Thao). Because this is the decision of the parties, the Supreme People’s Court has corrected this part at the request of Mr. Vu. Other decisions of the judgment are upheld.
In December 2019, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City rejected the appeal of Ms. Thao and Mr. Vu. At the same time, the court accepted part of the previous appeal of the Procuracy.
Specifically, the court recognized the consent of the divorce between Ms. Thao and Mr. Vu. Regarding alimony, the court recognized Ms. Thao’s consent to raise four children. Mr. Vu supported 2.5 billion VND each child/year, from 2013 until each child finished university.
Regarding property, the court upheld the first-instance judgment. The first-instance judgment assigns Mr. Vu to own all shares in companies in Trung Nguyen Group and real estate.
Specifically, Mr. Vu is entitled to own all of his and Thao’s shares in the company of Trung Nguyen Group, equivalent to an amount of more than VND 5,700 billion.
Regarding real estate, the first instance court assigned Mr. Vu to own all six properties of house and land that Mr. Vu was managing and using, valued at VND 350 billion in Binh Thanh, Phu Nhuan, and Tan Binh districts. Ho Chi Minh City), Nha Trang (Khanh Hoa) and Buon Ma Thuot (Dak Lak).
As for Ms. Thao, the first instance level assigned to own a property block including eight properties with a total value of nearly 376 billion VND in districts 2, 3, 9 (HCMC) and Da Nang. At the same time, she assigned Thao to own assets and money, gold and foreign currencies in banks, totaling 1,764 billion VND.
Mr. Vu is responsible for paying the difference in assets for Ms. Thao nearly 1,224 billion VND. In addition, the appellate court noted his willingness to leave his assets at Trung Nguyen International Company Limited – TNI in Singapore to Ms. Thao.
Special procedure for reviewing decisions of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court The petition to review the decision of the Supreme People’s Court is a special procedure. This divorce and property dispute case has been heard by the People’s Court of the Supreme People’s Court according to cassation procedures, so the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy can no longer apply the protest procedure but must petition under Article 358 of the 2015 Civil Code. This is the case that the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy proposes when there is a basis to determine that the decision of the Supreme People’s Court of the Supreme People’s Court has seriously violated the law; or discover new important circumstances that may fundamentally change the content of the decision that the Supreme People’s Court and the involved parties could not have known when making that decision. Regarding procedures, Article 359 of the 2015 Civil Code stipulates that within one month from the date of receipt of the petition, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court must report and request the Supreme People’s Court to open a meeting to consider. The Council of the Supreme People’s Court discusses and votes by majority on whether to open a session or not. In case of disagreement with the recommendation, the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court must notify in writing and clearly state the reasons therefor to the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy. In case of consensus, the City Council decides to open a meeting to review the City Council’s decision with the participation of the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy. The meeting must be attended by all judges of the Supreme People’s Court. Regarding competence, Article 360 of the 2015 Civil Code stipulates: At the meeting, the Supreme People’s Court City Council considers that there has been a serious violation of the law or an important circumstance that has fundamentally changed the content of the decision, judgment, etc., which has been issued. will make one of the following three decisions: Firstly, annul the decision of the Supreme People’s Court, annul legally effective judgments and decisions, and decide on the content of the case. Second, cancel the decision of the Supreme People’s Court of the Supreme People’s Court, cancel the legally effective judgment or decision. At the same time, determining the responsibility of the Supreme People’s Court to compensate for damage whose serious law violation decision was canceled due to unintentional or willful error and causing damage to the involved parties or determining the liability to reimburse the property value. according to regulations of the Law. Third, cancel the decision of the Supreme People’s Court, cancel the legally effective judgment or decision to hand over the case file to the lower court for settlement in accordance with the law. The decision of the City Council of the Supreme People’s Court must be approved by at least 3/4 of the total number of members of the Supreme People’s Court. |
According to the Law of Ho Chi Minh City
at Blogtuan.info – Source: 2sao.vn – Read the original article here
