3 men won the jackpot and the tragedy sued their friends to court for billions

Friendship ended because 2 tickets won the jackpot

On October 6, 2015, while drinking with a group of friends, Mr. Nguyen Hoang Tuan (SN 1989, Bac Lieu) bought 5 tickets of 10,000 VND. After that, Tuan gave 5 sheets to Lam Van Vui (SN 1985, same hometown) to keep. Gladly took Tuan’s 5 lottery tickets and put them in his pocket and continued drinking.

The next day, Vui brought 200 million dong to Mr. Tuan but did not say why. When he learned that 2 out of 5 tickets won a special prize with a total value of up to 3 billion VND, Tuan asked Vui to pay half of the winning amount, but he did not pay, so Tuan sent an application to the investigation agency.

At the first instance hearing, thinking that Tuan gave you 5 lottery tickets was a “gift contract” case, so the People’s Court of Gia Rai town rejected his lawsuit. Mr. Tuan filed an appeal because he disagreed with the above decision.

Tuan was happy to receive back the winning amount of VND 1.35 billion from Vui.

According to the Appellate Court, the evidence shows that the 5 drinking friends in the group of the litigants knew that Mr. Tuan bought a lottery ticket and then gave it to Mr. Vui to keep it, so he accepted the lawsuit and appealed by Mr. .

The court declared that defendant Vui must pay the plaintiff 1.35 billion dong (equal to the value of the 1.5 billion prize ticket after deducting taxes).

The old man who bought the bottles and his wife and his drinking friends “failed to face” because the lottery ticket won 2 billion dong

On August 12, 2017, Mr. Le Van Du (born in 1968, Ca Mau) went to the house of Mr. and Mrs. Ngo Van Hau and Mrs. Hua Thi Phi to eat and drink. At this time, due to acquaintance, Mr. Tan accepted to sell ticket number 739607 issued by Hau Giang XSKT to Mr. Du.

The next day, Mr. Du continued to go to Mr. Hau’s house to eat and drink. He met Mr. Tan again, immediately paid for the lottery ticket and asked for help with the results of yesterday’s lottery ticket. After that, he broke down when he heard that he had won the jackpot, but because he was too drunk, he could only say “okay” and fell asleep.

When he was sober, Mr. Du knew that the lottery ticket had been taken by Mrs. Phi to receive the prize. He was divided by Mrs. Phi for 8 million dong because she said that the lottery ticket won only a consolation prize worth 50 million dong.

2 days later, Mr. Du knew that the lottery ticket had won the jackpot, not the consolation prize as Mrs. Phi said, so he sued the court to claim it back. In August 2018, at the first instance hearing, the People’s Court of Ca Mau City declared Mr. Du the owner of the lottery ticket, and asked the bank to freeze 1.5 billion dong of the bonus that Ms. Phi was sending, the remaining 500 million dong was lost. used by Mrs. Phi.

Mr. Du accepted to split the prize.

Disagreeing, Ms. Phi continued to appeal. At the appellate session, through the evidence and arguments given by the two sides, the jury declared a partial revision of the first-instance judgment, forcing the two parties to split the award, Mr. Du accepted this ruling.

The couple dragged each other to court because of the jackpot ticket worth 3.6 billion

At the end of December 2017, Mr. Ho Thanh Tam (SN 1968) and Mr. To Van Minh (SN 1955) – two close friends living in Tan Thanh Tay (HCMC) invited each other to eat a family dinner. in the commune. Here, a friend invited Mr. Tam to buy 2 lottery tickets. He immediately took out 20,000 dong to pay it back, but gave it to Mr. Minh to keep it and said: “Give it to me to keep, I will win a newspaper in the afternoon”.

Mr. Minh took two lottery tickets and put them in his pocket and left. In the afternoon of the same day, after learning that two lottery tickets won a special prize worth nearly 4 billion VND, Mr. Tam and a friend went to Mr. Minh’s house to report the news in the hope that they could receive two lottery tickets. However, Mr. Minh said the lottery ticket did not win.

Unable to claim the ticket, Mr. Tam sued Mr. Minh to return the amount of nearly 4 billion VND. During the settlement of the case, Mr. Minh believed that the lottery ticket he kept did not win the prize, so he did not agree to pay as required to sue.

In December 2019, the first-instance trial took place. Mr. Minh did not admit that the two lottery tickets that Mr. Tam gave him to keep won the special prize. But the lottery ticket seller confirmed at the investigation agency that two lottery tickets won the special prize. Therefore, there are enough grounds to determine that the two lottery tickets that Mr. Tam gave Mr. Minh won the special prize. After deducting the expenses for receiving the bonus, the remaining real value is 3.6 billion VND.

At the appellate court hearing, Mr. Minh and Mr. Tam were absent and authorized other people to attend the trial.

The People’s Court of Cu Chi District – the first instance said: “Mr. Tam and Mr. Minh are close friends, because Mr. Tam gave Mr. Minh two lottery tickets and then won a special prize. Mr. Tam’s will shows that if he wins the lottery, each person will receive half. Because Mr. Minh did not agree to return the lottery ticket, Mr. Tam sued for 3.6 billion VND.

From there, the trial panel declared to partially accept the plaintiff’s claim, forcing the defendant to return 1.8 billion dong to the plaintiff (the value of a winning lottery ticket). But Mr. Minh did not accept the judgment of the first instance court and decided to appeal to the appellate level.

On May 26, 2020, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City opened an appellate hearing for the “dispute to reclaim property” between Mr. Minh and Mr. Tam. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were absent and authorized another person to attend the trial.

Before the trial, Mr. Tam’s side appealed against the first-instance judgment, but at the argument part, he suddenly withdrew his appeal. Meanwhile, Mr. Minh’s side still maintained his appeal request, not accepting the return of 1.8 billion VND to Mr. Tam according to the first-instance judgment announced.

The trial panel said that the plaintiff’s claim that there were two winning lottery tickets based on the testimony of Mr. Tam’s friend and the lottery ticket seller was groundless.

The chairman of the appellate session said, verifying the list of 9 special prize winners at that time did not have Mr. Minh’s name on it. At the same time, based on the testimony between the representative of the plaintiff and the defendant, the trial panel found that there was no evidence to prove that the two lottery tickets that Mr. Minh kept won the special prize.

Therefore, the trial panel decided to suspend the plaintiff’s appeal. At the same time, the court accepted the defendant’s appeal and corrected the first-instance judgment. Accordingly, the court declared that Mr. Minh did not have to pay the amount requested by the plaintiff.