According to initial expectations, the appeal trial of the rescue flight case will take place on December 20. But on December 13, the state-controlled media reported that the Higher People’s Court in Hanoi issued a notice, rescheduling the appeal date of 21 people in the rescue flight case, from December 20 to December 25, for “objective reasons.”
The appeal trial of 21 defendants is expected to last for 4 days, with about 30 lawyers registered to participate in the defense. Among the 21 appellants, there are 2 defendants claiming innocence: Hoang Van Hung – former Head of Department 5, former main investigator in the first phase of the “rescue flight case” belonging to the Security Investigation Agency, Ministry of Public Security – was sentenced to life imprisonment in the first instance; and defendant Tran Minh Tuan (Director of Thai Hoa Construction Joint Stock Company), received a first-instance sentence of 18 years in prison.
The remaining 19 people appealed to have their sentences reduced, and 33 people did not appeal. These former officials were all convicted of “receiving bribes.”
At the first instance trial, as well as throughout the investigation process, according to the Trial Council, Hoang Van Hung always declared that he did not commit the crime of property appropriation fraud as alleged. In court, Hoang Van Hung – with experience in investigative operations – repeatedly proposed and challenged the prosecution agency. Hung requested the prosecution agency to present evidence to prove that Hung received money from Nguyen Anh Tuan, former Deputy Director of Hanoi Police Department, to prosecute the couple of General Director and Deputy General Director of Bau Troi Xanh Co.
For that reason, defendant Hoang Van Hung was accused by the Trial Council of being “stubborn” and not sincere in his testimony, so he was sentenced to life in prison, exceeding the limit recommended by the Procuracy. Previously, the Procuracy said that Hung did not honestly declare and refused to return the money he illegally obtained, so he recommended a sentence of 19-20 years in prison.
As a reminder, on the afternoon of July 21, in his final statement, before the court moved to deliberations, defendant Hoang Van Hung still affirmed his innocence, and also said, “trust the Trial Council to have a thorough and objective analysis to make the most accurate and legally compliant judgment for the defendant.”
At the first instance trial, defendant Hoang Van Hung repeatedly affirmed that he only received a briefcase containing four bottles of wine and absolutely no money in it. At the same time, he requested the Procuracy to present evidence in the briefcase containing $450,000 as concluded by the Trial Council. Furthermore, defendant Hung also proposed to prosecute defendant Nguyen Anh Tuan, former Deputy Director of Hanoi Police, for slander. Former investigator Hung also said that the Procuracy approved the decision to prosecute him without evidence, and he himself did not have any testimony.
Meanwhile, the Procuracy firmly believes that the prosecution has enough grounds to determine that defendant Hung committed a crime, but did not honestly declare, refused to return the money for illegal benefits, and requested sentence from 19 to 20 years in prison.
Some experts in the field of justice in Vietnam have commented that, in Vietnam, there are currently many people who are convicted of crimes and must be imprisoned, even though the evidence of their crimes is absent, or very weak, not convincing enough.
That is why, after the first instance trial of the “rescue flight” case, public opinion and legal experts asked the question “What scenario is there when the Trial Council does not have enough evidence to convict the former investigator Hoang Van Hung?”
Unexpectedly, Tuoi Tre newspaper reported on December 23, “Former investigator Hoang Van Hung suddenly pleaded guilty, admitting to have received VND18.8 billion.”
Accordingly, on December 23, defendant Hoang Van Hung’s lawyer said that defendant Hung had just submitted an application to the court to plead guilty, and at the same time asked his relatives and friends to pay VND18.8 billion on his behalf to overcome the consequences of the case. At the same time, defendant Hoang Van Hung also filed a request to be tried in absentia.
According to observers, this is an unexpected development. That also means that the parties involved have reached an agreement that is most beneficial for defendant Hoang Van Hung, while also saving the honor and reputation of the judiciary and the police.
According to lawyer Dang Dinh Manh, who participated in defending cases against many political dissidents in Vietnam, the case of defendant Hoang Van Hung is an interesting challenge for Vietnam’s current court.
Lawyer Dang Dinh Manh said, “With my inner belief, it is difficult for me to think that Mr. Hoang Van Hung is innocent. However, the court cannot judge or accuse a person based on inner beliefs, but must have clear, accurate, legally collected evidence. If we must speculate, then there is only one speculation that is acceptable by law, which is the presumption of innocence.”
Again, according to experts, the general concept of world law is that it is better to let a criminal slip than to be wrongly or unjustly arrested; There must be clear evidence to be able to convict. But in Vietnam, it’s the opposite, that is, they are willing to “catch a mistake rather than miss it and focus more on evidence than evidence“.
Thoibao.de (Translated)
