Can Tho Court’s ruling on case involving Nguyen Ngoc Hien, Luqmanul Hakim Bin Waliyo

Monday, October 12, 2020 | 0:00:00

(VOVWORLD) - The Can Tho municipal People’s Court would like to inform the Court Decision no. 48/2020/HS-ST dated September 30, 2020.

On September 30, 2020, the Can Tho municipal People’s Court held a public trial session of case no.46/2020/TLST-HS dated August 3, 2020 between:

1. Defendant: Nguyen Ngoc Hien, born 1990. Address: 67 Cao Ba Quat street, An Lac ward, Ninh Kieu district, Can Tho city.

Occupation: Hired laborer

Academic education level: 9/12

Ethnicity: Kinh

Gender: male

Religion: none

Nationality: Vietnamese

The defendant is son of Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Nghia, born 1961 (alive) and Ms. Bui Thi Anh Hong, born 1961 (alive).

The defendant’s criminal record:

- A 9-month prison sentence, decided by the Ninh Kieu district People’s Court, Can Tho city on August 2, 2011 for the crime of property theft. Completed on December 24, 2011.

- A 5-year prison sentence, decided by the Ninh Kieu district People’s Court, Can Tho city on September 29, 2014 for the crime of deliberately inflicting injury. Completed on December 26, 2017.

The defendant was sent to a compulsory rehabilitation facility for illegal use of drugs at the Can Tho Drug Detention Camp on March 17, 2020.

2. Victim: Luqmanul Hakim Bin Waliyo (Absent)

Address: Lot 1370 JalanSempadan Kg Bkt Bangkong/Sg Pelek/Sepang/Selangor, Malaysia.

3. Related persons of rights and interests:

3.1 Mr. Ung Phung Hoang Hao, born 1987.

Address: 67 Cao Ba Quat street, An Lac ward, NinhKieu district, Can Tho city. (Present)

3.2 Mr. Truong Hong Thanh, born 1960.

Address: 47 Nam Ky Khoi Nghia street, Tan An ward, Ninh Kieu district, Can Tho city. (Absent)

3.3 Mr. Pham Sieu Nhan, born 1990.

Address: 30/43 Nguyen Minh Quang street, Nga Bay ward, Nga Bay town, Hau Giang province. (Absent)

CONTENT OF THE CASE:

According to documents and the court’s development, the case’s content is summarized as follows:

At around 22:00 on December 30, 2019, Nguyen Ngoc Hien came to room 202, Van Loc hotel at 76 Dong Khoi street, area 2, An Lac ward, Ninh Kieu district, Can Tho city, to look for his friend Nguyen Hoang Giau. After arriving at the room, Hien went out to buy food. At around 23:30, when returning to Van Loc hotel, Hien found out that room 210, rented by Malaysian tourist Luqmanul Hakim Bin Waliyo, was not locked. Mr. Waliyo was sleeping next to 1 blueish bag. Hien took the bag back home and checked inside the bag, found 1,900,000 VND, 31 Ringgit, 1 pair of Rayban glasses, 1 G Shock watch, 1 wallet containing 3 ATM cards, 1 visa card, 1 ID card, and 2 driving licenses (1 A1 driving license and 1 B2 driving license). Hien threw 1 cloth wallet, 3 ATM cards, ID card, and 2 driving licenses, into a trash can near his house, and took the money for personal spending and buying drugs, which costed him 300,000 VND. On the morning of December 31, 2019, Mr. Waliyo discovered that his property had been lost. He reported the incident to Ms. Dinh Thi My Huong, the hotel’s receptionist. Ms. Huong reported the incident to the An Lac ward police. Hien handed over to the investigation authorities 1,640,000 VND, 1 pair of Rayban glasses, 1 G Shock watch, 1 visa card, 1 brown wallet. (Hien gave 31 Ringgit for Mr. Ung Phung Hoang Hao, who exchanged the money for 153,000 VND with Mr. Truong Hong Thanh, owner of the Thanh Huong jewelry store at 47 Nam Ky Khoi Nghia street, Tan An ward, Ninh Kieu district, Can Tho city)

Through checking security camera at the Van Loc hotel, it is confirmed that Nguyen Ngoc Hien was the man who entered room 210 and stole the items on December 30, 2019.

In accordance with the report on property evaluation no. 02.KL.ĐGTS issued on March 17, 2020 by The Can Tho municipal Committee of asset evaluation in criminal proceedings, 1 G Shock watch’s value was 700,000 VND, 1 pair of Rayban glasses’ value was 100,000 VND.

In accordance with the Report on property evaluation no. 08/.KL.ĐGTS issued on July 23, 2020 by the Can Tho municipal Committee of asset evaluation in criminal proceedings, 1 brown wallet’s value was 80,000 VND.

In accordance with note no. 72/CTH-TH issued on February 4, 2020 by the State Bank of Vietnam, Can Tho branch, the exchange rate for 1 Malaysian Ringgit was 5,610.69 VND; 31 Ringgit was equal to 173,532 Vietnam VND.

The total value of property that Hien stole from Mr. Waliyo was 2,953,652 VND.

According to Hien’s testimony, a man who lived in Tan An market, Tan An ward, Ninh Kieu district, sold drugs for Hien. This information is under further investigation.

Mr. Ung Phung Hoang Hao was not guilty because he did not know that the 31 Ringgit Hien gave him was stolen property.

Mr. Truong Hong Thanh was not guilty because he did not know that the 31 Ringgit he exchanged was stolen property. Mr. Thanh already handed back the money unconditionally.

On January 1, 2020 Mr. Waliyo returned to Malaysia and is currently in Malaysia. He requested for his property back and Hien’s compensation. An amount of 407,000 VND was irretrievable.

In the Indictment no. 41/CT-VKS-P1 issued on July 30, 2020 by the Can Tho municipal People’s Procuracy, in accordance with Point g, Paragraph 2, Article 173 of the Criminal Code of Vietnam, Nguyen Ngoc Hien was prosecuted for the crime of “Property Theft.”

At the court:

The defendant admitted his action of stealing the victim’s property as stated in the Indictment. The defendant agreed to repaythe irretrievable amount of money for the victim. In his final words, the defendant asked for penalty mitigation.

According to the representative of the Can Tho municipal People’s Procuracy, there are sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant committed the crime of property theft. The prosecutor considered the danger level of the defendant’s actions and details to mitigate the defendant’s criminal responsibility. The prosecutor proposed an imprisonment penalty of 36 to 42 months, the defendant’s repayment of irretrievable money. The defendant’s phone would be returned to the defendant but temporarily seized for the court’s decision execution.

Based on evidence, debate results, and comprehensive consideration of opinions of the prosecutor, the defendant, and related persons,

THE COURT’S ASSUMPTION:

The activities and decisions of the Investigation authorities and the Procuracy were in accordance with regulations of the Procedure Code of Vietnam. The defendant, the legal guardian, and the attorney, had no complaint about the procedure.

The defendant’s testimony was in accordance with his testimony during the investigation process and the victim’s testimony. It was sufficient to conclude that the defendant appropriated the victim’s property at room 210 of the Van Loc hotel. The total value of appropriated property was 2,953,652 VND, enough to constitute the crime of property theft. The defendant had 2 criminal records. During the 2014 judgement, the Ninh Kieu district’s People’s Court applied circumstances of recidivism, the Can Tho municipal Procuracy’s proposal to prosecute the defendant for the crime of property theft was valid.

The defendant’s action was dangerous for the society, violated rights of property ownership, and harmed local security. The defendant, previously convicted with property ownership violation, acknowledged that stealing property was a crime but deliberately committed the crime. Therefore, it was necessary to impose a strict punishment, isolating the defendant from the society for a certain period to ensure deterrence, education, and society’s security.

The defendant enjoyed mitigating circumstances in accordance with Point s and h, Paragraph 1, Article 51 of the Vietnam Criminal Code because he was sincere during the investigation process and his crime did not cause major damage. The prosecutor’s proposal of a penalty of 36 to 42 months was within the penalty range, the defendant was under no aggravating circumstances and enjoyed various mitigating circumstances. The court considered to give the defendant a less severe penalty than proposed by the Procuracy.

In terms of civil responsibility:

The victim had the right to request for receiving his property back. The Procuracy’s Indictment confirmed the irretrievable amount of money was 407,000 VND. Through crosscheck, it was confirmed that the majority of the property taken by the defendant was returned. The irretrievable amount of money was 260,000 VND, which the defendant must pay the victim.

The court had no decision over the 31 Ringgit because Mr. Truong Hong Thanh returned the money unconditionally.

In terms of evidence handling: The Investigation authorities shall return the evidence as it is confirmed that they are the victim’s belongings. A MobistarB209 phone, confirmed to be the defendant’s property, shall be given to the defendant. However, as the defendant shall compensate the victim, the court approved the Procuracy’s proposal to seize the phone.

The defendant shall pay the criminal court fee and the civil court fee.

For the abovementioned assumption;

THE COURT’S JUDGMENTS WERE STATED AS FOLLOWED

- Nguyen Ngoc Hien was guilty of the crime “Property Theft”

- Legal basis: Point g, Paragraph 2, Article 173; Point h and s, Paragraph 51, Article 47, 48; Article 38 of the Vietnam Criminal Code; Aricle 106, Article 331, Article 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Resolution 326/2016/UBTVQH issued on June 21, 2016 by the Vietnam National Assembly Standing Committee.

- The penalty: Nguyen Ngoc Hien was sentenced for 30 months of imprisonment. The penalty period was counted from the date he was detained.

The defendant shall be imprisoned as soon as the court’s decision was announced.

- In terms of civil responsibility: The defendant shall pay the victim 260,000 VND.

- In terms of evidence handling: The victim shall receive 1 brown wallet, 1 pair of Rayban glasses, 1 G Shock watch, 1 RHB Bank Visa Card, 1 MobistarB209 phone (IMEI no. 352209021143095), 31 Malaysian Ringgit, and 1,640,000 VND.

- 1 MobistarB209 phone (IMEI no. 352209021143095) will be seized to ensure the defendant’s execution of his civil responsibility.

The defendant must pay the criminal trial court fee of 200,000 VND and the civil trial court fee of 300,000 VND.

Parties have the right to file an appeal within 15 days of the announcement of the court’s decision. For absent parties with lawful informing documents, the appeal deadline is counted from the day the court’s decision is delivered to them.

If the court’s decision is executed in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Code, the judgment debtor and judgment beneficiary can negotiate, request, volunteer, or force to enforce the court’s decision in accordance with Article 6,7, and 9 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Code. The statute of limitations for execution of the court’s decision is regulated by Article 30 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Code.