CASE LAW NO. 57/2023/AL On Deceptive Acts to Acquire Property in the Crime of “Robbery by Snatching” (Please note that this image is not related to the specific case being discussed).

CASE LAW NO. 57/2023/AL

On Employing Deceitful Tactics to Acquire Property in the Crime of “Robbery by Snatching“

Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on February 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd, 2023, and published under Decision No. 39/QĐ-CA on February 24^th, 2023, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

The Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 590/2020/HS-PT dated December 18^th, 2020, by the Hồ Chí Minh City People’s Court concerning the case of “Robbery by Snatching” involving the defendant Nguyễn Thành Quốc B.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraph 4 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Case Background:

The defendant used deceptive tactics to have the property manager transfer the property to him, then took advantage of the manager’s lack of vigilance to quickly escape.

– Legal Resolution:

In this case, the defendant must be criminally prosecuted for the crime of “Robbery by Snatching.”

Relevant Legal Provisions:

Article 171 of the 2015 Penal Code (as amended and supplemented in 2017).

Keywords:

“Robbery by Snatching”; “Deceptive tactics to acquire property.”

CASE DETAILS

According to the documents in the case file and the developments at the trial, the case details are summarized as follows:

Due to a lack of spending money, Nguyễn Thành Quốc B conceived the idea of Robbery by Snatching. B purchased several promotional phone SIM cards, created an account on an online sales application, and ordered an iPhone 11. To execute the crime, B also prepared several bundles of money (each bundle had one real note on the top and one real note on the bottom, with denominations ranging from VND 50,000 to VND 500,000, and the middle filled with joss paper, all tied together with rubber bands).

When meeting the delivery person to receive the goods, B would take out the prepared bundles from his crossbody bag to show the delivery person, building their trust, then put them back in the bag. After checking the goods, B would place the package on the footrest of his Lead motorbike with license plate 59L1-88433, then take out the prepared bundle from his bag to hand over to the delivery person.

Taking advantage of the moment when the delivery person was removing the rubber band to check the money, B would accelerate and drive away to seize the mobile phone.

The investigation determined that Nguyễn Thành Quốc B committed five specific property appropriation cases as follows:

Case 1:

In early January 2020, Nguyễn Thành Quốc B used the phone number 0563667801 to register an account on the e-commerce site L under the name Trần Thanh T1 and ordered a purple 128GB Apple iPhone 11, priced at VND 22,017,700, to be delivered to the address 158/A49 P Street, H Ward, T District, Hồ Chí Minh City.

At about 4 p.m. on January 11^th, 2020, B received a call from Phạm Ngọc T (a delivery staff of S Company) tasked with delivering order number S60RT0000206084VN containing one purple 128GB Apple iPhone 11, IMEI: 356571101877587. B rode his Honda Lead motorbike, license plate 59L1-88433, to the above address to wait for Mr. T.

Upon Mr. T’s arrival, B requested to inspect the package first, but Mr. T refused. Subsequently, B told Mr. T to wait while he went to fetch a truck for family goods and would return shortly. About three minutes later, B came back and agreed to receive the package. Mr. T handed the package to B, and B handed a nylon bundle containing money (two real VND 200,000 notes on the top and bottom, with joss paper in between) that had been prepared earlier for Mr. T to inspect. B had bought this bundle beforehand.

B used rubber bands to tie the bundle, wrapped it in a nylon bag, and then used white tape to wrap several layers outside the bundle. While Mr. T was opening the nylon bag to check the money, B unlocked his motorbike and pretended to look for the truck at the alley entrance. Before Mr. T could react, B quickly rode off on his motorbike to escape.

That evening, B posted the seized mobile phone for sale on the Internet, providing the phone number 0938355534 for potential buyers to contact. Two days later, a young man (identity unknown) contacted to purchase the phone for VND 18,000,000. B agreed and arranged to meet the buyer in front of Đ Park, A Ward, M District, to deliver the phone. As for the SIM card 0563667801, B discarded it along the way (exact location unknown). B spent all the proceeds for personal expenses.

According to the Property Valuation Report No. 941/KL-HĐĐGTS-TTHS dated May 27^th, 2020, by the Property Valuation Council in criminal proceedings of Tân Phú District, one purple 128GB Apple iPhone 11, IMEI: 356571101877587, was valued at VND 22,310,000.

Case 2:

On January 20^th, 2020, Nguyễn Thành Quốc B used a Redmi phone to place an order on T.com for one iPhone 11 Pro Max, 256GB, Gold, priced at VND 37,990,000. B provided the buyer’s information as Hoàng Anh T2, contact number 0563667873, and the delivery address at No. 04 L Street, N Ward, T District.

At around 1:30 p.m. on January 21^st, 2020, Mr. Nguyễn Lê Thanh D (a delivery staff from Joint Stock Company T) brought one iPhone 11 Pro Max, 256GB, Gold, IMEI: 353923106182211 from the store to deliver to B at No. 04 L Street, N Ward, T District, and collect VND 37,990,000.

Upon arrival, Mr. D met B, who was riding a Lead motorbike, license plate 59L1-88433, in front of No. 4 L Street, N Ward, T District. B asked Mr. D to move to No. 07 L Street, N Ward, T District to avoid blocking a truck. In front of No. 07 L Street, N Ward, T District, D handed B one sealed iPhone 11 Pro Max, 256GB, Gold, IMEI: 353923106182211.

Concurrently, B handed Mr. D a bundle of 150 VND 50,000 notes, asking Mr. D to count them. B placed the phone box on the footrest of the Lead motorbike and unlocked the bike. While Mr. D was counting the money, B quickly accelerated and fled with the phone. Mr. D chased on foot but failed to catch B, then reported the incident to the Police of Phú Thạnh Ward.

B sold the phone to Mr. Lưu Thành N (owner of N Mobile Shop at 31/15 U Street, G Ward, T District) for VND 31,500,000. Since Mr. N had no cash, he transferred the money from his V Bank account (account number: 0721000616605) to B’s C Bank account (account number: 10236697). B spent all the proceeds on personal expenses.

According to the Property Valuation Report No. 763/KL-HĐĐGTS-TTHS dated April 29^th, 2020, by the Property Valuation Council in criminal proceedings of Tân Phú District, one iPhone 11 Pro Max, 256GB, was valued at VND 37,990,000.

Case 3:

On January 28^th, 2020, B used a Redmi phone to place an order on C.com.vn for one iPhone 11 Pro Max, 256GB, priced at VND 34,990,000. B provided the recipient’s information as Hoàng Anh T2, contact number 0563667873, and the delivery address at No. 04 L Street, N Ward, T District.

At around 2:40 p.m. on January 29^th, 2020, Mr. Trần Anh Mr. T3 (a staff member of C Mobile Shop) arrived at No. 04 L Street, N Ward, T District, and met B. Mr. T3 handed B one sealed iPhone 11 Pro Max, 256GB, Green, IMEI: 353923106193341. B inspected the phone box and asked Mr. T3 about its usage and condition. B then suggested moving across the street to avoid blocking a truck.

B placed the phone box on the footrest of the Lead motorbike, unlocked the bike, and pushed it with his foot while Mr. T3 walked alongside. At No. 07 L Street, N Ward, T District, B handed Mr. T3 a bundle of 50 VND 50,000 notes, asking Mr. T3 to count them.

While Mr. T3 was counting, B took out a bundle of money prepared earlier (with one VND 500,000 note on top, 100 joss paper notes in the middle, and one VND 100,000 note at the bottom) and threw it towards Mr. T3, then quickly started the bike and fled. Mr. T3 chased but could not catch B and reported the incident to the Police of Phú Thạnh Ward.

Subsequently, B sold the phone to Mr. Lưu Thành N (owner of N Mobile Shop at 31/15 U Street, G Ward, T District) for VND 31,000,000. Since Mr. N had no cash, he transferred the money from his V Bank account (account number: 0721000616605) to B’s C Bank account (account number: 10236697). B spent all the proceeds on personal expenses.

According to the Property Valuation Report No. 763/KL-HĐĐGTS-TTHS dated April 29^th, 2020, by the Property Valuation Council in criminal proceedings of Tân Phú District, one iPhone 11 Pro Max, 256GB, was valued at VND 34,990,000.

Case 4:

On January 29, 2020, B used a Redmi phone to log into the K online shopping application to order one iPhone 11 Pro Max, 256GB, priced at VND 35,990,000. B provided the recipient’s information as Tô Hoàng G, contact number 0563667801, and the delivery address at 46 T Street, E Ward, T District.

At approximately 2:00 p.m. on January 30^th, 2020, Mr. Trần Huệ C went to the K company’s warehouse to collect an order of one iPhone 11 Pro Max, 256GB, Gold, IMEI: 353909101879836, for delivery to the customer named Tô Hoàng G, with a cash-on-delivery amount of VND 35,990,000.

At around 5:00 p.m. on the same day, Mr. C arrived at the delivery address, No. 46 T Street, E Ward, T District. Mr. C called the number 0563667801 and spoke to B, who instructed Mr. C to change the delivery location to No. 86 M Street, E Ward, T District, citing the crowded street at No. 46 T Street, E Ward, T District.

Upon arriving at No. 86 M Street, E Ward, T District, B approached on a Lead motorbike, license plate 59L1-88433. Mr. C handed B the package to inspect. B unsealed the package and confirmed that it contained one sealed iPhone 11 Pro Max, as per the order. B then claimed insufficient funds and asked Mr. C to wait while B went to withdraw additional money, returning the phone box to Mr. C. B left for five minutes and then returned. B sat on the Lead motorbike in front of Mr. C’s vehicle, prompting Mr. C to bring the package to B for a final inspection.

B placed the phone box in a yellow nylon bag hung on the front hook of the motorbike, took out two prepared bundles of cash, one containing 27 VND 50,000 notes, and the other with one VND 500,000 note on top, joss paper notes in the middle, and one VND 500,000 note at the bottom, and handed the VND 50,000 bundle to Mr. C for counting. While Mr. C was counting, B quickly unlocked the bike, started the engine, and fled towards H Street. Mr. C chased but failed to catch B and reported the incident to the Police of Hiệp Tân Ward.

Subsequently, B sold the stolen phone to Ms. Ms. Lê Hoàng L, an employee at N Mobile Shop (31/15 U Street, G Ward, T District), for VND 31,000,000. Ms. L transferred VND 26,000,000 from T Bank account (account number: 19021002760019) to B’s T Bank account (account number: 19033815560015) and gave B an additional VND 5,000,000 in cash. B spent all the proceeds on personal expenses.

According to the Property Valuation Report No. 763/KL-HĐĐGTS-TTHS dated January 30^th, 2020, by the Property Valuation Council in criminal proceedings of Tân Phú District, one iPhone 11 Pro Max, 256GB, was valued at VND 35,990,000.

Case 5:

At approximately 4:00 p.m. on February 4^th, 2020, B used a Redmi phone to log into the L online shopping application and ordered one iPhone 11 Pro Max, Green, 512GB, priced at VND 44,001,000. B provided the buyer’s information as Tô Hoàng G, contact number 0563667873, and the delivery address at No. 04 L Street, N Ward, T District.

At around 8:00 a.m. on February 5^th, 2020, Mr. Trần Thế V (a delivery staff member) collected an order (order number LRT0002895925, item Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max with 18W fast charger), with a cash-on-delivery amount of VND 44,001,000, for delivery to Tô Hoàng G, contact number 0563667873, at No. 04 L Street, N Ward, T District. Mr. V called 0563667873 and spoke to B, who agreed to receive the delivery in the morning. At around 10:50 a.m. the same day, Mr. V called B, informing him that he had arrived at the delivery location.

B instructed Mr. V to wait. B arrived on a Lead motorbike, license plate 59L1-88433, in front of No. 07 L Street, N Ward, T District, where V was waiting. B took out two prepared bundles of cash, one containing one VND 500,000 note on top, joss paper notes in the middle, and one VND 100,000 note at the bottom, and the other containing various denominations from VND 50,000 to VND 500,000. B showed the money to V to gain his trust.

Mr. V then handed B the package (order number LRT0002895925, item Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max with 18W fast charger) and requested payment before inspection. B refused and insisted on inspecting the goods first, causing Mr. V to call the company for advice.

While V was distracted, B placed the package on the footrest of the Lead motorbike, unlocked the bike, and suggested pushing the bike to the curb to continue the transaction. B then suddenly started the engine and fled. Mr. V shouted and chased on foot but could not catch B. B drove through several streets and stopped opposite 1446 S Street, A Ward, T District, where he tore off the L Company’s delivery packaging, finding a sealed iPhone 11 Pro Max box labeled MWHR2VN/A; iPhone 11 Pro Max, Midnight Green, 512GB, serial No: FK1ZJ1G5N715; IMEI: 35392525102781896, sealed by FPT.

B sold the stolen phone to Ms. Lê Hoàng L at N Mobile Shop (31/15 U Street, G Ward, T District) for VND 33,500,000. Ms. L transferred the amount from T Bank account (account number: 19021002760019) to B’s T Bank account (account number: 19033815560015). B has since surrendered this amount to the Tân Phú District Police Investigation Department.

According to the Property Valuation Report No. 763/KL-HĐĐGTS-TTHS dated April 29^th, 2020, by the Property Valuation Council in criminal proceedings of Tân Phú District, one iPhone 11 Pro Max, green, 512GB, was valued at VND 43,990,000.

In the First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 111/2020/HS-ST dated August 27^th, 2020, the People’s Court of Tân Phú District, Hồ Chí Minh City, rendered the following decision:

Pursuant to points c, d Clause 2 Article 171; point b, s Clause 1 Article 51; and point g Clause 1 Article 52 of the Penal Code 2015, the defendant Nguyễn Thành Quốc B was declared guilty of “Robbery by Snatching.” The court sentenced Nguyễn Thành Quốc B to six years of imprisonment, with the prison term commencing on February 6^th, 2020.

The judgment further addressed civil liability, disposal of exhibits, court fees, and the rights of appeal for the defendant and other participants in the proceedings.

On September 25^th, 2020, the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Hồ Chí Minh City filed Appellate Appeal No. 46/QĐ-VKS-P7 against the aforementioned First-instance Judgment, requesting that the defendant Nguyễn Thành Quốc B be charged with “Theft by False Pretense” under points b, c Clause 2 Article 174 of the Penal Code 2015, as amended and supplemented in 2017.

At the appellate trial, the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Hồ Chí Minh City, after analyzing the nature, extent, and consequences of the criminal act committed by the defendant, argued that the transactions between defendant B and the victims involved the exchange of money and property after the defendant used deceitful tactics. These tactics led the victims to mistakenly believe that the money given by B was genuine, thereby inducing them to hand over their goods, which B appropriated, totaling VND 175,270,000.

Furthermore, the representative highlighted that the defendant committed five consecutive acts of appropriation, lacked legitimate employment, and relied on the proceeds from selling the appropriated property as his main source of livelihood, thus constituting a professional crime.

Therefore, the representative proposed that the Trial Panel accept Appellate Appeal No. 46/QĐ-VKS-P7 dated September 25, 2020, filed by the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Hồ Chí Minh City, amend the First-instance Judgment, and convict defendant Nguyễn Thành Quốc B of “Theft by False Pretense” under points b, c Clause 2 Article 174 of the Penal Code, with the same penalty as pronounced by the first-instance court.

The defendant neither self-defended nor participated in the debate. In his final words, the defendant requested a reduction in the sentence.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] According to the contents of the case and the documents therein, as examined during the trial, the Trial Panel issues the following assessment:

[2] The Appellate Appeal No. 46/QĐ-VKS-P7 dated September 25^th, 2020, filed by the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Hồ Chí Minh City within the statutory time limit, is deemed valid and falls within the appellate court’s jurisdiction.

[3] Based on the defendant Nguyễn Thành Quốc B’s confession during the appellate trial, supplemented by the case documents and evidence, it is established that from early January 2020 to February 4th, 2020, Nguyễn Thành Quốc B engaged in a scheme involving promotional SIM cards to create accounts on online sales platforms. He would order high-value phones, deceiving victims by presenting cash bundles containing only two real banknotes at the top and bottom, with joss paper money in between, secured by a rubber band.

While the victims were distracted counting the money, B would abscond with the goods, successfully appropriating property from five victims totaling VND 175,270,000.

[4] Regarding the aforementioned Appellate Appeal No. 46/QĐ-VKS-P7 dated September 25^th, 2020, the Trial Panel determines that Nguyễn Thành Quốc B’s actions constituted “Robbery by Snatching”. Exploiting deceptive tactics, B gained the victims’ trust to access their property during the delivery of goods and receipt of payment. The property had not been fully transferred to B, as evidenced by the absence of signed delivery documents and the continued control of the property by the victims at the time of B’s flight.

Consequently, the First-instance Judgment No. 111/2020/HSST dated August 27^th, 2020, of the People’s Court of Tân Phú District, Hồ Chí Minh City, sentencing B under Clause 2 Article 171 of the Penal Code 2015, as amended and supplemented in 2017, is found to be well-founded and lawful.

[5] However, considering that the defendant Nguyễn Thành Quốc B was unemployed, committed five consecutive acts of “Robbery by Snatching”, and used the money obtained from the crime as his main source of livelihood, it falls under the category of “Committing the crime professionally.” The first-instance court’s failure to apply this aggravating circumstance when deciding the penalty for the defendant B is a shortcoming.

Therefore, the appellate Trial Panel accepts part of the Appeal No. 46/QĐ-VKS-P7 dated September 25^th, 2020, of the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Hồ Chí Minh City regarding applying the aggravating circumstance of “Committing the crime professionally” under point b Clause 2 Article 171 of the Penal Code 2015, amended and supplemented in 2017, for the defendant B.

Regarding the aggravating circumstance of “using dangerous means”, considering that at the time the defendant committed the act of appropriation, the victims had temporarily transferred the property to the defendant’s control, and then the defendant accelerated and fled, it does not fall under the circumstance of “using dangerous means” to rob property. Therefore, the appellate Trial Panel does not apply point d Clause 2 Article 171 of the Penal Code 2015, amended and supplemented in 2017, when deciding the penalty for the defendant B.

[6] The imposition of a six-year prison sentence for the crime of “Robbery by Snatching” by the first-instance court is deemed appropriate given the nature, extent, and consequences of B’s offenses, and thus, the appellate court affirms this sentence.

[7] Any other rulings of the first-instance judgment not subject to appeal or objection are deemed effective upon the expiration of the appeal period.

[8] The defendant Nguyễn Thành Quốc B is exempted from appellate criminal court fees in accordance with the Penal Procedure Code and Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly.

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS DECIDED:

Pursuant to Article 345; point b Clause 1 Article 355 of the Penal Procedure Code:

Accept part of the Appellate Appeal Decision No. 46/QĐ-VKS-P7 dated September 25^th, 2020, of the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Hồ Chí Minh City and amend the First-instance Judgment.

Pursuant to points b, c Clause 2 Article 171; points b, s Clause 1 Article 51; point g Clause 1 Article 52 of the Penal Code 2015,

Sentence the defendant Nguyễn Thành Quốc B to 06 (six) years of imprisonment for the crime of “Robbery by Snatching.”

The imprisonment term is calculated from February 6^th, 2020.

Pursuant to Articles 135, 136 of the Penal Procedure Code; Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly.

The defendant Nguyễn Thành Quốc B is exempted from appellate criminal court fees.

The other decisions of the first-instance judgment, which were not appealed or protested, are effective as of the expiration date of the appeal period.

The appellate judgment takes legal effect as of the date of pronouncement.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[4] Regarding the aforementioned Appellate Appeal No. 46/QĐ-VKS-P7 dated September 25^th, 2020, the Trial Panel determines that Nguyễn Thành Quốc B’s actions constituted “Robbery by Snatching”. Exploiting deceptive tactics, B gained the victims’ trust to access their property during the delivery of goods and receipt of payment. The property had not been fully transferred to B, as evidenced by the absence of signed delivery documents and the continued control of the property by the victims at the time of B’s flight.

Consequently, the First-instance Judgment No. 111/2020/HSST dated August 27^th, 2020, of the People’s Court of Tân Phú District, Hồ Chí Minh City, sentencing B under Clause 2 Article 171 of the Penal Code 2015, as amended and supplemented in 2017, is found to be well-founded and lawful.”

If you need more consulting, please Contact Us at TNHH NT International Law Firm (ntpartnerlawfirm.com)

You can also download the .docx version here.