CASE LAW NO. 64/2023/AL On Sentencing Framework and Aggravating Circumstance of “Organized Crime” in the Crime of “Kidnapping for Ransom” (Please note that this image is not related to the specific case being discussed).

CASE LAW NO. 64/2023/AL

On Sentencing Framework and Aggravating Circumstance of “Organized Crime” in the Crime of “Kidnapping for Ransom”

Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on August 18^th, 2023, and published under Decision No. 364/QĐ-CA dated October 1^st, 2023, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

The Cassation Decision No. 15/2022/HS-GĐT dated October 4^th, 2022, of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court concerning the criminal case of “Kidnapping for Ransom” involving defendant Trần Văn N and accomplices.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraphs 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Case Background 1:

The defendant planned and prepared tools and means to kidnap the victim to extort ransom but did not succeed in obtaining the ransom.

– Legal Resolution 1:

In this case, the defendant must be held criminally liable for the crime of “Kidnapping for Ransom”. The court must base the sentencing framework on the value of the ransom the defendant intended to extort.

– Case Background 2:

Among the defendants, one was the ringleader, initiated and directly invited others to participate in the kidnapping to extort ransom, planned and assigned tasks to other defendants; there was tight coordination among the defendants, consistently executing actions as directed by the ringleader.

– Legal Resolution 2:

In this case, the defendants must be held criminally liable for the crime of “Kidnapping for Ransom” with the aggravating circumstance of “organized crime” stipulated in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017).

Relevant Legal Provisions:

Article 169 of the Penal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017).

Keywords:

“Kidnapping for Ransom”; “Sentencing Framework”; “Organized Crime”.

CASE DETAILS

Around August 2018, Trần Văn N lent Mr. Lưu Mạnh T VND 150,000,000. Despite multiple demands, Mr. T failed to repay and fled to Hồ Chí Minh City. Trần Văn N then devised a plan to lure Mr. T back to Hà Nội to detain him for debt collection. He borrowed Nguyễn Diệu L’s Zalo account, impersonated L to befriend Mr. T, and arranged a meeting in A District, Vĩnh Phúc Province, on the afternoon of January 15^th, 2019.

On January 12^th, 2019, Trần Văn N invited Nguyễn Diệu L, Nguyễn Quang T1, Nguyễn Văn Đ, and Phan Văn Q to participate in detaining Mr. T for debt collection; L, T1, Đ, and Q agreed. Trần Văn N prepared three retractable batons (each about 60cm long), one pepper spray, one electric lighter, and one pair of handcuffs.

Around 2:30 p.m. on January 15^th, 2019, Trần Văn N instructed Nguyễn Văn Đ to hire a taxi driven by Trịnh Anh T2 to transport N, L, Đ, Q, and T1 to Nội Bài Airport. During the journey, Trần Văn N discussed the kidnapping plan with L, Đ, Q, and T1, making T2 aware of their intent. On the way, L received a call from Mr. T informing him that he would arrive at Nội Bài Airport at 7:00 p.m. the same day.

Around 3:00 p.m. on January 15^th, 2019, Trịnh Anh T2 drove Trần Văn N, Nguyễn Diệu L, Nguyễn Văn Đ, Phan Văn Q, and Nguyễn Quang T1 to Nội Bài Airport and rented two rooms near the airport. There, Trần Văn N and Nguyễn Văn Đ informed T2 of the plan to detain Mr. T: L would hire another taxi to pick up Mr. T, while T2 would follow with the group; once L’s taxi with Mr. T stopped, T2 would park behind, allowing the group to apprehend Mr. T. T2 agreed.

Around 7:20 p.m. on January 15^th, 2019, Nguyễn Diệu L picked up Mr. T and hired a taxi heading towards A District, Vĩnh Phúc Province. Trịnh Anh T2 followed with Trần Văn N, Nguyễn Văn Đ, Phan Văn Q, and Nguyễn Quang T1. During the ride, Trần Văn N gave Nguyễn Văn Đ and Nguyễn Quang T1 each a retractable baton, and Phan Văn Q a pepper spray. After traveling about 15 km, L’s taxi stopped, and T2’s car parked behind.

Trần Văn N, Phan Văn Q, Nguyễn Văn Đ, and Nguyễn Quang T1 exited their vehicle and approached Mr. T’s taxi. Nguyễn Quang T1 moved Nguyễn Diệu L to T2’s car. Trần Văn N opened the rear left door, Nguyễn Văn Đ opened the rear right door, and Phan Văn Q opened the front passenger door, spraying pepper spray into Mr. T’s face.

Trần Văn N and Nguyễn Văn Đ struck Mr. T with the batons, and N and Q punched Mr. T until he promised to repay the debt, at which point they stopped. Trần Văn N and Nguyễn Văn Đ restrained Mr. T, with N handing handcuffs to Đ to secure Mr. T’s right hand to the driver’s seat base. Nguyễn Văn Đ covered Mr. T’s head with a shirt and instructed the taxi driver to head towards Bắc Ninh.

Upon arriving in Bắc Ninh, Trần Văn N instructed Nguyễn Quang T1 to detain Mr. T at T1’s scrap storage warehouse for one night. N transferred to T1’s and L’s car (driven by T2) leading the way; the taxi with Phan Văn Q, Nguyễn Văn Đ, and Mr. T followed. Upon arrival, Đ directed the taxi driver to enter the warehouse, while T2’s car parked outside, with N and L entering the warehouse.

About 5 minutes later, T2 drove away, and T1 closed the warehouse door. Q exited the taxi with a backpack, while Mr. T remained handcuffed inside. Trần Văn N deleted all messages and call history between Mr. T and L on T’s phone. Q checked Mr. T’s wallet, retaining the wallet, ATM cards, and ID card, but returned VND 2,700,000 to Mr. T. Trần Văn N, Nguyễn Văn Đ, and Phan Văn Q then escorted Mr. T out of the taxi and into the bathroom.

Q used handcuffs to restrain Mr. T’s hands, tied his hands behind his back with rope, and taped his hands and mouth. Trần Văn N and Nguyễn Văn Đ took a taxi to N’s house, retrieved a 1.5-meter-long chain, bought food, and returned to the warehouse. N paid the taxi fare, and the driver left.

Nguyễn Diệu L, Trần Văn N, Nguyễn Quang T1, Nguyễn Văn Đ, Phan Văn Q, and Mr. T ate at the warehouse. During the meal, Q demanded that Mr. T repay N to be released. After eating, Q and Đ moved Mr. T to the right corner of the warehouse, taped his left hand and legs, with his right hand still cuffed and chained to a steel column to prevent escape or suicide. Around midnight on January 15^th, 2019, Trần Văn N, Nguyễn Quang T1, and Nguyễn Diệu L left, while Nguyễn Văn Đ and Phan Văn Q stayed behind to guard Mr. T.

At noon on January 16^th, 2019, Trần Văn N, Nguyễn Quang T1, Nguyễn Văn Đ, Phan Văn Q, and Nguyễn Diệu L gathered at the warehouse. Trần Văn N handed a phone to Mr. Lưu Mạnh T, coercing him to call his family and instruct them to transfer money into his account to repay N.

At approximately 1 p.m., Nguyễn Văn Đ called Trịnh Anh T2 to the warehouse to pick him up. Trần Văn N punched Mr. T in the right eye, forcing him to call his family and demand that they transfer VND 150,000,000 into his account. Mr. T then called his ex-wife, Ms. Đàm Thị Phương L1, explaining that he was being held because of his debt and asking her to tell his parents to borrow money and transfer it to his account to secure his release.

However, since they were divorced, Ms. L1 did not comply. Mr. T subsequently called his aunt, Mrs. Lưu Thị L2, explaining that he was in debt, had been captured, beaten, and tied up, and asked her to inform his parents to borrow money to save him. Mrs. L2 informed his parents, but they did not have the money to send. Mr. T then called his friend, Ms. Hoàng Thị L3, explaining that he was in debt and being held in Bắc Ninh, and requested her to transfer money for his release.

At approximately 2 p.m. on January 16^th, 2019, when Mr. T’s family did not transfer the money, Phan Văn Q struck Mr. T with a bamboo pipe. Trần Văn N threw a fire extinguisher at Mr. T and kicked him. Later that evening, Nguyễn Diệu L hired a taxi to return to Hà Nội, while Trần Văn N borrowed a car and, along with Nguyễn Văn Đ and Nguyễn Quang T1, transported Mr. T to Phan Văn Q’s rental room. There, Q chained Mr. T to the bed, and Đ and T1 left.

Phan Văn Q kept Mr. T from January 17^th, 2019, until the morning of January 18, 2019. At Q’s rental room, Mr. T asked Trần Văn N to take photos of him being beaten and tied up and send them to Ms. Hoàng Thị L3. He also called his cousin, Ms. Lưu Thị H, to persuade his family to transfer money into his account to pay N. Trần Văn N instructed Mr. T to tell H that if they did not repay the debt, N would cut off Mr. T’s hand. Ms. H agreed to gather money for the ransom and pay off Mr. T’s debt.

At approximately 1 a.m. on January 19^th, 2019, Trịnh Anh T2 drove Phan Văn Q, Nguyễn Văn Đ, and Mr. T to a cemetery in X Village, Y Commune, P District. Q and Đ threatened to burn Mr. T. T2 then drove Q, Đ, and Mr. T to a karaoke bar in A Village, Y1 Commune, P District.

Q took Mr. T to room 701 and guarded him while Đ and T2 left. At approximately 8 a.m. on January 19^th, 2019, Đ returned to relieve Q. Đ forced Mr. T to call his family and demand money. Checking Mr. T’s account, Đ found VND 38,928,049, consisting of VND 23,928,049 initially in the account and transfers of VND 10,000,000 and VND 5,000,000 from Lưu Thị H at 10:12 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on January 19^th, 2019, respectively.

At approximately 11 a.m. on January 19^th, 2019, Đ took Mr. T to the police station to surrender. Subsequently, Trịnh Anh T2, Trần Văn N, Nguyễn Quang T1, and Nguyễn Văn Đ also surrendered. On February 19^th, 2019, Phan Văn Q surrendered, followed by Nguyễn Diệu L on February 21^st, 2019.

In the First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 49/2019/HSST dated October 8^th, 2019, the People’s Court of Bắc Ninh Province, applying Point e, Clause 2, Article 169; Points b, s, Clause 1, Clause 2, Article 51 of the Penal Code, sentenced:

– Trần Văn N to 42 months of imprisonment for kidnapping for ransom.

– Phan Văn Q to 36 months of imprisonment for kidnapping for ransom.

– Nguyễn Văn Đ to 36 months of imprisonment for kidnapping for ransom.

– Nguyễn Diệu L to 30 months of imprisonment, suspended, with a probation period of 60 months from the date of the first-instance judgment for kidnapping for ransom.

– Nguyễn Quang T1 to 30 months of imprisonment, suspended, with a probation period of 60 months from the date of the first-instance judgment for kidnapping for ransom.

– Trịnh Anh T2 to 30 months of imprisonment, suspended, with a probation period of 60 months from the date of the first-instance judgment for kidnapping for ransom.

On October 21^st, 2019, Trần Văn N, Phan Văn Q, and Nguyễn Văn Đ appealed for a review of their charges, reduction of sentences, and suspended sentences.

In the Criminal Appellate Judgment No. 535/2020/HSPT dated October 30^th, 2020, the High People’s Court in Hà Nội accepted the appeals; applying Clause 1, Article 169, Points b, s, Clause 1, Clause 2, Article 51, sentenced Trần Văn N and Phan Văn Q to 24 months of imprisonment, and Nguyễn Văn Đ to 24 months of imprisonment, suspended. Nguyễn Diệu L, Nguyễn Quang T1, and Trịnh Anh T2 were sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment, suspended, all for kidnapping for ransom.

In the Cassation Appeal Decision No. 29/QĐ-VKSTC dated August 31^st, 2021, the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy appealed the Criminal Appellate Judgment No. 535/2020/HSPT dated October 30^th, 2020, of the High People’s Court in Hà Nội regarding the criminal liability of Trần Văn N, Phan Văn Q, Nguyễn Văn Đ, Nguyễn Quang T1, Nguyễn Diệu L, and Trịnh Anh T2.

The Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Council was requested to conduct a cassation review to vacate the aforementioned Appellate Criminal Judgment and the First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 49/2019/HSST dated October 8^th, 2019, of the People’s Court of Bắc Ninh Province regarding the criminal liability of Trần Văn N, Phan Văn Q, Nguyễn Văn Đ, Nguyễn Quang T1, Nguyễn Diệu L, and Trịnh Anh T2, to conduct a new first-instance trial under Points a, e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, increase the sentences, and not grant suspended sentences to the main offenders, leaders, and active participants.

At the cassation review hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy recommended that the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court accept the appeal of the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy; vacate the Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 535/2020/HSPT dated October 30^th, 2020, of the High People’s Court in Hà Nội,

and the First-Instance Criminal Judgment No. 49/2019/HSST dated October 8^th, 2019, of the People’s Court of Bắc Ninh Province regarding the criminal liability of Trần Văn N, Phan Văn Q, Nguyễn Văn Đ, Nguyễn Quang T1, Nguyễn Diệu L, and Trịnh Anh T2, to conduct a new first-instance trial under Points a, e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, increase the sentences, and not grant suspended sentences to the main offenders, leaders, and active participants.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] Regarding the charges:

[2] Throughout the investigation and at the first-instance and appellate trials, the defendants admitted to their criminal acts. Their confessions aligned with the victim’s testimony, witness statements, and other evidence in the case file. This provided substantial grounds to establish the following sequence of events:

[3] Around August 2018, Mr. Lưu Mạnh T borrowed VND 150,000,000 from Trần Văn N. Despite repeated demands for repayment and Mr. T’s evasion to Hồ Chí Minh City after quitting his job, N orchestrated a plan to apprehend Mr. T and retrieve the debt.

Following deliberations, defendants Phan Văn Q, Nguyễn Văn Đ, Nguyễn Diệu L, Nguyễn Quang T1, and Trịnh Anh T2 agreed to participate. They used ropes to restrain, assault, and confine Mr. T from approximately 7:20 p.m. on January 15^th, 2019, until around 11 a.m. on January 19^th, 2019, in order to coerce him into persuading his family to transfer VND 150,000,000 into his account for repayment to N.

[4] The actions of the defendants N, Q, Đ, L, T1, and T2 constituted the offense of kidnapping for ransom as specified in Article 169 of the Penal Code. The first-instance and appellate courts’ decisions to convict the defendants of this crime were well-founded and lawful.

[5] Regarding the penalties:

[6] With respect to the aggravating circumstance outlined in Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code:

[7] In this instance, the defendants captured, restrained, detained, and physically assaulted Mr. Lưu Mạnh T to compel him to contact his family and arrange for the transfer of VND 150,000,000 owed to Trần Văn N into his account.

Thus, the intent behind these actions was to extort VND 150,000,000 from Mr. T’s family. The fact that Ms. Lưu Thị H (Mr. T’s cousin) transferred VND 15,000,000 in two installments into Mr. T’s account, and that his account initially held VND 23,928,049, which the defendants did not force him to withdraw, does not alter the initial extortion objective of VND 150,000,000.

[8] Therefore, the defendants bear criminal liability for the intended extortion amount of VND 150,000,000 from the onset of Mr. Lưu Mạnh T’s detention. The defendants are liable under the charge of “kidnapping for ransom” with the aggravating circumstance of “extorting ransom valued from VND 50,000,000 to less than VND 200,000,000” as stipulated in Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

[9] Regarding the appellate court’s argument that the defendants should only be prosecuted under Clause 1, Article 169 of the Penal Code because they had not actually extorted VND 150,000,000 from Mr. T’s family, it is essential to note that the offense of “kidnapping for ransom” is a conduct crime.

Thus, the crime is consummated upon the defendants’ act of detaining Mr. Lưu Mạnh T and coercing his family to transfer VND 150,000,000 into Mr. T’s account for repayment to N, irrespective of whether the money was actually extorted. The circumstance of “extorting ransom valued from VND 50,000,000 to less than VND 200,000,000” constitutes an aggravating circumstance under Clause 1, Article 169 of the Penal Code and should be interpreted according to the conduct-based principle of Clause 1.

Therefore, the “extorted amount” for aggravating circumstances must be evaluated based on the defendants’ original extortion intent. The appellate court’s interpretation that the phrase “for the purpose of extorting ransom” in Clause 1 and “the extorted amount” in Clause 2 of Article 169 should be construed differently, with the former indicating mere intent to extort and the latter requiring actual extortion, lacks merit.

[10] The Supreme People’s Procuracy’s Cassation Appeal, which argued that the defendants should be prosecuted with the aggravating circumstance of “extorting property valued from VND 50,000,000 to less than VND 200,000,000” as stipulated in Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, is well-founded and lawful and should be accepted.

[11] Regarding the aggravating circumstance specified in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code:

[12] In this case, Trần Văn N orchestrated the plan, directly involving the other defendants (Q, Đ, L, T1, T2) in capturing Mr. Lưu Mạnh T to extort the VND 150,000,000 owed by Mr. T to N.

N prepared the tools for the crime such as handcuffs, ropes, and pepper spray; devised the plan; assigned tasks to the co-defendants, including using L’s Zalo account to impersonate someone to lure Mr. T from Hồ Chí Minh City to Hà Nội; selecting the pickup location (Nội Bài Airport); assigning L to pick up Mr. T; choosing the location and time for the taxi stop to allow N and his accomplices to apprehend Mr. T; selecting the detention site; and assigning guards for Mr. T. Consequently, N acted as the organizer, leader, and mastermind.

The other defendants actively assisted N in executing the plan to capture Mr. T, thereby pressuring Mr. T’s family to transfer money into Mr. T’s account for repayment to N. There was significant coordination among N and the other defendants, who consistently adhered to N’s directives. The actions of capturing, restraining, detaining, and assaulting Mr. T to extort VND 150,000,000 from his family occurred from January 12, 2019, to January 19, 2019. Therefore, the defendants’ actions demonstrated characteristics of organized crime as specified in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

[13] Regarding the first-instance court’s oversight in not considering the aggravating circumstance of “organized crime,” as analyzed previously, and instead applying only the aggravating circumstance of “extorting ransom valued from VND 50,000,000 to less than VND 200,000,000” under Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, it was a procedural error.

[14] The Supreme People’s Procuracy’s Cassation Appeal, requesting the additional application of the aggravating circumstance of “organized crime” stipulated in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, is well-founded and should be upheld.

[15] Regarding the penalties:

[16] The roles of the defendants in the case are as follows:

[17] Defendant Trần Văn N initiated and played the leading role as the mastermind and ringleader.

[18] Defendants Phan Văn Q and Nguyễn Văn Đ actively assisted N in capturing Mr. Lưu Mạnh T to recover the debt, with Q and Đ also participating in the detainment, tying, beating, and threatening of the victim. Thus, they played secondary roles after N.

[19] Defendants Nguyễn Quang T1 and Trịnh Anh T2 played tertiary roles in the case. Although T2 was not initially involved in the planning, he agreed to participate and drove according to N’s instructions after being briefed at a motel near Nội Bài Airport.

[20] Defendant Nguyễn Diệu L allowed Trần Văn N to use her Zalo account to connect with and lure Mr. T from Hồ Chí Minh City to Hà Nội. She also participated in picking up and bringing T to the planned location. However, when N’s group captured Mr. T, L left for Hà Nội and did not participate further, thus having the least involvement in the case.

[21] Regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances for the defendants:

[22] Aggravating circumstances: There are no aggravating circumstances for the defendants.

[23] Mitigating circumstances: The defendants voluntarily surrendered, sincerely confessed their crimes, expressed remorse, compensated the victim VND 20,000,000, and the victim requested leniency for all defendants. Therefore, they are entitled to mitigating circumstances under Points b, s, Clause 1, and Clause 2, Article 51 of the Penal Code.

[24] Defendants L, Q, T1, and T2 have parents and grandparents who were awarded resistance medals, thus qualifying for additional mitigating circumstances under Clause 2, Article 51 of the Penal Code.

[25] During the appellate phase, defendant Nguyễn Văn Đ provided additional mitigating circumstances by reporting two robbery and theft cases to the Police of Bắc Ninh Province. Defendant Trần Văn N presented documents showing he was honoring war martyrs and that his grandparents were awarded many medals. N also provided information that led to the capture of a drug trafficker and was recognized by local authorities for actively participating in the Covid-19 prevention campaign.

[26] Regarding personal backgrounds: Defendants N, Q, Đ, and L have good backgrounds. Defendants T1 and T2 had previous convictions but were automatically expunged before committing the offenses in this case for a significant time.

[27] Regarding the decision on penalties:

[28] From the above analysis, the Judicial Council finds:

[29] The criminal actions of defendants N, Q, Đ, L, T1, and T2 in this case must be examined under Points a and e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

[30] The first-instance court’s decision to prosecute the defendants under only one aggravating circumstance in Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code and to apply Article 54 of the Penal Code to sentence the defendants below the minimum penalty range of 5 to 12 years’ of imprisonment specified in Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, was inappropriate.

[31] The appellate court’s decision to amend the first-instance judgment and prosecute the defendants under Clause 1, Article 169 of the Penal Code, reducing their sentences, was unfounded.

[32] As the defendants appealed for reduced sentences after the first-instance trial, it is not possible to re-prosecute them on appeal to increase their penalties adversely. Therefore, the Supreme People’s Procuracy’s appeal should be accepted, the appellate and first-instance judgments should be vacated, and the case should be remanded to the first-instance court for a retrial to comprehensively and objectively consider the dangerous nature of the defendants’ actions, thereby determining appropriate penalties based on each defendant’s role and position.

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS DECIDED:

Pursuant to Article 382, Clause 3 of Article 388, Article 391, and Article 394 of the Penal Procedure Code 2015:

1. The Cassation Appeal Decision No. 29/QĐ-VKSTC dated August 31^st, 2021, by the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy, is accepted.
2. The Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 535/2020/HSPT dated October 30^th, 2020, of the Hà Nội High People’s Court and the First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 49/2019/HSST dated October 8^th, 2019, of the Bắc Ninh Provincial People’s Court regarding the criminal liability of Trần Văn N, Phan Văn Q, Nguyễn Văn Đ, Nguyễn Quang T1, Nguyễn Diệu L, and Trịnh Anh T2, are vacated.
3. The case file is remanded to the People’s Court of Bắc Ninh Province for a new first-instance trial in accordance with the law.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[7] In this instance, the defendants captured, restrained, detained, and physically assaulted Mr. Lưu Mạnh T to compel him to contact his family and arrange for the transfer of VND 150,000,000 owed to Trần Văn N into his account.

Thus, the intent behind these actions was to extort VND 150,000,000 from Mr. T’s family. The fact that Ms. Lưu Thị H (Mr. T’s cousin) transferred VND 15,000,000 in two installments into Mr. T’s account, and that his account initially held VND 23,928,049, which the defendants did not force him to withdraw, does not alter the initial extortion objective of VND 150,000,000.

[8] Therefore, the defendants bear criminal liability for the intended extortion amount of VND 150,000,000 from the onset of Mr. Lưu Mạnh T’s detention. The defendants are liable under the charge of “kidnapping for ransom” with the aggravating circumstance of “extorting ransom valued from VND 50,000,000 to less than VND 200,000,000” as stipulated in Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

…

[12] In this case, Trần Văn N orchestrated the plan, directly involving the other defendants (Q, Đ, L, T1, T2) in capturing Mr. Lưu Mạnh T to extort the VND 150,000,000 owed by Mr. T to N.

N prepared the tools for the crime such as handcuffs, ropes, and pepper spray; devised the plan; assigned tasks to the co-defendants, including using L’s Zalo account to impersonate someone to lure Mr. T from Hồ Chí Minh City to Hà Nội; selecting the pickup location (Nội Bài Airport); assigning L to pick up Mr. T; choosing the location and time for the taxi stop to allow N and his accomplices to apprehend Mr. T; selecting the detention site; and assigning guards for Mr. T. Consequently, N acted as the organizer, leader, and mastermind. T

he other defendants actively assisted N in executing the plan to capture Mr. T, thereby pressuring Mr. T’s family to transfer money into Mr. T’s account for repayment to N. There was significant coordination among N and the other defendants, who consistently adhered to N’s directives. The actions of capturing, restraining, detaining, and assaulting Mr. T to extort VND 150,000,000 from his family occurred from January 12, 2019, to January 19, 2019. Therefore, the defendants’ actions demonstrated characteristics of organized crime as specified in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

[13] Regarding the first-instance court’s oversight in not considering the aggravating circumstance of “organized crime,” as analyzed previously, and instead applying only the aggravating circumstance of “extorting ransom valued from VND 50,000,000 to less than VND 200,000,000” under Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, it was a procedural error.

[14] The Supreme People’s Procuracy’s Cassation Appeal, requesting the additional application of the aggravating circumstance of “organized crime” stipulated in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, is well-founded and should be upheld.”

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

You can also download the .docx version here.