PEOPLE’S COURT OF HAI PHONG CITY
JUDGMENT NO. 114/2019/HS-ST DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2019 ON ILLEGAL CROSS-BORDER TRAFFICKING OF GOODS
On November 21, 2019 at the People’s Court of Hai Phong City, the accepted criminal case No. 112/2019/TLST-HS dated October 1, 2019 was brought for the public first instance trial under Decision to hear the case No. 849/2019/QDXXST-HS dated October 29, 2019 against the defendants:
1. Nguyen Tien H, born in March 20, 1978 in Hanoi. Permanent residence: Neighborhood 2, Hamlet TD, Commune LT, Quoc Oai District, Hanoi City; temporary residence: 3/129 Nguyen Trai Street, Thuong Dinh Ward, Thanh Xuan District, Hanoi City; occupation: Former Director of VOSCO International Transportation Limited Liability Company; education level: 12/12; nationality: Vietnamese; ethnic group: Kinh; religion: None; gender: Male; son of Mr. Nguyen Huu X and Mrs. Hoang Thi H; married to Mrs. Tran Thi Minh H and having 2 children; criminal record: None; The defendant is met with prohibition from leaving residence on March 28, 2019. Present.
2. Vu Tien Dat, born on September 17, 1988 in Hai Phong; residence: 305 Nguyen Cong Hoa Street, Tran Nguyen Han Ward, Le Chan District, Hai Phong City; occupation: Director of Phong Lam International Transport Logistics Limited Liability Company; education level: 12/12; nationality: Vietnamese; ethnic group: Kinh; religion: None; gender: Male; son to Mr. Vu Trong Diep and Mrs. Le Thi Thuy; married to Tran Thi Ha Anh and having 1 child; criminal record: None; The defendant is met with prohibition from leaving residence on March 28, 2019. Present.
- Persons with rights and obligations related to the case: Mr. Man Van Hung, born on 1985; address: Hamlet MX, Commune VN, Yen Phong District, Bac Ninh Province, trial in absentia
- Defender for defendant Nguyen H: Mr. Nguyen Duy Nhan – Lawyer from Tam Nhan and Associate Lawyer Office affiliated to Hai Phong City Bar Association. Present.
- Defender for defendant Vu D: Ms. Nguyen Thi Ninh – Nguyen Thi Ninh Single-member Limited Liability Lawyer Company affiliated to Hai Phong City Bar Association. Present.
- Eye witnesses:
+ Chung Thi Ngoc Lan; trial in absentia.
+ Pham Tien Dung; trial in absentia.
Depending on the case file and development at the court, the case shall be summarized as follows:
From June 24, 2015 to May 15, 2017, Nguyen Tien H and Vu Tien D provided transportation service and prepared customs declarations to export aluminum shipments for PTD Company, H managed digital signatures, letters of introduction and blank A4 papers that bear director signatures and allowed D to use in preparing customs declarations and declare with customs authority to export 1,546,500 kg of aluminum ingot to 6 foreign partners with total declared value of USD 231,975 or VND 5,164,909,875.
Approximately June, 2017, Man Van Hung, born on 1985, residence: Man Xa Hamlet, Van Mon Commune, Yen Phong District, Bac Ninh Province met and hired H to export 100 tonne of aluminum ingots to Indonesia since Hung is an individual business household thus ineligible for direct export. H agreed and contacted Dat to find companies eligible for exporting aluminum ingots. Since Dat had not been able to find companies eligible to export aluminum ingots with immediate export demand, H and Dat agreed to utilize PTD Company as juridical person to export the shipments as Dat still had blank papers containing signatures of Director of PTD Company and H still had digital signatures of PTD Company. Later H hired WANHAI Vietnam shipping line to transport the shipments under bill of lading No. 1007A05179 issued for 4 containers No. WHLU2899350, WHLU0654487, WHLU2767625, and WHLU0460157. H transferred the booking issued by the shipping line to Dat to enable Dat to receive empty containers, seal with lead and transport the containers to Hung’s house in Man Xa, Yen Phong, Bac Ninh to pack up and transport to Tan Vu Port, Hai Phong awaiting customs procedures. In order to prepare customs declarations for the shipments, Dat asked H on the phone to plug the USB token for digital signatures of PTD Company to laptop of H (laptops of both H and Dat were connected via Teamviewer) to enable Dat to fill in the electronic declaration form and transfer the declaration form to Customs database. The shipment was then granted customs clearance by customs authority and transferred to loading doc.
On July 19, 2017, KVI Customs Sub-department of Hai Phong Port issued Decision on temporarily ceasing to bring goods via clearance area, cooperating with Anti-smuggling investigation authority - General Department of Customs in inspecting, temporarily ceasing customs clearance and requesting certificate of origin of the shipment. H requested Dat to deal with the matter above to grant customs clearance to the shipment. H and Dat used the forged documents of PTD Company (which H had previously given to Dat to follow up with customs procedures for the previous shipments) to produce documents imitating PTD Company to submit to customs authority without having been granted customs clearance for the shipment. Later, Dat asked Chung Thi Ngoc Lan, born on: 1974, permanent residence: 118/182 Da Nang, Lac Vien, Ngo Quyen, Hai Phong to deal with the customs authority. Lan advised H to prepare material procurement manifest and sale invoice issued by Customs Sub-department of Yen Phong to prove origin of the shipment.
H and Man Van Hung arrived at Customs Sub-department of Yen Phong, Bac Ninh to apply for tax submission and purchase VAT invoice book for the individual business household of Hung. Then H fictitiously specified on invoice No. 0063652 dated September 6, 2017 that Hung sold 100 tonne of aluminum to PTD Company and gave Hung for Hung’s signature. In addition, H and Hung arrived at Police of Van Mon Commune to verify material procurement manifest and later submit to customs authority. H attempted to contact and meet Pham Tien Dung, born: 1984, residence: Quynh Ca, Nghia Phuong, Luc Nam, Bac Giang – acting Director of PTD Company in order to ask Dung to work with the customs authority as the owner of the goods but Dung refused. On the advice of Lan, H and Dat produced Export trust agreement in which Man Van Hung entrusted PTD Company to export the shipment above (Agreement No. 01/AL-Ptd dated June 20, 2017) and gave Hung for Hung’s signature to prove origin of goods of Hung and legalize export juridical person of PTD Company on Declaration No. 301428422800/B11 on export to Indonesia at which point they were detected by Anti-smuggling investigating authority, General Department of Customs and subject to Decision on criminal prosecution against smuggling charge which was then transferred to Investigating authority – Hai Phong City Police for investigation and actions within their competence.
Investigating authority – Hai Phong City Police then interrogated Man Van Hung, born on 1985, residence: Man Xa Hamlet, Van Mon Commune, Yen Phong District, Bac Ninh Province at which point Hung admitted to be the owner of the aluminum ingot shipment in 4 containers No. WHLU2899350, WHLU0654487, WHLU2767625 and WHLU0460157. Hung claimed to have seen H exported this item to other households in the Hamlet multiple times thus supposed that Hung must have had a legal company specialized in providing this service. Hence, Hung met and hired H to follow up with the procedures to export the aluminum ingot shipment to Indonesia. Once the shipment was detained, according to instructions of H, Hung signed trust agreement and VAT invoices. At the moment of signing documents above, Hung was aware that PTD Company was a legal Company belonging to Nguyen Tien H and since Hung had not directly discussed with the subjects, Hung did not know that the documents were fictitious.
- Chung Thi Ngoc Lan, born on 1974, resided at 147 Hao Khe, Kenh Duong Ward, Le Chan District, Hai Phong City who claimed to provide import export service advised defendants Nguyen Tien H and Vu Tien Dat to provide export trust agreement and trade invoice when the shipment was suspended from customs clearance. At the date of giving advice, Lan claimed that PTD Company was a legal Company and that the goods owner, Man Van Hung and PTD Company had agreed and cooperated with each other before exporting.
- Pham Tien Dung, born: 1084, residence: Quynh Ca, Nghia Phuong, Luc Nam, Back Giang claimed to have been hired to form PTD Company, act Director of PTD Company, open Company bank account at SACOMBANK – Tu Son District, Bac Ninh Province and sign contract for entrusting the use of the bank account of VND 14,000,000. Dung did not manage the seal, participate in operation process nor sign any documents related to operation of PTD Company from the date of establishment.
Through investigation, Nguyen Tien H submitted the token USB for digital signature of PTD Company which he received from Mai Trung Thanh to perform customs declaration for export shipment of PTD Company to Investigating authority – Hai Phong City Police. Verification at FPT Information System Limited Liability Company revealed that the USB was for digital signature of PTD Company provided by FPT Company.
Verification process of Investigating authority – Hai Phong City Police at Department of Planning and Investment of Hanoi City revealed that: PTD Company had enterprise ID number No. 0106870892, applied for the first time on June 8, 2015, address: Dia Hamlet, Nam Hong Commune, Dong Anh District, Hanoi City. Legal representative was Pham Tien Dung, personal ID No. 121536637, date of issue: December 30, 2010, place of issue: Bac Giang Province Police, permanent and current residence: Quynh Ca, Nghia Phuong, Luc Nam, Bac Giang. The enterprise has not applied for dissolution, acquisition, full or partial division until present.
Verification at Customs Sub-Department of Dong Anh District, Hanoi City revealed: PTD Company had not submitted tax declaration, issued invoices, submitted invoice use reports nor declared bank account with tax authority from the date of establishment to September 11, 2015. Customs Sub-department of Dong Anh District issued notice on expediting submission of tax declaration on August 6, 2015, August 13, 2015 and August 20, 2015 without any response from the enterprise. The Customs Sub-department cooperated with local government of Nam Hong Commune in verifying that PTD Company did not operate in Nam Hong Commune, Dong Anh District, Ha Noi City. On September 11, 2015, the Customs Sub-department issued notice on enterprises abandoning business address regarding PTD Company.
Verification at SACOMBANK – Bac Ninh branch revealed: PTD Company had opened 2 accounts No. 030026661966 and 030026662199 (VND and USD) at SACOMBANK – Bac Ninh branch. When opening the accounts, Phan Tien Dung acting director authorized Ha Manh Cuong to assume the role of the owner of the Company’s accounts. From the date of opening the accounts, Ha Manh Cuong frequently made transactions and withdrew money at banks. On July 18, 2017, Ha Manh Cuong adopted settlement procedures (to withdraw all money and terminate the accounts) for all accounts above.
Verification at Police authority for administrative management of social order and Hanoi City Police in terms of procedures for registering seal template of PTD Company once Department of Planning and Investment of Hanoi City issue enterprise registration certificate for PTD Company revealed that: representative of the Company applied for seal template and submit fees as per the law on June 9, 2015 at inter-agency single-window office of Police authority for administrative management of social order - Hanoi City Police with invoice included. The invoice only specified information on PTD Company and money recipient.
Verification at FPT Company revealed: On June 10, 2015, FPT Company received application for registering digital signature certifying service from an agency of FPT Company which is Hoa Binh Service Joint-stock Company, TIN No. 0106011717; address: 4/27 146 Alleyway, Tan Trieu street, Thanh Tri District, Hanoi. The application was sent to FPT’s system by a secondary agency which is Legalbiz Enterprise Consulting Limited Liability Company, TIN: 0106073417. The applicant was Pham Tien Dung, phone No. 0936889882. FPT Company requested Hoa Binh Company to directly meet, consult and enter into contracts with PTD Company. Application for digital signature of PTD Company was under management of Hoa Binh Service Joint-stock Company.
Verification at Police authority of Tan Trieu Commune revealed that the address provided by Hoa Binh Company was non-existent; Hoa Binh Company had closed its TIN, according to the system.
Verification at Legalbiz Company revealed: on July 6, 2015, Pham Tien Dung, phone No. 0936889882 applied for digital signature service in person without being recorded in writing and submitted application fees at the Company. Legalbiz Company then transferred customer’s information to Hoa Binh Company for issuance and entering into contracts for digital signature with PTD Company. All procedural documents on issuance of digital signature for PTD Company were kept by Hoa Binh Company while Legalbiz Company acted as the broker and retained no relevant documents.
Verification at WANHAI Viet Nam Limited Liability Company (the shipping line that transported 4 currently detained containers): VOSCO International Transportation Limited Liability Company (address: 03/129 Nguyen Trai, Thuong Dinh, Thanh Xuan, Ha Noi) contacted WANHAI Company on the phone to hire transportation for a shipment under booking No. 1007A05179 consisting of 4 containers No. WHLU2899350, WHLU0654487, WHLU2767625, and WHLU0460157. This was the aluminum ingot shipment which VOSCO Company hired WANHAI Company to transport to Indonesia. The shipment was detained by customs authority when customs procedures were being adopted to load onto ship. Previously, WANHAI Company had transported 4 containers No. DFSU3051303, DRYU2960127, TGCU0122456, and WHLU2857903 to Malaysia for VOSCO Company under bill of lading No. 1066A04032. WANHAI Company confirmed partnership only with VOSCO and no relationship with PTD Company. It was not until the shipment was detained due to violations of the law that WANHAI Company was aware that the shipment was related to PTD Company.
Verification at Customs Sub-departments affiliated to Customs Department of Hai Phong City, seaports, sea and road transportation companies managed to gather documents depicting transportation operations, customs procedures and export of shipments under 23 export declarations of PTD Company. Regarding shipment under declaration No. 301428422800/B11 declared on July 18, 2017 at KVI Customs Sub-department of Hai Phong port, cleared by customs electronic data processing system and granted customs clearance on July 18, 2017. On the same day, Anti-smuggling investigating authority - General Department of Customs sent a fax requesting KVI Customs Sub-department of Hai Phong port to issue decision on temporarily ceasing to bring goods via clearance area for cooperated physical inspection.
Investigating authority, Hai Phong City Police solicited expert assessment of signature and handwriting of Pham Tien Dung, Nguyen Tien H, Ha Manh Cuong, Man Van Hung and seal template of PTD Company.
Under Assessment conclusion No. 117 dated November 14, 2018 of Department of Criminal Techniques - Hai Phong City Police: “The signature depicting Director Pham Tien Dung on: letter of introduction of PTD Company, trust agreement No. 01/AL-Ptd/2017, invoice, sale contract and packinglist and sample signature of Pham Tien Dung could not be determined to be issued by the same individual.
- Sample signature, handwriting of Pham Tien Dung and signature, handwriting specifying the name Pham Tien Dung on documents on opening and entrusting bank accounts of PTD Company were issued by the same individual.
- Sample signature, handwriting of Ha Manh Cuong and signature, handwriting specifying the name Ha Manh Cuong on documents on receiving trust and withdrawing money from bank accounts of PTD Company were issued by the same individual.
- The round seal specifying “Công ty TNHH PTD Việt Nam” (PTD Vietnam Limited Liability Company) on letter of introduction, trust contract No. 01/AL-Ptd/2017, invoice, sale contract, packing list and the round seal specifying the same content on seal registration certificate for seal of PTD Company and documents related to bank accounts of PTD Company were issued by the same seal.
- Handwriting under pre-printed sections, other than the “Seller” section on VAT invoice No. 0063652 and sample handwriting of Nguyen Tien H were issued by the same individual; handwriting, signature under “Seller” Section on VAT invoice No. 0063652 and sample handwriting, signature of Man Van Hung were issued by the same individual.” (BL 80-98)
Investigating authority, Hai Phong City solicited Institute of Criminal Science, Ministry of Public Security to assess the aluminum contents in the detained containers. Under Assessment conclusion No. 6440 dated December 3, 2018 of Institute of Criminal Science - Ministry of Public Security: “Samples collected from containers No. WHLU2899350, WHLU0654487, WHLU2767625 and WHLU0460157 are aluminum with contents of 96.36%, 96.70%, 96.65% and 96.86% respectively”
Investigating authority, Hai Phong City Police requested asset evaluation. Under Asset evaluation conclusion No. 01/KL-HDDG dated January 18, 2019 of the Council for asset evaluation in criminal proceeding of Hai Phong City: “Value of 99,870 kg of aluminum ingots according to customs declaration No. 301428422800 dated July 18, 2017 at the time of July, 2017 was: VND 1,742,000,000; at the time of January, 2019 was: VND 1,802,000,000".
Under Indictment No. 85/CT-VKS-P3 dated July 30, 2019, People’s Procuracy of Hai Phong City prosecuted defendants Nguyen H and Vu D for "Illegal cross-border trafficking of goods" according to Clause 3 Article 153 of the Criminal Code in 1999 (currently Clause 3 Article 189 of the Criminal Code 2015)
At court, defendants Nguyen H and Vu D admitted all offences stated in the Indictment. The defendants admitted transport 4 containers of aluminum ingots for Man Van Hung to gain VND 48 million/container but they have not received the revenue. The defendants used the fictitious documents of PTD Company to export the item above. The defendants admitted the offence prosecuted by the Procuracy and solicited for monetary penalty.
At the trial, representative of People’s Procuracy of Hai Phong City retained prosecution against the defendants according to the Indictment and requested the trial panel: Pursuant to Clause 3 Article 154 of the Criminal Code 1999 (currently Clause 3 Article 189), Point s Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 51, Article 58; Article 35 of the Criminal Code:
- Impose a monetary fine ranging from VND 1,200,000,000 to VND 1,500,000,000 on defendant Nguyen H for “Illegal cross-border trafficking of goods” and submit to State budget.
- Impose a monetary fine ranging from VND 1,000,000,000 to VND 1,200,000,000 on defendant Vu D for “Illegal cross-border trafficking of goods” and submit to State budget.
- Regarding illicit revenue: Defendant Nguyen H is forced to submit the illicit revenue of VND 119,000,000 and transfer to State budget.
- Regarding evidence disposal: With respect to the shipment of 99.87 tonne of aluminum ingots in 4 containers No. WHLU2899350, WHLU0654487, WHLU2767625 and WHLU0460157 according to customs declaration form No. 301428422800/B11 declared on July 18, 2017 at KVI Customs Sub-department of Hai Phong port related to violations of defendants, confiscate and transfer to State budget.
- Regarding court fees and right to appeal as per the law.
Standpoint of defender of defendant Nguyen H: No objection to charge and legal basis of penalty other than requesting the trial panel to reconsider severity of monetary penalty since the defendant has no prior criminal record, did not cause damage, did not successfully commit the violations, has multiple mitigating circumstances, hurriedly confessed and shows remorse, has grandparents having meritorious service in the resistance war against France. The defendant is the director of a small enterprise and the main breadwinner in the family. The defendant is sorry for the violation and solicits monetary penalty. Hence, solicits the trial panel to adopt mitigating circumstances to allow the defendant to be met with monetary penalty of the lowest value.
Standpoint of defender of defendant Vu D: Prosecuting and trying the defendant for "Illegal cross-border trafficking of goods” are adequate as per the law. Solicits the trial panel to consider that the defendant has no aggravating circumstances, hurriedly confessed, shows remorse, committed violation without causing any damage or success. The defendant directly transported goods across the border illegally as the declarant while only the goods owner received the revenue. Since the defendant did not understand the law, has good personal record, has no prior criminal record and has stable occupation, the defendant solicits monetary penalty. Thus, request the trial panel to adopt the lowest range of the monetary payment.
In their final words, the defendants solicit reduced penalty and adoption of monetary penalty.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
With respect to the details of the case, based on the case file documents and evidence that have been involved in the litigation at the court, the trial panel forms the judgments as follows:
- Regarding proceeding:
 The case is among the circumstances in which documents are returned to conduct additional investigations, regarding proceeding and decision thereon: Investigating authority of Hai Phong City Police, investigators, People’s Procuracy of Hai Phong City and procurators have fully complied with procedures and regulations of the Criminal Proceeding Code during investigation and prosecution processes. Throughout investigation process and the trial, the defendant did not question or complain about affairs and decision of legal proceeding authority and individuals. Thus, all acts and decisions on proceeding carried out by legal proceeding authority and individual are legitimate.
- Regarding charges:
 Statements of the defendants at court match their statements at the investigating authority and statements of eyewitnesses, evidence and other documents in the case files, it is well-grounded to conclude: In approximately June, 2017, Man Van Hung wanted to export aluminum ingots but he lacked the documents to do so, he then hired defendant Nguyen H to export 100 tonne of aluminum ingots to Indonesia who agreed and contacted defendant Vu D but yet to found a company eligible to export aluminum ingots. Thus defendants Nguyen Tien H and Vu Tien D agreed with Man Van Hung on VND 48 million/container and imitated juridical person of PTD Viet Nam Limited Liability Vietnam based in Dia Hamlet, Nam Hong Commune, Dong Anh District, Hanoi City; based on the fact that H was managing digital signature of PTD Company which no longer operated, H and Dat utilized the digital signature to initiate export declaration No. 301428422800 dated July 18, 2017 at KVI Customs Sub-department of Hai Phong port – Customs Department of Hai Phong City and transferred to electronic declaration to customs system to illegally export 99.87 tonne of aluminum ingots from Vietnam to Indonesia. The shipment was then classified category 1 (cleared), granted customs clearance and awaiting load onto ship where customs authority issued decision on suspending customs clearance for inspection. Nguyen Tien H and Vu Tien D agreed to use fictitious documents of PTD Company to produce fabricated and illegal documents consisting of sale contract, invoice, packing list, export trust agreements; issued fictitious VAT invoices for presentation to customs authority in order to conceal violation. The suspension of the shipment due to violation detected by the customs authority was beyond speculation of H and Dat. Gross weight of the shipment was 99.87 tonne of aluminum ingot. According to asset evaluation conclusion of Council for asset evaluation in criminal proceeding of Hai Phong City, the value was at VND 1,742,000,000.
 Since defendants Nguyen H and Vu D transported goods without legal documents to illegally transport goods before January 1, 2018 where the Criminal Code of 2015 entered into effect. Thus, the fact that defendants Nguyen H and Vu D were tried for “Illegal cross-border trafficking of goods” according to Article 154 of the Criminal Code 1999 (currently Article 189 of the Criminal Code 2015) as prosecuted by the Procuracy is legally well-grounded.
 At court, defenders for the defendants claimed despite committing violations, the defendants had successfully adopted all customs procedures and submitted tax to transport the shipment without legal documents abroad thus the violations shall not be considered to be attempts and standpoints of the defenders in this regard are objected.
 The case is serious in nature, violation of the defendants have breached economic management affairs of the government regarding import, export and monetary management policies of the government, violated national economic interests, harmed the State budget and caused loss of social order. Thus, stringent measures for preventive and education effect.
- Regarding penalty determining circumstances:
 Defendants Nguyen H and Vu D transported goods without legal import documents, used documents to imitate juridical person of PTD Vietnam Limited Liability Company which no longer operated in order to conceal the violations and illegally export 9.87 tonne of aluminum ingots of at a price of VND 1,742,000,000 from Vietnam to Indonesia for revenue and thus shall be tried according to Clause 3 Article 189 of the Criminal Code 2015.
- Regarding role and penalty: This case includes accomplices, thus specification of role of the defendants is necessary for adoption of appropriate penalties.
 Defendants Nguyen H and Vu D both agreed to use fictitious documents of PTD Company to fabricate documents to illegally export 99.87 tonne of aluminum ingots from Vietnam to Indonesia. Defendant H accepted transport agreement and actively assisted Man Van Hung in illegally transporting goods across the border; defendant D provided active assistance via defendant H thus the role of defendant H in this case is superior to that of defendant D. Both defendants have no aggravating circumstances; in addition, both defendants hurriedly confessed and showed remorse after committing the violations, were having stable occupation, residence, committed violations without causing damage; grandparents of defendant H participated in the resistance war against France; these are mitigating circumstances according to Point s Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2015. Considering severity of violations, the violations and the fact that the defendants have multiple mitigating circumstances, the defendants solicit monetary penalty. Thus, the trial panel deems monetary penalty strict, appropriate and reasonable to be imposed upon the defendants for general prevention purpose. Thus the trial panel accepts solicitation of the defendants and since the defendant H played a superior role to defendant D in this case, defendant H shall be met with a penalty more severe than the penalty imposed upon defendant D.
- Regarding illicit revenue: Defendant Nguyen H received the money of VND 119,000,000 from a person named Tom. At court, defendant H claimed that the money was not what foreign partners transferred to the defendant and not relevant to this case. Furthermore, there are no other ways to determine whether the money was generated from illegal conducts apart from statements of the defendant. Investigating authority did not clarify whether the money of VND 119,000,000 is related to the case and thus the defendant is not forced to submit to State budget and proposition of the procurator at court is rejected.
- Regarding evidence: Investigating authority confiscated 99.87 tonne of aluminum ingots in 4 containers No. WHLU2899350, WHLU0654487, WHLU2767625 and WHLU0460157 according to customs declaration form No. 301428422800/B11 declared on July 18, 2017 at KVI Customs Sub-department of Hai Phong port related to violations of defendants, request transfer to State budget.
- Investigating authority confiscated: 1 used white flash drive bearing FPT brand with the phrase “PTD Việt Nam” (PTD Vietnam) (digital signature of PTD Company) submitted by Nguyen Tien H; 1 4GB blue Kingtons DT101G2 flash drive submitted by Nguyen Tien H; 1 red Kingtons flash drive transferred from Department of Criminal Techniques – Hai Phong City Police (record of interrogation of Vu Tien D on March 6, 2019) to Hai Phong City Judgment Enforcement Department for storage in case file.
 Regarding court fee: The defendants shall incur first instance court fee;
For all reasons above,
- Pursuant to Clause 3 Article 154 of the Criminal Code 1999 (currently Clause 3 Article 189); Point s Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 51, Article 58; Article 35 of the Criminal Code:
Impose a fine of VND 1,200,000,000 on defendant Nguyen H for “Illegal cross-border trafficking of goods” and submit to State budget.
Impose a fine of VND 1,000,000,000 on defendant Vu D for “Illegal cross-border trafficking of goods” and submit to State budget.
+ Confiscate and submit to State budget: The shipment of 99.87 tonne of aluminum ingots in 4 containers No. WHLU2899350, WHLU0654487, WHLU2767625 and WHLU0460157 according to customs declaration form No. 301428422800/B11 declared on July 18, 2017 at KVI Customs Sub-department of Hai Phong.
+ Transfer to the case file: 1 used white flash drive bearing FPT brand with the phrase “PTD Việt Nam” (PTD Vietnam) (digital signature of PTD Company) submitted by Nguyen Tien H; 1 4GB blue Kingtons DT101G2 flash drive submitted by Nguyen Tien H; 1 red Kingtons flash drive transferred from Department of Criminal Techniques – Hai Phong City Police (record of interrogation of Vu Tien D on March 6, 2019)
- Regarding court fee: Pursuant to Article 23 of Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 of Standing Committee of National Assembly on court fee and collection, exemption, reduction, submission, management and use thereof, defendant Nguyen H and Vu D are compelled to submit VND 200,000 each for first instance court fee.
- Regarding right to appeal: The defendants (present) shall have the rights to appeal within 15 days from the date of declaring the judgment.
Persons with rights and obligations related to the case (trial of absentia) shall have the right to appeal within 15 days from the date of receiving the judgment or appropriate post thereof.
In case the judgment is enforced according to Article 2 of Law on Civil Judgment enforcement and amendments thereto in 2014, civil judgment creditors and civil judgment debtors may agree on judgment enforcement, judgment enforcement rights, voluntary enforcement or compelled enforcement as specified in Articles 6, 7, 7a, and 9 of Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement and amendments thereto in 2014.