Vietnam sentences real estate tycoon Truong My Lan to death in its largest-ever fraud case
Vietnam sentences real estate tycoon Truong My Lan to death in its largest-ever fraud case
Meanwhile in the usa... Our very own real estate fraudster with 91 felony charges is the pick of 50% of the country to be president.
That was bizarre to type. I can't believe this is reality.
Trump has more felony charges than Biden has years of age
'Nam wins again.
Or the fact the other real estate fraudsters who admitted dont convict Trump of the crime we are also doing!
I can't say nothing will happen to them as I thought, nothing would happen to Trump and here we are.
I also have a biy more respect for giving someone enough rope to hang themselves. If Trump would of been stopped before his presidency, due to all of the reason any previous candidate would of been disqualified. We wouldn't be here either.
50% of the voters
The 67-year-old chair of the real estate company Van Thinh Phat was formally charged with fraud amounting to $12.5 billion — nearly 3% of the country’s 2022 GDP.
Wow, when your fraud starts being measured in "percentage of GDP" you know you got too greedy.
According to prosecutors, over a period of three years from February 2019, she ordered her driver to withdraw 108 trillion Vietnamese dong, more than $4bn (£2.3bn) in cash from the bank, and store it in her basement.
That much cash, even if all of it was in Vietnam's largest denomination banknotes, would weigh two tonnes.
From a BBC article
I think there are certainly crimes that deserve the death penalty (think CP type crimes). Just get those people out of society tbh, but this is just my opinion.
The only problem I have is with 100% certainly. You would have to be certain, or very very close to absolute certainty, that you have the right person who committed the crime.
#victimsOfCommunism UwU
Finally some good fucking news!
Now if only we could do this to blackrock execs in burgerland
I don't believe these things happen because of great work or investigations, she must have stepped on someone else's toes or something, that's the only way influential people go down...
There's your answer:
Her actions “not only violate the property management rights of individuals and organizations but also push SCB (Saigon Joint Stock Commercial Bank) into a state of special control; eroding people’s trust in the leadership of the Party and State,”
You must be from VN to know that thing. That's for real though
Vietnam continues to win.
Now do Trump
Do both the genocidal candidates actually
This but unironically.
Doing a multi billion dollar realestate fraud, in a semi-communist "Socialist Oriented Market Economy"....
...yeah the penalty is gonna be on the steep side. Landlords, rent seekers, and fraudsters aren't looked upon nicely anywhere, but particularly so in a country with that relationship to communism.
Landlords aren't generally considered communal minded. Fraud isn't good for the community, it's not done for the collective good.
The immune system of the masses has weeded out the what was going on here, and will deal with it via putting the perpetrator to death. Making sure this outrageous and damaging conduct will not continue or be encouraged.
It's a tough call, and they're making it.
is there a way to approach being a landlord in an ethical and community-minded way?
One landlord may be more or less "ethical and community minded" than another, but being a landlord is 100% about profiting from somebody else's precariousness. The best you can say is, "Don't hate the player, hate the game." I appreciate a landlord who fixes the broken pipes and doesn't totally gouge me... but that always feels like Stockholm Syndrome.
Would being transparent with the renter about the total cost of owning the property, like the mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, etc., then basing the rent payment off that total cost plus 10% or something be ethical?
I don't see what difference that would make. They still get to set the price, and you can either take it or leave it.
I also recognize that many people don’t want the commitment that comes with purchasing a home.
I suspect that this number is extremely low.
How can the need for those people be met without landlords existing?
Easily with far (far far far) fewer landlords.
It's genuinely ridiculous to paint "rental homes" as some boutique service offered as a choice to home-owners who have money for a house but just don't want the "commitment" (?!?!?!?!?) of not throwing a huge portion of your money away every month. Absurd.
I don't hate small landlords. We all have to betray humanity to avoid being homeless. We work at unscrupulous companies, because what other kind of companies are usually hiring? But we don't have to contort ourselves to the point of breaking every single bone in our bodies to morally justify profiting from the unfair precariousness of people terrified of homelessness.
Would a community-minded individual buying a second home in their own neighborhood to rent out cause them to become less community-minded?
Probably, because it would probably cause them to become entitled, or have an overly endowed sense of entitlement or control over the area (by valorisation of the owning more of it). They'd probably bring it up whenever they could, especially at council meetings as of its an act of charity when it's still rent seeking.
That sense of entitlement is generally termed "being a Karen" these days, and is a Common phenomena among financially sucessful liberals
Would being transparent with the renter about the total cost of owning the property, like the mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, etc., then basing the rent payment off that total cost plus 10% or something be ethical?
What? Rubbing the renters face in the fact that they've got them paying off a mortgage that the renter could probably afford themselves if they only had the CAPITAL outlay for a down payment on the place they're now forced to rent?
No, the ethical move would be to place the house in the renters name proportionally as they pay it off - because they're the ones actually paying the mortgage. Making the false claim of "oh look how much of YOUR MONEY this is costing me" isn't some how more ethical.
This is the nature of capitalism, it privileges people with CAPITAL. Rubbing the renters nose in that fact doesn't suddenly make it ethical. Most renters already know they're paying off someone else's mortgage - or in some cases second or third mortgage - that's part of the whole problem. That's what "rent seeking" is, the creation of a false middle man who collects rent without doing the work of the actual person charged with paying.
You can't make it ethical simply by telling the victim that that's what you're doing. No.
A mugging doesn't become more ethical if the mugger explains what they're doing and how much of the person's cash they're gonna spend on what.
but I also recognize that many people don’t want the commitment that comes with purchasing a home.
That's not a thing. You've made something up, and it sounds like you're feeling a suitable guilt for your rent seeking behaviour.
People WANT the commitment, security, and stability of owning their own homes, they just can't find a bank to offer the Capital outlay, or can't find an available property within their means because HOUSING HAS BEEN MADE INTO AN INVESTMENT COMMODITY. That the wealthy wittingly or unwittingly use to take advantage of the poor people paying off their mortgages. So you need to get real on this issue.
How can the need for those people be met without landlords existing?
By banks determining who can have a mortgage by who has a healthy record of paying rent on time. If someone is consistently the source of the cost of the mortgage THEY should be trust worthy enough for their own similar mortgage. That's just common sense.
But instead HOUSING HAS BEEN MADE INTO AN INVESTMENT COMMODITY that the wealthy (wittingly or unwittingly) use to take advantage of the poor people paying off their mortgages... It's rent seeking behaviour.
Would it be through something like cities mandating a certain ratio of SFH’s to apartments/duplexes, then only allowing landlords to own and rent apartments? Although that seems like it would conflict with community-mindedness.
Yeah, seems like something that just privileges the moneyed Capitalist class.
More on topic, yeah. Personal feelings on the death penalty aside, this is what a country not bowing to the billionaire class looks like. As an American, it’s honestly refreshing to see someone with that much money held to actual accountability for their actions.
Yes, it doesn't happen so much in America because America is a Capitalist oriented feudalist system designed with poverty as a feature of the system. Gotta have someone for the upper class people to exploit.
I'd love to tell you different because it's clear you have a conscience even though you're living your part in the system... But I can't.
Thanks for trying to make an "Ethical Capitalism" but there can seldom be such a thing (it's a bit of a contradiction in terms). Australia is trying to get a thing called HAFF (the housing future fund) up and running, where building unions pay for starting the construction of new housing but the housing is still sold on the open market of Capitalism as a commodity to whoever has the largest Capital outlay... So yeah.
The UK has more co-op housing, where subsidized housing is owned and ran by the tenants.. but it's still not quite ethical and pretty hard to get into because it's not a large program.
Congrats on being a home owner (I assume). Maybe you got lucky and under other circumstances you'd be on the other (less pleasant) side of the equation.
sucks to be a criminal billionaire in a socialist-ish country
I'm usually not fond of the death penalty, but these are the kind of people it should be reserved for.
Meh, could have just as easily seized her assets and prison forever
iirc the death sentence is just being used as a motivation for her to return all the stuff she got from corruption and if she does it'll be downgraded to life in prison
Dead panalty is cheaper option.
I don't support the death penalty, but I do support harsh punishment for this kind of massive scale fraud.
Completely agree, the death penalty isn't necessary, but I am glad of the message this sends to some rich folk. Probably mostly Vietnamese ones, but still.
Great for them! Happy for you Vietnam 🙂
Has the death penalty been used for this sort of crime before in Vietnam and has it been effective at deterring others in a measurable way?
In Vietnam? Not sure. The French seemed to have a lasting benefit from doing this to every landlord they could lay hands on in the late 1700s, though.
Has the death sentence been a deterrent for any crime?
No it's a big show for statists to show how strong and dominating they are. It's not about your lowly practical concerns. It doesn't even matter of they kill the right one. As long as blood is spilled. The anger of the masses will be sated for a little while and all will know there is no escape from the violence of the state.
I dunno, try it and find out?
The death penalty in this case isn't to deter future crime of the same type. It's to remove a specific type of malignant cancer from society and ensure that it can't spread to others. All of her cohorts that could be punished were sentenced for a range of time and a fine as is appropriate.
Wait, so in other countries… fraud has consequences?
…negative consequences?
I read the article and I know her fraud was extensive but - anyone else feel like the death penalty for fraud is a bit over the top?
12.5 billion in fraud? Nah.
Just seemed to have no logical end point. Like stop, you've got yours, retire from the game before you die... Well, now she's going to die early. That's heavy but it's the path she chose.
It's not just "fraud." She cost people's livelihood, broke up families, and made people homeless directly through her actions. Even speaking as a marxist, banking isn't all intangible made up stuff. There are real individuals suffering consequences, and most of them aren't just rich people doing rich people things.
Personally, I don't think she should ever be allowed to die until she pays back her debt to society. Death is too easy.
Whether the death penalty should exist at all is a separate question, but Marxists generally recognize Engels’ conception of social murder.
When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live – forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence – knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains.
Just about the only thing I agree with for the death penalty. Everything else can be reformed or quarantined. Wealth and power are cancerous. Doesn't matter where they are, they will never stop trying to take over, and total destruction is the only way to ensure they never get loose to wreak havoc on millions of us ever again.
I don't think anyone should suffer the death penalty, but I also think that there must exist some amount of generalized damage that is enough to cause surplus deaths
A death sentence is always excessive.
Fraud should be punished heavily though. Someone or several someones probably already died as a consequence of that money missing in the system. I'm not sure if a long jail sentence would be much better, with her being 67 it's a death sentence either way.
In my opinion they ought to follow the money. It's impossible for these amounts to just disappear or to have been used by her. It would make sense to keep her alive if there's any chance of recovering more of that lost money. But maybe that's the point.
Absolutely.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The 67-year-old chair of the real estate company Van Thinh Phat was formally charged with fraud amounting to $12.5 billion — nearly 3% of the country’s 2022 GDP.
Lan and her family established the Van Thing Phat company in 1992 after Vietnam shed its state-run economy in favor of a more market-oriented approach that was open to foreigners.
She had started out helping her mother, a Chinese businesswoman, to sell cosmetics in Ho Chi Minh City’s oldest market, according to state media Tien Phong.
Van Thinh Phat would grow to become one of Vietnam’s richest real estate firms, with projects including luxury residential buildings, offices, hotels and shopping centers.
She indirectly owned more than 90% of the bank — a charge she denied — and approved thousands of loans to “ghost companies,” according to government documents.
In November, Communist Party General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, Vietnam’s top politician, said that the anti-corruption fight would “continue for the long term.”
The original article contains 621 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
1 down, 2780 to go.
Let's keep the kill streak going!
More of this.
Is this what equal opportunity under the law looks like?
Are they wearing the same lipstick? She must have pissed off a high ranking communist.
They do love their state murders in Asia