The Investigation Security Agency of the Quang Ninh Provincial Police is detain him Do Huu Ca – Former Director of Hai Phong City Public Security to verify and clarify some issues related to the case “Tax evasion, illegal trading of invoices and receipts for payment to the state budget”, which happened in Quang Ninh and Hai Phong. The notice of the investigating agency showed that Mr. Do Huu Ca was investigated for fraud and appropriation of property.
Two cases occurred following criminal detention
Discussing with PV Knowledge and Life, Doctor and lawyer Dang Van Cuong – Hanoi Bar Association said that Major General Do Huu Ca’s criminal detention related to fraud to appropriate property caused many people are surprised.
Mr. Do Huu Ca is not only a person with many achievements in the People’s Police force, but also held the position of leader of Hai Phong City Police. Mr. Ca is a person who knows the law and is not so deprived that he has to commit fraud. Therefore, the investigating agency will be cautious in collecting and evaluating evidence to prove the crime in this case.
| Mr. Do Huu Ca. |
According to the law, criminal detention is made on the following grounds: Persons being held in an emergency; Persons arrested in the case of red-handed crimes; Offenders confess and surrender; Person arrested under a wanted decision.
The investigation agency said that the case of Mr. Do Huu Ca being detained was in the case of emergency detention.
The Penal Code stipulates that the grounds for keeping people in an emergency are urgent preventive measures, when it is determined that a person is preparing to commit a particularly serious crime, a very serious crime, or a very serious crime. has committed a crime that, if deemed necessary, to immediately prevent that person from hiding or destroying evidence.
Therefore, the case that the investigating agency decided to temporarily hold Major General Do Huu Ca in the case of emergency detention proves that there is evidence to prove the behavior has signs of crime, as a basis for criminal investigation. carry out further procedural activities to prove the crime in accordance with the law.
According to the regulations, during the detention period, the investigating agency may change its decision to a temporary detention decision or may release it if the time limit expires without proving a crime. The current period of criminal detention is specified in Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, up to 3 days from the date the investigating authority issues the decision on custody and can be extended twice, for 3 days each time.
Therefore, within 9 days, the investigating agency must issue a decision to prosecute the accused or not to prosecute the accused. In case the accused is prosecuted, a decision will be issued to temporarily detain the accused for investigation. The school that does not prosecute the accused will release Major General Ca and decide not to prosecute.
Signs of fraudulent behavior to appropriate property
Lawyer Cuong said that information from newspapers citing sources said that Mr. Do Huu Ca had received tens of billions of dong to run the case. After receiving the money, Mr. Ca kept it for himself and was accused and discovered during the investigation agency’s investigation of a tax evasion case in Quang Ninh. Currently, Mr. Ca has overcome and returned tens of billions of dong, but is still being detained for investigation.
According to the law, if a person with a position of authority receives money to perform work at the request of the giver, this is an act of accepting bribes. In case of receiving money from others by deceitful tricks to appropriate it, this is a fraudulent act to appropriate property. Those who commit acts of fraud to appropriate property from 500,000,000 VND or more will face the highest penalty frame of this crime which is imprisonment from 12 to 20 years or life imprisonment.
In case of fraudulent appropriation of property then, for fear of legal punishment or remorse for his actions, he has returned all property to the victim, this is a mitigating circumstance of criminal liability. rather than a circumstance that excludes criminal liability.
In case of receiving money through fraudulent tricks, the act that constitutes a crime from the time of receiving the money and then returning the money is only a mitigating circumstance to a part of the criminal liability. Therefore, in the case that Mr. Ca returned the money but was still urgently detained by the investigating agency, it shows that the investigating agency is thinking that the behavior of this major general has signs of constituting a criminal crime.
The investigating agency will clarify whether the tax-violating businesses being investigated in the above case are the ones who gave money to Mr. Is the person holding a position of authority related to the job the person giving the money is asking for? These are important facts to determine the violation of the law and the crime involved.
In case the results of the investigation and verification show that there is no agreement between the money giver and the person with a position of authority to perform the work at the request of the giver, and there is no act of abusing the position and power of the money giver. The term of influence on others for personal gain will be considered for signs of fraud to appropriate property under the provisions of article 174 of the Penal Code.
This is a complicated case, related to the reputation of individuals, agencies and organizations. Therefore, the authorities should be careful in collecting and evaluating evidence.
>>> Invite readers to watch more videos Beware of fake police social networking sites to scam
