CRIMINAL CASE “MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS”

Client Request: The clients, Ms. Nguyen T. H and Mr. Nguyen V. S, request that TAPHALAW provide legal counsel and assign an attorney to represent them in the appellate court proceedings.

Case Summary:

On November 12, 2015, at apartment complex T, the Economic and Corruption Crime Investigation Police Department of Ho Chi Minh City Police inspected and discovered that Nguyen V.S was driving a truck, transporting 55 folding hammocks bearing the D brand, suspected of being counterfeit, and Nguyen V.T was driving a truck carrying 50 folding hammocks of the D brand without invoices or supporting documents, leading to the establishment of a case file for processing. A search of the main office of Company M (directed by Ms. Nguyen T.H) was conducted, resulting in the seizure of 56 folding hammocks and accessories suspected of counterfeiting the “D” brand.

Verification and appraisal results concluded that the “D” brand label, “D” logo, and “www.D.com [đã xoá URL không hợp lệ]” email address on the hammock frames seized from Ms. Nguyen T.H and Mr. Nguyen V.S, when compared to samples provided by Company D, were not produced from the same printing plate.

During the investigation, Ms. Nguyen T.H (hereinafter referred to as “Ms. H”) and Mr. Nguyen V.S (hereinafter referred to as “Mr. S”) confessed: On October 17, 2014, Ms. H (Mr. S’s wife) established Company M, with business lines including the production and sale of hammocks… Around August 2015, due to slow sales, Ms. H and Mr. S conceived the idea of producing counterfeit “D” brand folding hammocks to make a profit. Through the internet, Ms. H purchased 3 sets of dies for stamping the “D” brand logo, various counterfeit “D” brand labels, warranty cards, and fake “D” brand accessories such as pillows, pillowcases, hammock bags, plastic bars, and plastic buttons… Mr. S purchased yarn from Tan Binh market and then had Company C process it into finished hammock nets. Simultaneously, Mr. S purchased one genuine “D” brand hammock frame, then brought it along with the 3 sets of “D” brand logo dies to place an order with a mechanical workshop owner in Tan Phu District, Ho Chi Minh City to produce hammock frames.

After obtaining the counterfeit hammock frames, nets, and accessories, Ms. H and Mr. S proceeded with assembly, affixing labels to the finished products, and selling them. From August 2015 to November 2015, Ms. H and Mr. S admitted to producing 141 counterfeit “D” brand hammocks and selling 30 of them directly to customers.

The investigating agency discovered and seized 111 counterfeit “D” brand products, valued at 139,466,800 đồng, equivalent to the value of genuine “D” brand products.

On May 11, 2017, in Indictment No. 002/CT, the People’s Procuratorate of Ho Chi Minh City prosecuted Ms. Nguyen T.H and Mr. Nguyen V.S for the crime of “Manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods” under Clause 1, Article 156 of the 1999 Criminal Code, as amended in 2009.

On July 13, 2017, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City issued Judgment No. 001/2017/HSST, sentencing: (i) Ms. Nguyen T.H to one year in prison, suspended, with a probation period of two years from July 13, 2017; (ii) Mr. Nguyen V.S to eight months in prison, with the execution period starting from December 1, 2016. Ms. H and Mr. S were ordered to pay an additional fine of 15,000,000 đồng each to the state treasury.

On August 7, 2017, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City issued a Notice regarding the fact that the victim (Company D) appealed the entire judgment, requesting a change in the judgment, an increase in the penalty, compelling Ms. H and Mr. S to pay civil damages, clarifying the signs of a miscarriage of justice, and confiscating the illegally obtained profits to the state treasury.

At the appellate stage, the family and the defendants themselves, Ms. H and Mr. S, accepted the results of the first-instance trial. Therefore, the defendants’ family requested TAPHALAW to provide legal services by assigning a lawyer to defend the defendants to protect the results of the first-instance trial, not to increase the penalty and the amount of civil damages.

Work Performed by the Attorney:

(1) Provided legal advice and support to Ms. H and Mr. S’s family. Advised the family to submit additional documents and evidence proving that a relative of Ms. H and Mr. S was a contributor to the revolution. These documents were submitted to the Court as supplementary evidence to seek a mitigating circumstance for the defendant, as provided for under the law.

(2) At the appellate hearing, the Attorney presented a defense on behalf of Ms. H and Mr. S. The Attorney cited legal grounds, presented arguments, and analyzed the facts of the case and the evidence to assert that the appeal of Company D was unfounded and without merit. The Attorney requested that the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City dismiss Company D’s appeal and uphold the original criminal judgment of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City.

Judgment Outcome:

On January 25, 2018, the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City issued Judgment No. 003/HSPT, fully accepting the Attorney’s defense arguments. The Court decided to dismiss Company D’s appeal and uphold the original criminal judgment of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City.