Precedent No. 76/2025/AL was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on December 24, 2025, and published under Decision No. 339a/QD-CA dated December 25, 2025, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a precedent?
Precedents are arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Courts on specific cases selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and published by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedents for Courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HDTP)
Selected precedents must meet the following criteria:
– Contain value in clarifying legal provisions with different interpretations, analyzing and explaining legal issues and events, and pointing out principles, handling directions, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case or demonstrating equity for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– Possess standard characteristics;
– Contain value in guiding the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 76/2025/AL on the confiscation and contribution to the State budget of instruments and means used for committing crimes that have not been title-transferred
2.1. Source of the precedent
Criminal Appellate Judgment No. 282/2021/HS-PT dated December 6, 2021, of the People’s Court of Dong Nai Province regarding the case of “Robbery” and “Illegal arrest of persons” against defendant Bui Thi T and accomplices.
Position of the precedent content:
Paragraph 11 of the “Court’s Assessment” section.
2.2. Overview of the precedent content
– Case situation:
The defendant purchased a car but had not performed the title transfer procedures as prescribed. The seller confirmed the sale of the car to the defendant and had no dispute over property ownership. Subsequently, the defendant used this car as an instrument and means to commit a crime.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the Court must determine the car as the defendant’s property and declare its confiscation and contribution to the State budget.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
– Point a, Clause 1, Article 47 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017, 2024, and 2025);
– Point a, Clause 2, Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2021, 2024, and 2025).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Purchase of car without title transfer procedures”; “Use of car as an instrument or means of crime”; “Confiscation and contribution to the State budget”.
CASE CONTENT:
According to the documents in the case file and the proceedings at the trial, the case content is summarized as follows:
Bui Thi T, Le Thi Tuyet H, Mai Thi H1, and Nguyen Hong T1 had a business relationship in land trading. During the business process, conflicts arose regarding debts. On October 24, 2019, Bui Thi T met Nguyen Van K to ask K to collect the debt on her behalf; K agreed. Since T1 had blocked T’s phone number, T could not contact T1. Therefore, T discussed with K to pretend to call T1 to ask for land documents; K agreed and called T1 pretending to ask for land documents. T1 believed it, accepted, and made an appointment to meet at the “Na Na” drink shop (in Ward A, City B, Dong Nai Province). After making the appointment with T1, K invited Pham Van L to go along; L agreed. At this time, T rented a car from the couple Nguyen Van T2 and Mai Thi H1 to go to the location to meet T1. Upon arriving at the “Na Na” shop, K and L got out of the car and entered the shop first, while T2, H1, and T sat in the car. When T1 arrived at the shop to meet K, T and H1 entered. At this point, T presented a debt note written by T1 stating a debt of 211,000,000 VND to Le Thi Tuyet H and demanded T1 pay T 60,000,000 VND (because T had previously advanced 60,000,000 VND to pay land buyers out of the 211,000,000 VND that T1 owed H). T1 held the debt note, looked at it, and said “T1 owes H, not T,” so T called H to come. While waiting for H, T1 took the debt note to the restroom and tore it up. When H arrived, T discovered T1 had destroyed the debt note and demanded T1 rewrite a debt note with the content: “T1 owes T 60,000,000 VND and owes H 151,000,000 VND.” T also told H1 to get paper for T1 to write. H1 went to the car to get paper, but T1 intentionally wrote the content incorrectly several times, so he was punched in the face by K. Then, K and L dragged T1 to the car with license plate 60A – 242.93 (driven by T2, waiting on the roadside) and forced T1 into T2’s car. Once in the car, H1 sat in the front passenger seat (next to T2), T1 sat between K and L (second row), T sat in the back row, while H rode a motorcycle following the car 60A – 242.93. On the way, when they reached V intersection, City B, T1 saw many passersby and shouted for help, but L punched him once in the stomach. Fearing further beatings, T1 did not dare to continue calling for help. When they reached a rubber plantation (in Area X, Commune Y, District G), K, L, and T forced T1 to write a debt note to T for 60,000,000 VND. While writing the debt note, T1 saw a tanker truck passing by and ran to seek help, but K used a piece of rubber wood to hit him and said, “Now this is the last piece of paper, are you going to write or what?” Fearing being beaten, T1 wrote the debt note as requested by T with the content: “T1 borrows T 60,000,000 VND, of which a motorcycle with license plate 60F2 – 858.45 is mortgaged for 30,000,000 VND, leaving 30,000,000 VND.” After the debt note was finished, T forced T1 to sign it. T also told H to provide her red lipstick for T to apply to T1’s finger and forced T1 to fingerprint the debt note; H1 and H signed as witnesses. Then, T searched T1’s pants pockets and took a wallet containing 1,400,000 VND. T took 1,000,000 VND to pay the car rental to T2 and H1, T kept 400,000 VND, and returned 100,000 VND to T1 (for T1 to call a ride home). Afterward, the group left in the car while T1 went to the Binh Da Ward Police to report the incident.
Seized evidence:
– 01 debt commitment paper;
– 01 motorcycle, license plate 60F2 – 858.45, with registration papers;
– 01 car, license plate 60A – 242.93, with registration papers;
– 01 memory card from the dashcam of car 60A – 242.93;
– 01 USB recording the camera at Na Na drink shop;
– 01 piece of rubber wood 30cm long, 2.5cm in diameter.
* According to the Property Valuation Conclusion in Criminal Proceedings No. 30 dated March 23, 2020, the Property Valuation Council of District G concluded: 01 motorcycle, license plate 60F2 – 858.45, is valued at 24,500,000 VND (Twenty-four million five hundred thousand VND).
* In First-instance Judgment No. 61/2021/HS-ST dated April 2, 2021, the People’s Court of Long Thanh District applied Points d, dd, Clause 2, Article 168; Clause 1, Article 157; Point s, Clause 1, Article 51; Article 54; Article 55; Article 58 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017) (Additionally applying Point b, Clause 1, Clause 2, Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2015 for defendant Bui Thi T, Article 56 of the Criminal Code 2015 for defendant Pham Van L), sentencing:
– Defendant Bui Thi T to 06 (six) years in prison for “Robbery” and 08 (eight) months in prison for “Illegal arrest of persons.” The combined penalty for the two crimes requires T to serve a total of 06 (six) years and 08 (eight) months in prison.
– Defendant Nguyen Van K to 05 (five) years and 06 (six) months in prison for “Robbery” and 08 (eight) months in prison for “Illegal arrest of persons.” The combined penalty for the two crimes requires K to serve a total of 06 (six) years and 02 (two) months in prison.
– Defendant Pham Van L to 05 (five) years in prison for “Robbery” and 08 (eight) months in prison for “Illegal arrest of persons.” The combined penalty for the two crimes requires L to serve a total of 05 (five) years and 08 (eight) months in prison, and combined with a 02 (two) year prison sentence for “Illegal possession of narcotic substances” under Judgment No. 143/2020/HS-ST dated March 26, 2020, of the People’s Court of Bien Hoa City, Dong Nai Province, L must serve a total of 07 (seven) years and 08 (eight) months in prison for both judgments.
Regarding judicial measures: Applying Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 47 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017).
– Confiscate and destroy 01 piece of rubber wood 30cm long, 2.5cm in diameter.
– Return to Mr. Nguyen Hong T1 01 motorcycle, license plate 60F2 – 858.45, with registration papers and the amount of 1,400,000 VND (one million four hundred thousand VND).
– Confiscate and contribute to the State budget 01 car 60A – 242.93, KIA brand, passenger car type, white, engine number G4KAEH410974, chassis number 51M5FC061659, with registration papers under the name Pham Thuy Anh D.
Additionally, the first-instance court also pronounced sentences for other defendants, court fees, and the right to appeal according to the law.
On April 8, 2021, defendants Bui Thi T, Nguyen Van K, and Pham Van L filed appeals requesting a reduction of their sentences.
On April 16, 2021, defendant Mai Thi H1 filed an appeal requesting the appellate court to return the car 60A – 242.93 to her.
At the trial, defendants T, K, L, and H1 maintained their appeals and requested the Trial Panel’s consideration.
* Opinion of the Representative of the People’s Procuracy of Dong Nai Province:
The actions of defendants Bui Thi T, Nguyen Van K, and Pham Van L constituted the crime of “Robbery” and “Illegal arrest of persons” as regulated at Points d, dd, Clause 2, Article 168 and Clause 1, Article 157 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017). The first-instance court considered the mitigating circumstances and sentenced: Bui Thi T to 06 years for “Robbery” and 08 months for “Illegal arrest,” totaling 06 years and 08 months. Nguyen Van K to 05 years and 06 months for “Robbery” and 08 months for “Illegal arrest,” totaling 06 years and 02 months. Pham Van L to 05 years for “Robbery” and 08 months for “Illegal arrest,” totaling 05 years and 08 months, and combined with a 02-year sentence for “Illegal possession of narcotic substances,” L must serve a total of 07 years and 08 months.
It is found that the above sentences are appropriate for the nature, severity, and criminal acts of the defendants. The defendants appealed for sentence reduction but did not provide any other mitigating circumstances, except for T, who provided a certificate of difficult family circumstances and parents who served the revolution. It is proposed that the Trial Panel reject the appeals of T, L, K and uphold the first-instance judgment.
Regarding defendant Mai Thi H1’s appeal for the return of the car 60A – 242.93: This car was the means used by the defendants to commit the crime. Through investigation, the registered owner is Ms. Pham Thuy Anh D. On April 10, 2018, Ms. D and Mr. T3 sold the car to Mr. Le Thành N via an authorization contract. On March 20, 2019, Mr. N sold the car to defendant Mai Thi H1 via an authorization contract, without performing title transfer procedures. Although legally the car is still in Ms. D’s name, it was actually sold to H1. Based on the authorization contract and the confirmations of Ms. D, Mr. T3, and Mr. N that they sold it and have no further claims, the first-instance court’s declaration to confiscate and contribute the car to the State budget because H1 and T2 used it as a means of crime is appropriate and lawful. H1’s appeal has no basis for acceptance. It is proposed to reject H1’s appeal and uphold the first-instance judgment.
* Opinion of Lawyer Pham Quoc V defending defendant H1:
The defense lawyer stated that H1 did not sign any car purchase contract with Ms. D, Mr. T3, or Mr. N. Currently, H1 has filed a lawsuit against Mr. N at the People’s Court of Bien Hoa City to dispute the “Authorization Contract,” requesting the Court to declare the termination of the authorization contract dated March 20, 2019, between H1 and Mr. N, requesting Mr. N to return 340,000,000 VND to H1, and H1 will return the car 60A – 242.93 to Mr. N (Notice of Acceptance No. 615/TB-TLVA dated November 1, 2021). Therefore, it is requested that the appellate court consider returning the car to H1 to ensure judgment enforcement for the pending case at the People’s Court of Bien Hoa City.
COURT’S ASSESSMENT:
[1] Based on the case content and the documents in the case file that were debated at the trial, the Trial Panel assesses as follows:
[2] Regarding procedures: The defendants’ appeals were filed within the statutory time limit and are considered according to appellate procedures.
[3] At the appellate trial, defendants Bui Thi T, Nguyen Van K, Pham Van L, and Mai Thi H1 admitted to their entire criminal acts as stated in the first-instance judgment, specifically:
[4] Between defendants Bui Thi T, Mai Thi H1, Le Thi Tuyet H, and Mr. Nguyen Hong T1, there was an acquaintance through land business (T and H were sellers, H1 was the buyer, and T1 was the intermediary). During the business process, a debt conflict arose where T1 owed money to T and Ms. H. T requested payment many times, but T1 intentionally did not pay and blocked T’s phone, so T asked K to help arrange a meeting with T1 to collect the debt. K agreed and invited L. On the morning of October 24, 2019, after K made an appointment with T1, T rented a car from Nguyen Van T2 (H1’s husband) to transport L and K to “Na Na” cafe (in Ward A, City B, Dong Nai Province). On the way to “Na Na,” T2 drove T, L, K, and H1. Upon arrival, T2 parked outside while the others entered to meet T1. Here, T presented a debt note requiring T1 to pay, but the note showed T1 owed H 211,000,000 VND, so T1 refused to pay T and asked T to call H to resolve it. After taking the note (from T), T1 went to the restroom and tore it up. When H arrived, T discovered T1 had destroyed the note and demanded T1 write a new one, while telling H1 to give blank paper to T1. Since T1 wrote the content incorrectly several times (each time he did, T told H1 to give paper to T1 to rewrite), K punched him in the face once. Then, K and L each held one of T1’s arms and dragged him to the car where T2 was waiting, forcing T1 inside to be taken elsewhere. In the car, H1 sat in the front passenger seat, the second row had T1 in the middle with L and K on either side, while T sat in the back row and H followed on a motorcycle. Reaching Vung Tau intersection, T1 shouted for help, but L threatened him with a hand gesture. Fearing being beaten, T1 stopped shouting. Reaching Area C (in Area X, Commune Y, District G, Dong Nai Province), K told T2 to drive into the rubber plantation. After stopping, L, K, and T remained in the car, continuing to use H1’s paper and pen to force T1 to write a debt note for 60,000,000 VND. T1 refused and asked to get out to write. While writing, T1 saw a tanker truck and ran for help, but K hit him with a rubber wood stick and threatened him. Fearful, T1 wrote the note for 60,000,000 VND (mortgaging motorcycle 60F2 – 858.45 for 30,000,000 VND). After writing, T told H to provide lipstick for T1 to fingerprint the note; H1 and H signed as witnesses. Then, T took T1’s wallet containing 1,400,000 VND. T gave 1,000,000 VND to T2 and kept 400,000 VND. The total amount seized from T1 was 61,400,000 VND.
[5] With the criminal acts mentioned above, defendants Bui Thi T, Nguyen Van K, and Pham Van L were sentenced by the first-instance court for “Robbery” under Point d “using weapons, instruments, or other dangerous tricks,” Point dd “appropriating property valued from 50,000,000 VND to under 200,000,000 VND,” Clause 2, Article 168 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017) and “Illegal arrest of persons” under Clause 1, Article 157 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017), which is grounded, correct, and lawful.
[6] Assessing the appeals of defendants Bui Thi T, Nguyen Van K, and Pham Van L:
[7] The actions of defendants Bui Thi T, Nguyen Van K, and Pham Van L are dangerous to society, not only directly infringing upon the legal property rights and physical freedom of others protected by law but also negatively affecting local social order and security. In this case, T played the primary role; she actively planned, involved K, rented the vehicle, and directly took 1,400,000 VND from the victim. K and L participated as accomplices, actively performing criminal acts such as hitting, threatening, and forcing the victim to another location, and forcing him to write a debt note against his will (K used a rubber stick when the victim tried to run, L threatened to hit him, making victim T1 fearful and unable to resist). Therefore, T must bear a higher penalty than K and L, and severe sentences are necessary, proportional to the nature and acts of the defendants, isolating them from society for a period for rehabilitation and education, as well as for general deterrence.
[8] When sentencing, the first-instance court considered that the defendants were honest in their testimony and remorseful; the victim was partially at fault (tearing the debt note) and requested sentence reduction, which are mitigating circumstances under Point s, Clause 1, and Clause 2, Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017). Although the first-instance court noted this, it failed to apply it in the Decision section for K and L, which is a mistake that needs to be learned from regarding the declaration format. Separately, T compensated the victim, and the victim filed a request for her sentence reduction, which is a mitigating circumstance under Point b, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017). The defendants had no aggravating circumstances and many mitigating ones, so the first-instance court applied Article 54 of the Criminal Code 2015 to sentence them below the minimum frame, and applied Article 55 of the Criminal Code 2015 to combine the penalties for the two crimes correctly according to the law. The first-instance court sentenced Bui Thi T to 06 years for “Robbery” and 08 months for “Illegal arrest,” totaling 06 years 08 months; sentenced Nguyen Van K to 05 years 06 months for “Robbery” and 08 months for “Illegal arrest,” totaling 06 years 02 months; sentenced Pham Van L to 05 years for “Robbery” and 08 months for “Illegal arrest,” totaling 05 years 08 months, which is appropriate and lawful.
[9] At the appellate level, Nguyen Van K and Pham Van L requested sentence reduction but provided no other mitigating circumstances that had not been considered. They did not provide new details, so their appeals have no basis for acceptance. Bui Thi T requested a reduction and provided a certificate of difficult family circumstances (certified by local authorities), a First-Class Resistance Medal of Ms. Bui Thi T4 (defendant’s mother), and a Second-Class Resistance Medal of Mr. Bui Dinh T5 (defendant’s father), which are new mitigating circumstances under Clause 2, Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2015 not considered at the first-instance level. Additionally, the Appellate Trial Panel finds: the defendant is female, with limited legal awareness (grade 9/12); during the appellate preparation process, the defendant also had Covid-19. Therefore, the Appellate Trial Panel accepts the appeal to partially reduce Bui Thi T’s sentence to create conditions for her early reintegration, to care for herself and her elderly parents, reflecting the humanitarian spirit of the law for those who show remorse.
[10] Assessing the appeal of defendant Mai Thi H1:
[11] Regarding the car 60A – 242.93 used by the defendants as a means of crime, driven by Nguyen Van T2 (H1’s husband), the registered owner is Ms. Pham Thi Anh D. On April 10, 2018, Ms. D and Mr. T3 sold the car to Mr. Le Thành N via an authorization contract without title transfer. On March 20, 2019, Mr. N sold the car to defendant Mai Thi H1 via an authorization contract without title transfer. Although legally it remains in Ms. D’s name, it was actually sold to H1, and H1 is the owner because, based on the scope of the two authorization contracts, H1 had all three ownership rights: possession, use, and disposal (pledge, gift, lease, or sale…). This was confirmed by Ms. D, Mr. T3, and Mr. N, who all stated they had sold it, received full payment, and delivered the car (Ms. D and Mr. N have no claims and requested the Court to judge according to the law). From the analysis above, there is enough basis to determine car 60A – 242.93 belongs to defendant Mai Thi H1. Thus, the first-instance court applied Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 47 of the Criminal Code 2015 to declare the confiscation and contribution to the State budget of car 60A – 242.93 (KIA, white, engine G4KAEH410974, chassis 51M5FC061659, with registration) used by T2 and H1 as a means of crime, which is appropriate and lawful.
[12] Regarding court fees:
[13] The appeals of Nguyen Van K, Pham Van L, and Mai Thi H1 are not accepted, so they must bear appellate criminal court fees.
[14] Bui Thi T’s appeal is accepted, so she does not have to bear appellate criminal court fees.
[15] The opinion and proposal of the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Dong Nai Province are partially consistent with the Trial Panel’s assessment and are partially accepted. The proposal to reject T’s appeal is not accepted by the Trial Panel.
[16] The opinion and proposal of Lawyer V for H1 are not consistent with the Trial Panel’s assessment and are not accepted.
For the reasons above,
DECISION:
[1] Pursuant to Points a, b, Clause 1, Article 355; Point c, Clause 1, Article 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015;
Reject the appeals of defendants Nguyen Van K, Pham Van L, and Mai Thi H1; Accept the appeal of defendant Bui Thi T, partially amending First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 61/2021/HS-ST dated April 2, 2021, of the People’s Court of Long Thanh District.
[2] Applying Points d, dd, Clause 2, Article 168; Clause 1, Article 157; Point s, Clause 1, Clause 2, Article 51; Article 54; Article 55; Article 58 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017) (Additionally applying Point b, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2015 for Bui Thi T; Article 56 of the Criminal Code 2015 for Pham Van L):
– Sentence defendant Bui Thi T to 05 (five) years in prison for “Robbery” and 08 (eight) months in prison for “Illegal arrest of persons.” Combined penalty for the two crimes requires T to serve a total of 05 (five) years and 08 (eight) months in prison. The prison term is calculated from the date of arrest, March 12, 2020.
– Sentence defendant Nguyen Van K to 05 (five) years and 06 (six) months in prison for “Robbery” and 08 (eight) months in prison for “Illegal arrest of persons.” Combined penalty for the two crimes requires K to serve a total of 06 (six) years and 02 (two) months in prison. The prison term is calculated from November 10, 2019.
– Sentence defendant Pham Van L to 05 (five) years in prison for “Robbery” and 08 (eight) months in prison for “Illegal arrest of persons.” Combined penalty for the two crimes requires L to serve a total of 05 (five) years and 08 (eight) months in prison, and combined with the 02 (two) year prison sentence for “Illegal possession of narcotic substances” from Judgment No. 143/2020/HS-ST dated March 26, 2020, of the People’s Court of Bien Hoa City, Dong Nai Province, L must serve a total of 07 (seven) years and 08 (eight) months in prison. The prison term is calculated from October 27, 2019.
[3] Regarding judicial measures: Applying Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 47 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017):
– Confiscate and destroy 01 piece of rubber wood (30cm long, 2.5cm in diameter).
– Confiscate and contribute to the State budget 01 car 60A – 242.93, KIA brand, passenger car type, white, engine number G4KAEH410974, chassis number 51M5FC061659, with registration papers under the name Pham Thuy Anh D.
– Return to Mr. Nguyen Hong T1 01 motorcycle, license plate 60F2 – 858.45, with registration papers and the amount of 1,400,000 VND (One million four hundred thousand VND).
(According to the Decision to Transfer Evidence dated November 10, 2020, of the People’s Procuracy of Long Thanh District, the Minutes on Delivery and Receipt of Evidence and Property dated November 12, 2020, and Receipt No. 06874 dated November 12, 2020, of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Bureau of Long Thanh District).
[4] Regarding court fees: Applying Resolution 326/2016/UBTVQH-14 dated December 30, 2016, of the National Assembly.
– Defendants Nguyen Van K, Pham Van L, and Mai Thi H1 must each pay 200,000 VND for appellate criminal court fees.
– Defendant Bui Thi T does not have to bear appellate criminal court fees.
[5] Other decisions of the first-instance judgment not appealed or protested have become legally effective as of the date the time limit for appeal or protest expired.
[6] The appellate judgment becomes legally effective as of the date of pronouncement.
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[11] Regarding the car 60A – 242.93 used by the defendants as a means of crime, driven by Nguyen Van T2 (H1’s husband), the registered owner is Ms. Pham Thi Anh D (according to the registration and the Vehicle Verification Response from the Traffic Police Division – Dong Nai Provincial Police). On April 10, 2018, Ms. D and Mr. T3 sold the car to Mr. Le Thành N via an authorization contract without title transfer. On March 20, 2019, Mr. N sold the car to defendant Mai Thi H1 via an authorization contract without title transfer. Although legally it remains in Ms. D’s name, it was actually sold to H1, and H1 is the owner because, based on the scope of the two authorization contracts, H1 had all three ownership rights: possession, use, and disposal (pledge, gift, lease, or sale…). This was confirmed by Ms. D, Mr. T3, and Mr. N, who all stated they had sold it, received full payment, and delivered the car (Ms. D and Mr. N have no claims and requested the Court to judge according to the law). From the analysis above, there is enough basis to determine car 60A – 242.93 belongs to defendant Mai Thi H1. Thus, the first-instance court applied Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 47 of the Criminal Code 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017) to declare the confiscation and contribution to the State budget of car 60A – 242.93 (KIA, white, engine G4KAEH410974, chassis 51M5FC061659, with registration) used by T2 and H1 as a means of crime, which is appropriate and lawful.”
