Lien Khui Thin: Tycoon escaped death sentence, immediately sued to reclaim property after being released from prison

When mentioning the Epco - Minh Phung case, many people cannot forget the two main characters Tang Minh Phung (Director of Minh Phung Garment Company) and Lien Khui Thin (Director of Epco Company).

Going back in time, in 1981, Lien Khui Thin took on a task at the District 3 squid export processing complex, later renamed District 3 Production, Trade and Export Service Company Limited (abbreviated as Epco).

To control the input, Lien Khui Thin organizes a network of fresh squid purchasing stretching from the central coastal provinces such as Quang Nam, Quang Ngai, Binh Dinh, Phu Yen... to Ca Mau cape.

When Epco was on the path to success, the "fateful day" of March 24, 1997 came, Lien Khui Thin and his business partner Tang Minh Phung were handcuffed and sentenced to the highest sentence for fraud and property abuse...

He shared that those were the "darkest" days of his life.

Lien Khui Thin said that the first time in Chi Hoa prison waiting for execution was truly terrible.

On September 8, 2003, the prison cell door opened. Lien Khui Thin thought that the time of judgment had come, but he breathed a sigh of relief when he heard the President's decision to pardon him.

In early 2008, Lien Khui Thin's sentence was reduced from life to 20 years. After serving 12 years, on September 2, 2009, he was granted amnesty and reintegrated into society.

Property recovery lawsuit

Nearly 30 years ago, Mr. Thin and Ms. Nguyen Thi Tuyet Mai jointly established Tay Son Production and Trading Company Limited with a charter capital of 3 billion VND. Each party contributed 50% of the capital, Mr. Thin was Chairman of the Board of Members and Ms. Mai was the Director of the company. A year later, Mr. Thin was arrested in the Epco case.

After being released from prison, Mr. Thin claimed that during his sentence, Ms. Mai transferred all of the capital and assets of Tay Son Company to Mr. Pham Minh Dao, Pham Nguyen Minh Duc (Ms. Mai’s husband and son) and Mr. Do The Minh (Ms. Mai’s brother) without consulting him. He repeatedly contacted Ms. Mai and her relatives to resolve the matter, but they did not cooperate.

In September 2018, Mr. Thin sued Ms. Mai’s husband and children at the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court, requesting the cancellation of the fraudulent transaction and the restoration of his ownership of 50% of the assets and capital contributions in Tay Son Company. In addition, Mr. Thin also requested the court to declare the capital contribution transfer transactions between these people invalid and cancel the Business Registration Certificates from the 1st to the 8th of Tay Son Company.

The defendant (represented by Mr. Duc) did not agree with the plaintiff's request to initiate a lawsuit. They argued that the entire capital transfer transaction of Tay Son Company to the defendant was legal because Mr. Thin was no longer a member of the company.

In May 2020, the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court held a first-instance trial and accepted all of Mr. Thin's lawsuit requests, declaring the capital transfer transactions between Ms. Mai and Mr. Duc and Mr. Dao invalid. The court also declared the cancellation of the business registration change papers of Tay Son Company from 2000 to 2016.

According to the People's Court, Mr. Thin contributed 50% of the capital with Ms. Mai to establish the company. Ms. Mai's transfer of her capital contribution in the company to Mr. Minh (who is not a member of the company) before changing the business registration, reducing the charter capital, as well as changing and removing the members' names without Mr. Thin's opinion... is a violation of the Enterprise Law, infringing on Mr. Thin's rights. Similarly, the transactions of transferring capital contributions between Mr. Minh and Ms. Mai to her husband and children and changing the members of the company are all violations of the law.

Disagreeing with this judgment, the defendant appealed.

In June 2022, the High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City held an appeal hearing to dismiss Mr. Lien Khui Thin's lawsuit request, accepting the appeal of the defendants Pham Minh Dao and Pham Nguyen Minh Duc - who did not agree to return 50% of the plaintiff's capital contribution at Tay Son Production and Trading Company Limited.

According to the appellate court, after Mr. Thin was arrested, Ms. Mai filed a petition with the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court regarding the handling of Mr. Thin's capital contribution at Tay Son Company. The court then issued Official Letter 123 (dated August 22, 2000) explaining that the handling of Mr. Thin's capital contribution in the charter capital of Tay Son Company no longer existed, and other members were allowed to re-register their business to do business. The court of first instance's assertion that "when Ms. Mai transferred her capital contribution to another member, she must have Mr. Thin's opinion" was unfounded, because at this time Mr. Thin was serving his sentence.

Last August, Mr. Thin filed a petition requesting the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court to appeal the case for a final review.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court said that Mr. Thin filed a lawsuit to request the cancellation of the business registration certificates of Tay Son Company, but the two-level court did not include the company in the proceedings as a person with related rights and obligations, which was an omission and a procedural violation.

The case file does not contain any documents or evidence regarding Mr. Thin transferring all of his capital contributions to Ms. Mai or Tay Son Company buying back all of Mr. Thin's capital contributions, nor reducing the company's charter capital according to the provisions of the 1999 Enterprise Law.

During the process of resolving the case, the defendant and the person with related rights and obligations claimed that Mr. Thin was no longer a member of Tay Son Company since the date the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court issued Official Letter 123 (explaining the verdict sentencing Mr. Thin to death), stating that Mr. Thin no longer had assets in the company. However, the 1988 Criminal Procedure Code does not have provisions on explaining, correcting, and amending judgments and decisions. At the same time, this Official Letter is not the basis for determining that Mr. Thin no longer has a capital contribution in Tay Son Company (as the court of first instance determined and concluded that there was a basis).

In addition, the court of first instance and the appellate court did not collect the first instance and appellate criminal judgments of the Minh Phung - Epco case to clarify whether Mr. Lien Khui Thin appropriated money from EPCO LLC or money from a credit institution to contribute capital to Tay Son Company or not; whether these judgments handled Mr. Thin's capital contribution at Tay Son Company or not; consider the provisions of law on whether members of LLCs who are prosecuted for criminal liability or are serving a prison sentence lose their right to own capital contribution or not...

For the above reasons, the Supreme People's Court proposed to annul the judgment and retry the case from the beginning.

Identity of female writer who claims to have given birth to billionaire Elon Musk's 13th child Keng19:37:16 16/02/2025Ashley St. Clair is an author and social media influencer. She is best known for her children's book Elephants Are Not Birds and has over 1 million followers on X.