Scandal at Grand Sunlake part 9 

According to Memorandum of Agreement No. 135 between Thang Long and An Phu Gia, Section I on the content and subject matter of the agreement specifies the legal status of the 380 apartments transferred by Thang Long to An Phu Gia as follows: the 380 units include 84 long-term residential apartments (legally eligible for sale/transfer) and 296 lease-only apartments (legally not eligible for sale, transfer, or lease-purchase agreements).

However, the majority of these units were subsequently transferred to customers through contracts titled “Assignment of Sale and Purchase Agreement/Lease-Purchase Agreement.” This method of contracting caused significant misunderstanding, as many purchasers believed they were obtaining ownership rights or rights to purchase future-formed residential units, while the legal nature of the product was merely lease-only apartments, not commercial apartments permitted for sale.

The manner in which these contracts were presented and executed shows signs of misleading customers regarding the legal status of the apartments and the rights to which buyers are entitled. Under the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights, businesses are prohibited from providing inaccurate, confusing, or concealed information about the characteristics, quality, or legal status of a product. Failure to disclose the lease-only nature of the units constitutes conduct expressly prohibited under this law.

Under the Criminal Code, if intent to appropriate assets or obtain illicit gain is established, providing false information about the apartments may constitute the crime of Fraudulent Appropriation of Assets or Abuse of Trust to Appropriate Assets.

Therefore, based on the above analysis, Thang Long and An Phu Gia may be subject to criminal prosecution if they are found to have deceived customers and executed improper contract types to misappropriate funds from the transfer of apartments that did not meet the legal conditions for sale.