Hanoi firms’ civil dispute likely to turn into criminal case

A civil dispute between two companies in Hanoi is likely to become a criminal case after one unilaterally confiscated the office of the other.

Chairman of Dat Xanh Energy Investment JSC To Thanh Son has submitted an application to the police of Dong Da district denouncing some individuals related to Kang Long Urban Investment JSC for "destruction of assets", "illegally occupying property" and "infringing upon the residence of others".

Unilaterally confiscating office

On December 8, when employees of Dat Xanh Company arrived at their office, located on the technical floor KT2 of Hong Kong Tower at No. 243A, La Thanh street, Lang Thuong ward, Dong Da district, they found that the lock had been broken and replaced with another. In addition, the private office room of the company chairman was also unlocked.

Dat Xanh staff wanted to check the facilities inside the office, but were blocked by strangers who asked them to leave the area. They then called police hotline 113 and Lang Thuong ward police to report the case.

Receiving the information from his employees, Son called the management board of Visaho - operator of Hong Kong Tower, and was told they did not know about the incident. Seeing that all assets of Dat Xanh Company had been taken from the office, on December 10, Son directly went to Dong Da district police to report the case.

“The thing that bothers us the most is that right after discovering the incident, we called police hotline 113 and reported it to the competent authorities, but over the past 12 days, no agency has accepted or solved the case," an angry Son told The Investor, adding that he also sent urgent denunciations to the Supreme People's Procuracy and Hanoi's prosecution agencies.

Confirming the case, general director of Kang Long Company Vu Van Phu explained that Dat Xanh had rented his company’s office but had not paid fees for leasing and services for several years. After repeatedly asking Dat Xanh to pay without success, he invited representatives of local authorities and bailiffs to witness the office confiscation.

Documents provided by Dat Xanh Company show that on December 6, Kang Long Company requested the Gia Binh Attorney's Office in neighboring Bac Ninh province’s Gia Binh district to provide a certificate recognizing an event during which Kang Long Company had hired a locksmith to unlock the Dat Xanh Company office and counted the assets inside.

However, Son reported that at the time, all assets in the 200-square-meter office had been taken away by Kang Long Company. He noted that at the time of the office confiscation, "there were three people wearing police uniforms".

"The lawless behavior of some individuals of Kang Long Company with the participation of several people wearing police uniforms makes us feel unsafe. Dat Xanh Company has submitted an application to the Ministry of Public Security asking for identifying who these are,” Son said.

Lawyer Pham Van Phat, head of An Phat Pham law firm, said that the dispute between Kang Long and Dat Xanh relates to payment obligations and must be handled in accordance with the law. "If there is a dispute, Kang Long should bring Dat Xanh to court for payment, and even fined for late payment. But the act of breaking the lock and sealing assets is criminal as that's infringing upon the residence and assets of others."

Multi-year disputes

The incident between Dat Xanh Company and Kang Long Company is the continuation of a series of discords and disputes between the two entities over many years.

In 2014, Kang Long Company and Dat Xanh Company signed a business cooperation contract on co-investing in the construction of the Hong Kong Tower apartment building on an area of 5,041 square meters.

The two parties agreed that Kang Long contributes 75% of total capital and Dat Xanh 25%; and they would enjoy benefits according to their respective capital contribution ratios totalling 80% of the interests from the project. Another party would enjoy the remaining 20%.

While Kang Long believed that Dat Xanh rented the premises without paying the fee, Dat Xanh thought the office space it was using is part of the benefits under the contract agreed many times by both sides.

In addition, there is another dispute between the two companies relating to business cooperation in the exercise of the right to sell apartments to customers, which has been brought to the Hanoi People's Court for settlement.