Truong My Lan’s death sentence could reportedly be commuted to life in prison if she repays three-quarters of the $12 billion she was convicted of embezzling.

Summary

Vietnam’s High People’s Court upheld the death sentence for real estate tycoon Truong My Lan, convicted of embezzlement and bribery in a record $12 billion fraud case.

Lan can avoid execution by returning $9 billion (three-quarters of the stolen funds), potentially reducing her sentence to life imprisonment.

Her crimes caused widespread economic harm, including a bank run and $24 billion in government intervention to stabilize the financial system.

Lan has admitted guilt but prosecutors deemed her actions unprecedentedly damaging. She retains limited legal recourse through retrial procedures.

  • theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    15 days ago

    Tell me about your view on abortion. Not okay from conception or okay until 18 years of age? What a bullshit false dichotomy. It is possible to say I support something to this point. That doesn’t make you pro this or anti that. Nuance does exist.

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.netEnglish
      11·
      15 days ago

      It’s not called a false dichotomy; it’s called taking a firm stance, and speaking the language properly and clearly.

      Pro-lifers think abortion is bad at any point; pro-lifers choicers are people who think abortion is okay to a certain point. People who are pro capital punishment only want it in certain scenarios; people who are anti capital punishment don’t want it at all.

      If you say you are “pro capital punishment in certain scenarios”, then you support the death sentence; end of. Saying you’re “anti but (…)” is like saying “I’m anti-abortion/pro-life except for the first 3 months or in special circumstances”.

      That doesn’t make you pro this or anti that.

      Then don’t claim to be anti this or that when you’re not? I was quite specific in that I was talking to people who say they are “anti” when they are not.

      • theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        15 days ago

        You can say “I’m anti x except in y circumstance.” You just can. You saying this prevents you from being anti that thing is just foolish in my view. Saying I’m anti abortion or anti choice in some cases are both things that can be both said and believed. That’s the point.

        And to say that one is either absolutely anti or not anti at all is a false dichotomy. It is possible to be anti anything to some extent along a gradient.

        To be clear, I’m against capital punishment on the grounds that governments regularly convict innocent people. But I also don’t think the law should protect people with some amount of wealth.

        • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.netEnglish
          11·
          15 days ago

          But I also don’t think the law should protect people with some amount of wealth.

          Well, what’s “some amount of wealth”? We all have some amount of it. At what point is it okay to take someone’s life because of it? I don’t think that’s very different from saying “I think we should use capital punishment on murderers”. One of the reasons I oppose capital punishment is also because government convict innocent people; but another is that I think people can be rehabilitated, and I believe that both for murderers and people with wealth.

          • theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            15 days ago

            I say the wealth bit with tongue in cheek, but I mean as some function of wealth distribution or gdp. There is some amount of wealth that is too much and really hurts society to be hoarded. I agree with you though and share your views on the points you made.