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.

  • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.netEnglish
    159·
    15 days ago

    This thread in a nutshell:

    I’m against the death penalty, but/except/unless…

    Well, then you’re not against it, are you? People who are pro death penalty also have their limits from which point forward they believe death penalty to be justifiable. If you have an exception, you are pro-death penalty.

    And to all the “revolutionaries” in these comments:

    My Disillusionment in Russia, by Emma Goldman (Afterword):

    There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another. (…) All human experience teaches that methods and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose; they influence it, modify it, and presently the aims and means become identical. (…) Psychologically and socially the means necessarily influence and alter the aims. (…)

    No revolution can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSES to be achieved. (…) It is the herald of NEW VALUES, ushering in a transformation of the basic relations of man to man, and of man to society. It is not a mere reformer, patching up some social evils; not a mere changer of forms and institutions; not only a re-distributor of social well-being. It is all that, yet more, much more. (…)

    To-day is the parent of to-morrow. The present casts its shadow far into the future. That is the law of life, individual and social. Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become its cornerstone.

    If you are a leftist that imagines/wishes a future with no government oppression, sponsored killing, and violence; and if you claim to be pro rehabilitation instead of punishment, you should not be celebrating capital punishment.

    • Wizzard@lemm.eeEnglish
      31·
      15 days ago

      Leftist with lofty goals still have to settle - This is the real world, and far from an idealized utopia. We can step into the light while still recognizing we’re walking in the shade. Pro-rehabilitation folks still can believe that not all people can be rehabilitated. Capital punishment may sometimes be the only fitting remedy for civilization, if not just for the punished. There will always be evil in the world who aren’t capable of rehabilitation without some form of violence and punishment - Some crimes and criminals are beyond what the sane and just can fathom.

      • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.netEnglish
        71·
        15 days ago

        Pro-rehabilitation folks still can believe that not all people can be rehabilitated.

        If we were talking hypotheticals I might agree, but like you said this is the real world and a question remains: who decides who is incapable of rehabilitation? People who have committed murder (which I personally would classify as the worst type of crime - taking away someone’s entire life) have been rehabilitated before, and completely changed their lives and become productive members of society. Plus, the same goal could be achieved with permanent incarceration, and at least then they have a chance of being released if we ever find there was a miscarriage of justice.

        Some crimes and criminals are beyond what the sane and just can fathom.

        But who gets to decide who that? Who are the “sane and just” who will draw the line? In Texas, USA, the “sane and just” decided you should get the death penalty if you murder a “peace officer”. And off course by “peace officer” we know they mean the type of people who kill children and people’s dogs; but if anyone were to kill one in self-defence a court would probably still convict them of murder.

    • 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.

    • Filthmontane@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      15 days ago

      Any Communist knows that this future is not possible until money is no longer a necessity. As long as money exists, there will be those that exploit it to control and oppress those with less than. Capital punishment is necessary to end this exploitation. That being said, they’re giving her a choice, pay back $9 billion or die. Pretty simple. She has an opportunity to not die.

      • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.netEnglish
        11·
        15 days ago

        Any Communist knows that this future is not possible until money is no longer a necessity.

        We make money a necessity, and so no, “any communist” doesn’t know that because it isn’t true. You clearly have a very limited and ignorant view of communism and communists. The person I quoted was an anarchist-communist, and I feel like “any communist” should know that.

        That being said, they’re giving her a choice, pay back $9 billion or die. Pretty simple. She has an opportunity to not die.

        Unless I’m missing something: they are the state, they can just seize her assets and put her in prison, there’s no reason for killing.

        • Filthmontane@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          14 days ago

          She probably has her assets tied up in foreign banks where the state can’t access it. Anarchists are dumb and only useful for revolutionary purposes. Once revolutions end, so must the anarchist. Currency is a necessity because there is not enough material abundance to not need it. All the shit jobs that no one wants to do needs to be automated before we can remove money. This is the dream that Marx had for Communism. If you don’t understand the basic foundation for achieving a true Communist society, then you are not educated enough to speak on the subject.

          Kim Il-Sung tried demonetization prematurely from the dprk and it ended horribly. You cannot advance society into a Communist state without making the proper technological and material advancement necessary to support it. But you anarchists want to live in hippie communes and sing songs instead of advancing society. Marx did not advocate for a reverting back to tribal society, but a necessary progression from capitalism to socialism and eventually communism.