Dai Nam Dental Owner Arrested Amidst $52 Million Divorce Case

Ho Ngoc Tien Trung, the owner of the Dai Nam aesthetic dental chain, has been arrested by Vietnamese authorities. He faces charges of "fraudulent appropriation of property" and "violating regulations on accounting, causing serious consequences." The Ministry of Public Security announced the arrest on July 1, detailing the ongoing investigation into alleged wrongdoings at his dental clinics in Ho Chi Minh City.

Trung's arrest comes as he is also the plaintiff in a high-profile divorce case. The People's Court of District 5 in Ho Chi Minh City is handling the proceedings, which involve a disputed marital estate estimated at around 1,200 billion Vietnamese dong (approximately $52 million USD). The court had previously suspended the divorce trial on May 29 to verify Trung's status, as he was absent without explanation.

“

According to regulations in Clause 4, Article 85 of the Civil Procedure Code, for divorce cases, the parties cannot authorize another person to represent them in legal proceedings.

Legal experts are now examining the implications of Trung's detention on the civil divorce case. According to Vietnamese civil procedure law, personal matters like divorce cannot be delegated through power of attorney. While asset division might allow for representation, the core divorce request requires the plaintiff's personal appearance. Given Trung's current status as a detainee in a criminal investigation, his participation in the divorce trial is considered highly unlikely.

The criminal charges against Trung and his associates, including Thai Huu Van and Dam Thi Bich Hang, are significant. The investigation into asset appropriation and accounting violations may also shed light on the origins of the wealth contested in the divorce. The resolution of the criminal case is expected to influence the direction and outcome of the ongoing civil litigation.

“

For the request for divorce/annulment of marriage against the law, Mr. Trung is not allowed to authorize because this right belongs to his personal capacity. Therefore, Mr. Trung must be present during the trial, and the panel of judges cannot continue the trial if Mr. Trung is absent.