Many readers are interested in the distinction between the offenses of "fraudulent appropriation of property" and "abuse of trust to appropriate property."
In today's society, acts of property appropriation are becoming increasingly sophisticated and difficult to detect.
The two most common offenses in this category are "fraudulent appropriation of property" and "abuse of trust to appropriate property."
It is essential to clearly distinguish between these two offenses, as correct legal classification plays a crucial role in legal proceedings—ensuring fairness in criminal prosecution, preventing wrongful convictions or the failure to prosecute offenders, and enabling victims to effectively protect their legitimate rights and recover their property.
Although they share the common element of property appropriation, they differ fundamentally in their legal nature and the manner in which they are handled.
Regarding the concept of the act
From the perspective of criminal law science, the crime of "abuse of trust to appropriate property" is understood as an act committed by a person who possesses criminal liability capacity and has reached the statutory age. This person—having borrowed, rented, or otherwise received property from another party (valued at 4 million VND or more) under a contract—subsequently absconds; or, upon the deadline for return, willfully fails to return the property despite having the ability and means to do so; or employs deceitful tactics to appropriate the property; or uses the property for an illegal purpose, thereby rendering themselves unable to return it.
Under Article 174 of the 2015 Penal Code, the crime of "fraudulent appropriation of property" occurs when a person uses deceitful tactics to appropriate another's property valued at 2 million VND or more, or property valued at less than 2 million VND if specific statutory circumstances apply.
Fraudulent appropriation of property is understood as the act of using deceitful tactics to induce the property owner or custodian to believe a falsehood and voluntarily hand over the property to the offender, who then appropriates it.
Regarding the timing of the offender's intent to appropriate property
In the case of the crime of "abuse of trust to appropriate property," the offender forms the intent to appropriate the property only *after* a lawful transaction has taken place between the parties.
In other words, the intent to appropriate arises only after the offender has already obtained possession of the property.
In the case of the crime of "fraudulent appropriation of property," the intent to appropriate the property exists *prior* to the use of deceitful tactics. The deceitful tactics must always precede the actual handover of the property. Regarding the criminal act
Regarding the crime of "Abuse of trust to appropriate property": The offender borrows, rents, or otherwise receives property from another person under a contract, and subsequently employs deceitful tactics, absconds, fails to return the property by the deadline despite having the means and ability to do so (while willfully refusing to pay), or uses the property for illegal purposes in order to appropriate it.
Regarding the crime of "Fraudulent appropriation of property": Deceitful tactics are used to appropriate property.
Specifically, the offender presents false information that leads others to believe it is true, causing them to voluntarily hand over their property to the offender.
This presentation of false information can occur in various ways—such as through speech, writing, or actions—or through other methods like feigning a need to borrow or rent the property in order to appropriate it.
In this offense, the property owner hands over the asset because they have been deceived by the offender.
Regarding the use of deceitful tactics
For the crime of "Abuse of trust to appropriate property," the deceitful tactics arise *after* the property has been received; in other words, the offender only obtains the property through a legitimate contract.
The deceitful tactics manifest as attempts to conceal actions intended to avoid returning the property or its value as required by the previously concluded contract.
The offender might falsely claim the property was lost, swapped, or partially removed. Unlike the crime of "Fraudulent appropriation of property," the deceitful tactics in the crime of "Abuse of trust to appropriate property" only appear after the property has already been received. In the case of the crime of obtaining property by fraud, the fraudulent conduct manifests as the presentation of false information through various means—leading the victim to believe it is true and to voluntarily hand over their property—such that the transfer of property to the perpetrator stems entirely from the victim's own volition.
The use of deceitful tactics in this offense invariably precedes or accompanies the act of receiving property from another person and serves as a necessary condition for the misappropriation to occur.
The perpetrator's deceitful tactics are the direct cause of the transfer of property from the person in possession to the perpetrator.Regarding the point of completion of the crime
Both the crime of "abuse of trust to appropriate property" and the crime of "fraud to appropriate property" are considered complete once the property has been appropriated. These two offenses differ regarding the timing of the intent to appropriate: a perpetrator of fraud harbors the intent to appropriate from the very beginning and employs deceitful acts to obtain the property before subsequently appropriating it.
Therefore, the moment they receive the property coincides with the moment they appropriate it, marking the completion of the crime.
In contrast, regarding the crime of "abuse of trust to appropriate property," the act of appropriation occurs after the perpetrator has already lawfully obtained possession of the property from the owner. The crime is constituted only when the perpetrator subsequently engages in acts—such as using deceitful tactics or absconding—to avoid returning the property.
Consequently, the crime of "abuse of trust to appropriate property" is deemed complete at the moment the perpetrator breaches agreed-upon commitments, willfully refuses to return the property, and appropriates another person's property.
Regarding the value of the appropriated property
For the crime of "abuse of trust to appropriate property," a criminal offense is established if the value of the appropriated property is 4,000,000 VND or more, or—if the value is less than 4,000,000 VND—if the perpetrator has previously been administratively sanctioned for property appropriation or convicted of this crime or another offense specified in the Penal Code.
For the crime of "fraud to appropriate property," due to its higher level of danger, a criminal offense is established if the value of the appropriated property is 2,000,000 VND or more, or—if the value is less than 2,000,000 VND—if the case falls under one of the specific circumstances prescribed by law. Based on the analysis above, it is evident that the crime of "abuse of trust to appropriate property" and the crime of "fraud to appropriate property" differ in their objective elements—specifically regarding the nature of the contractual arrangement involved.
In the case of abuse of trust to appropriate property, the contract is initially entered into solely for the purpose of borrowing, renting, or otherwise obtaining temporary possession of the property.
The offender receives the property lawfully and in good faith through the transaction, harboring no intent to misappropriate it at the time of receipt.
The crime is only deemed to have been committed if, subsequently, the offender absconds, fails to return the property by the due date despite having the means to do so, employs deceitful tactics, or uses the property for illegal purposes.
In these instances, the use of deceitful tactics is not a mandatory element of the offense.
Conversely, in the case of fraud to appropriate property, the offender intends to misappropriate the property before the victim hands it over. If the property is obtained through a contractual transaction with the victim, that contract serves merely as a vehicle for misappropriation; it is inherently fraudulent or a sham, designed to instill trust and induce the victim to relinquish the property.
The crime is considered consummated the moment the offender receives the property under the contract. Because the act of deceit is the decisive factor enabling the misappropriation, it constitutes a mandatory element of the offense.