The Paradox of Charging Crimes in the ONUS and Mr. Pips Cases

Colleagues and experts are invited to share additional opinions on the following issue:
On March 23, the Ministry of Public Security prosecuted a case related to the ONUS cryptocurrency ecosystem, temporarily detaining Vương Lê Vĩnh Nhân and accomplices for violations under Article 290 of the 2015 Penal Code ( for using computer networks, telecommunications, and electronic devices to commit property theft) and money laundering.
This case highlights the blurred boundary between Article 290 and Article 174 ( for fraud and property appropriation).
Clause 1 of Article 290 of the 2015 Penal Code states that this offense applies "only if not falling under one of the cases specified in Articles 173 and 174 of this Code." This is a rare exclusionary condition in the Penal Code.
According to police information, Vương Lê Vĩnh Nhân directed false advertising about the value of cryptocurrencies, conducted transactions to create artificial supply and demand, and manipulated prices to misappropriate investors’ funds.
This behavior fully exhibits the characteristics of fraud under Article 174 of the 2015 Penal Code. The offender provides false information to deceive victims into trusting and voluntarily transferring assets, thereby appropriating those assets. Computer networks and trading platforms are merely tools used to carry out the fraud, not the essence of the criminal act.
The issue lies in the fact that if the behavior satisfies the elements of Article 174, then according to the exclusionary condition in Clause 1 of Article 290, Article 290 cannot be applied. The fact that the investigating agency still prosecuted under Article 290 raises the question: how was this exclusionary condition considered during the charge determination process? I see this as a paradox.
The choice between Article 290 and Article 174 is not only academic but also has significant practical consequences. Clause 4 of Article 290 prescribes a maximum penalty of 12 to 20 years in prison when property theft involves 500 million VND or more. Clause 4 of Article 174 prescribes a penalty of 12 to 20 years or life imprisonment for the same amount of theft. With the accused allegedly involved in tens of trillions of VND, the difference between 20 years and life imprisonment is extremely meaningful.
Previously, there have been proposals to raise the maximum penalty in Clause 4 of Article 290 to life imprisonment, as 20 years is insufficient given the danger posed by high-tech crimes. The ONUS case clearly demonstrates this inadequacy, as a large-scale scheme mobilizing billions of USD faces only a maximum of 20 years if prosecuted under Article 290.
The core behavior in the ONUS case is almost identical to that in the Mr. Pips case. Both involved establishing online platforms, disseminating false information, creating fake transactions to manipulate prices, attracting investors to deposit money, and then appropriating it. Both built tightly organized systems with multiple companies, operating across borders, and both were prosecuted additionally for money laundering.
However, the Mr. Pips case, with a scale exceeding 1,300 billion VND, was prosecuted under Article 174 with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, while the ONUS case, described as much larger in scale, was prosecuted under Article 290 with a maximum of 20 years. A smaller case was penalized more severely, while a larger one was penalized more leniently.
This discrepancy may stem from the fact that two different agencies handled the cases. The Mr. Pips case was handled by the Hanoi Police Investigation Agency, while the ONUS case was handled by the Security Investigation Agency of the Ministry of Public Security. Both agencies faced behaviors with similar legal structures but chose different charges. This situation indicates that the issue is not about the capacity of each agency but the lack of a clear criterion to distinguish between Articles 174 and 290.
Not long ago, I wrote two articles about the principle of separating offenses in criminal proceedings. Those who haven't read can review them via the link in the comments below. The issue of separating offenses creates two opposing viewpoints regarding the relationship between the means and the purpose of the behavior.
In the case of fake invoices used for tax evasion, Document No. 796/V14 dated October 10, 2024, from Department 14 VKSTC guides separating into two offenses ( under Articles 200 and 203), even though Article 200 itself describes the behavior of "using illegal invoices and documents" within the element of tax evasion. According to Department 14's guidance, prosecutors separate the offenses to pursue more severe penalties.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of National Defense, and VKSTC issued Joint Circular 01/2026, which also provides similar guidance. The link to the article about the Circular is in the comments below.
Meanwhile, the ONUS case creates the opposite principle. Instead of choosing Article 174 with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, the investigators chose Article 290 with a lighter penalty.
Both cases reflect the same fundamental issue: the lack of a unified guideline from the central judicial authorities on how to determine the boundary of criminal charges when the offense involves high-tech methods.
In my opinion, in the ONUS case, if the core behavior is fraud and property theft, and the computer network is merely a tool, then the correct charge should be under Article 174. The element "using computer networks" should not serve as both an indicator for charging under Article 290 and be separated from the core fraud behavior already covered by Article 174.
The state is opening up the digital asset market toward legalization and regulation, but the Penal Code still lacks clear guidance on how to distinguish criminal charges when fraud is carried out via technological platforms.
It is unacceptable for criminal law to be entangled in provisions that fail to clearly differentiate between traditional fraud and online fraud, especially as the government actively opens the digital asset market.
Therefore, a unified guideline is needed on how to apply the exclusionary condition in Clause 1 of Article 290 of the 2015 Penal Code, clarifying that when the property is stolen through online means and the behavior is essentially fraud—such as providing false information and creating false trust to make victims voluntarily transfer assets—the case should be prosecuted under Article 174, not Article 290.
_Comment by Lawyer Hoang Ha_