Tech car driver filmed ‘hot’ scenes with female passengers and then blackmailed them

The tech car driver secretly used his phone to record his “hot” scene with the woman who was a customer, then sent a picture cut from the clip to blackmail.

On June 5, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance verdict against defendant Pham Van Tai (37 years old, from Soc Trang).

Last March, Tai was sentenced by the District 7 People’s Court to 7 years and 6 months in prison for the crime of “Property Appropriation”. At the same time, the defendant’s phone and car were confiscated.

According to the first instance verdict, in early July 2023, because he was a grab car driver, when Ms. N. booked a car, Tai had her phone number. After that, he kept texting to get to know each other.

Defendant Pham Van Tai. Photo: DN

On July 30, 2023, Tai drove Ms. N. to Vung Tau, the two rented a room and had sex. During the “cloudy” moment, Tai secretly used his phone to record the “hot” scene.

After that, Tai used a zalo named “Pham Tai” to text Ms. N to borrow money. When Ms. N did not agree, he immediately sent her pictures taken from a previously secretly recorded video, asking her to N. gave 500 million VND. After negotiating, Ms. N. agreed to give Tai 200 million VND.

Returning to Ho Chi Minh City, knowing that she had encountered a hoodlum and fearing that she would be blackmailed again, Ms. N. filed a complaint against Tai’s actions to the police.

On the afternoon of August 7, 2023, Ms. N. arranged to meet Tai at a coffee shop in Le Van Thiem, Tan Phong ward (District 7) to give money. Just after receiving the amount of 200 million VND from Ms. N., Tai was caught red-handed by District 7 Police.

READ Also:  This video of train accident is not from Prayagraj, but from Bangladesh in 2022 - Viral Train Accident Video Not from Prayagraj but from Bangladesh 2022

At trial, the defendant honestly confessed to all crimes.

Realizing that the sentence that the first instance court issued against the defendant was the right person, the right crime, and not unjust. At the appeal hearing, the defendant had no new mitigating circumstances, so the jury rejected the defendant’s appeal.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.