Appendix 3 G — Thanh Vong Hoai v. Thanh Van Vo

y<

Supreme Court, U.S

88-7 65 FILED

© :

“INTHE OCT 12 ie

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STARES4 F sean

October Term, 1988 Om

THANH VONG HOAI,

Petitioner,

Vv.

THANH VAN VO, THACH DUY NGUYEN, MY-LINH D.

a SOLAND, NGUYEN THI BACH LUU, THANH VAN VO,

SUNTECH SUNOCO, INC., and MICHAEL ARIF,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit

APPENDIX III (Supplemental) PART _ G

Laurence A. Elgin *

John 0. HEMENWAY

4816 Rodman St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20016 ns

*Counsel of Record

- j -

CONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME OF APPENDIX III

(Supplemental) APPENDIX III

PART «CG

THE FINAL COMPLAINT AS CHOPPED DOWN PURSUANT

TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT, in the United

States District Court for the Eastern Distric-

of Virginia, Alexandria Division

HOAI v. VO, et al., CA 87-0294-A pp 399-

465

III. THE FINAL COMPLAINT AS CHOPPED DOWN

PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

THANH VONG HOAI, 927 N. Highland )

Street. Arlington, Virginia, )

Plaintiff, )

)

Vv. ) Civil Action

No.87-0294-A

THANH VAN VO, 2242 Senseney

Lane, Falls Church, Virginia,

22043,

THACH DUY NGUYEN, 6123 Greeley

Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia

22152,

NGUYEN VAN MINH, 4102 N. River

St., Arlington, Virginia 22207

NGUYEN THI BACH LUU, 4102 N. River

St., Arlington, Virginia 22207

JOHN DO, address and real name

presently unknown, a/k/a as one

of the "Cowboys," a gang of

Vietnamese "“toughs" who prey

upon the Vietnamese community

in Arlington, Virginia,

RICHARD RO, address and real name

presently unknown, a/k/a as one

of the "Cowboys," a gang of

Vietnamese “toughs" who prey

upon the Vietnamese community

in Arlington, Virginia,

ee ee ee a ee a a a a a a a a a a a ee ee ee ee

-399-

NGUYEN TU LO, address and real

name presently unknown, a/k/a

as one of the "Cowboys," a gang

of Vietnamese “toughs" who prey

upon the Vietnamese community

in Arlington, Virginia,

CARL KO, address and real name

presently unknown, a/k/a as one

of the "Cowboys," a gang of

Vietnamese "toughs" who prey

upon the Vietnamese community

in Arlington, Virginia,

MY-LINH D. SOLAND, 5460 Fillmore

Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia

22311,

MICHAEL S. ARIF, 2300 24th Road

South Arlington, Virginia

SUNTECH SUNOCO, INC., 2305

Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20020,

Defendants.

a a a a a a a ee et tt

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE

RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT

ORGANIZATIONS ACT, VIOLATIONS OF THE

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, FOR

BREACH OF CONTRACT, INTERFERENCE WITH

CONTRACT, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, INTENTIONAL

INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, SLANDER,

FIGHTING WORDS, CONVERSION, COMBINATIONS

TO INJURE REPUTATION, TRADE AND BUSINESS,

ASSAULT, MALPRACTICE, FOR MONEY DAMAGES,

OTHER RELIEF

THANH VONG HOAI (HOAI), plaintiff, by

and through undersigned counsel, brings

-400-

this action in law and equity against

THANH VAN VO (VO), THACH DUY NGUYEN

(THACH), NGUYEN VAN MINH (MINH), NGUYEN

THI BACH LUU (LUU), MY-LINH D. SOLAND

(SOLAND), MICHAEL S. ARIF (ARIF), SUNTECH

COMPANY, a/k/a SUNTECH SUNOCO, INC.

(SUNTECH)), JOHN DO (DO), RICHARD RO (RO),

NGUYEN TU LO (LO), CARL KO (KO),

defendants, jointly and severally, and

alleges as follows:

is

JURISDICTION

_1) This is an action for violations,

damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief

pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced

Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961

et seg., Section 10 of the Securities and

Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78], and

the regulations promulgated thereunder,

particularly Rule 10 (b)(5) of the

Securities and Exchange Commission, the

Civil Rights laws, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985

-401-

———_—_.-

(2); for declaratory relief pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 2201; for injunctive and furhter

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201; for

injunctive and further relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 2202; and for damages and other

relief pursuant to various state law

claims which arise from common nuclei of

eperative facts which one would expect

would be tried in one judicial proceeding.

2) This Court has jurisdiction pursuant

to 15 U.S.C. 78aa; 28 U.S.C. 1331 and

1337; 18 U.S.C. 1964; 42 U.S.C. 1983 and

the principles of pendant jurisdiction.

Il.

VENUE

3) Venue is appropriate in this Court

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1965{a) because each

and every defendant in this action either

resides in, is found, has an agent, or

transacts his affairs in this judicial

district. Venue in this Court is also

appropriate because pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

-402-

1391(b) inasmuch as the claims arose

within this judicial district and inasmuch

as all natural defendants with known

addresses reside in this judicial district

and it is believed that the corporate

defendant is doing business here.

zit.

THE PLAINTIFF

__4) The plaintiff HOAI is a citizen of

the United States of America who has been

victimized by organized and violent

criminal elements of the Vietnamese

refugee community located in northern

Virginia.

5) HOAI was defrauded and extorted out

of an oriental specialty food store

business by the defendants.

6) HOAI was also defrauded and extorted

out of a gasoline station by the

defendants.

7) Furthermore, HOAI was injured in

various other ways through defendants’

-403-

various statutory violations and torts.

iV.

THE DEFENDANTS

8) Defendant VO engaged in bribery and

extortion in connection with the control

of food vending businesses, falsely holds

himself out as the owner of a large

construction business and was left in

physical control of plaintiff's gas

station business by virtue of the acts

complained of herein.

9) Defendant THACH is believed to be an

ex-convict who has been prosecuted for

assault and who has admitted to the

plaintiff that he had held a gun to the

head of newspaper editor Tuyen Giang, in

order to make him beg for his life and who

had ordered the shooting of four or five

customers of the Bistro Restuarant in

Arlington, Virginia in 1983 or 1984.

10) Defendant THACH, together with the

enterprises with which he was associated,

-404-

participated int he conspiracies and the

patterns of racketeering activity which

deprived the plaintiff of his oriental

specialty food store business.

11) Defendant THACH, together with the

enterprises with which he was associated,

participated in the conspiracies and

patterns of racketeering activity which

deprived the plaintiff of his gasoline

station business.

11A) Defendant SUNTECH SUNOCO, INC., is

the corporate entity and enterprise

through which plaintiff's gas station

business was operated by the defendants

after VO and THACH created it in the

summer of 1986.

12) Defendant ARIF is an attorney who

resides in Arlington, Virginia and who,

together with the enterprises with which

he was associated, participated in the

conspiracies and patterns of racketeering

activity identified in paragraphs 9 and 10

-405-

above by, inter alia, representing to HOAI

that THACH was indeed an officer of the

McLean Bank.

13) Defendant MINH resides in Arlington,

Virginia and has participated in real

estate swindles using various frauds

similar to the ones employed in this case.

Defendant MINH, together with the

enterprises with which he was associated,

participated in the conspiracies and

patterns of racketeering activity

identified in paragraphs 9 and 10 above,

and was, together with the defendant LUU,

left in physical control of plaintiff's

oriental specialty food store business.

14) Defendant LUU resides in Arlington,

Virginia and has participated in real

estate swindles using various frauds

similar to the ones employed in this case.

Defendant LUU, together with the

enterprises with which she was associated,

participated in the conspiracies and

-406-

——_

patterns of racketeering activity

identified in paragraphs 9 and 10 above,

and was, together with defendant MINH,

left in physical control of plaintiff's

oriental specialty food store business.

15) Defendant SOLAND is an attorney who

resides in Alexandria Virginia and who,

together with the enterprises with which

she was associated, participated in the

conspiracies and patterns of racketeering

activity identified in paragraphs 9 and 10

above by, inter alia, purporting to

represent the plaintiff when in reality

operating as a knowing and willing member

of the criminal enterprises identified

herein. Defendant SOLAND advised the

plaintiff to acquiesce to the crimes

committed against hin.

16) Defendants DO, RO, W and KO are

gang members who, together with the

enterprises with which they associated,

participated in the conspiracies and

-407-

patterns of racketeering activity

identified in paragraphs 9 and 10 above by

threatening, harassing and terrorizing the

plaintiff, plaintiff's family, and other

members of the Vietnamese Community

including witnesses.

Ve

FACTS

__17) Plaintiff HOAI was a Sunoco gas

station dealer from 1980 to 1982.

18) In 1983 or 1984 defendant THACH

ordered customers at the Bistro restaurant

in Arlington to be shot because the owner

of that restaurant would not acquiesce to

THACH's control of that business

enterprise. A number of customers were

shot as a result.

19) In August of 1983 the defendant VO

engaged in extortion in order to obtain

preferred locations for his vending

vehicles. The threats included mailing

threatening notes written in blood and a

-408-

_—————

dead bird as well as threatening death and

bodily harm to NGUYEN DUY HY, a

competitor.

20) In the summer of 1982 the defendants

MINH and LUU participated in schemes and

artifices to defraud members of the

Vietnamese refugee community by soliciting

for real estate and business opportunity

investments. These schemes involved

property located at the corner of Lee

Highway and Route 7 in Falls Church,

Virginia. With regard to the land:

(a) Defendants MINH and LUU solicited

$50,000.00 from the plaintiff.

(b) Defendants MINH and LUU advertised

in a Vietnamese language newspaper (Some

of which were mailed) that they were

undertaking a building project and they

sought investments in the amounts of

$30,000., $40,000., and $50,000. which

would entitle the investor to leasehold

space in the building. Many persons did

-409-

invest.

(c) Defendants MINH and LUU had no

intention of building such a building but

rather sold the land for a profit of

approximately three hundred and sixty-five

thousand dollars ($365,000.).

(d) Although some defrauded investors

were repaid many were not.

(e) Defendants MINH and LUU extorted

money from some investors by threatening

criminal prosecution for welfare fraud.

21) In 1984 defendants MINH and LUU

purchased 93.7 acres of land in Fairfax

County for $500,000. Defendants MINH and

LUU promised the plaintiff that they would

pay him and give him some land if he would

help them find an attorney and help

resolve problems that arose from

nonpayment on a note on the land.

Plaintiff helped these defendants but they

refused to pay the plaintiff or give him

land notwithstanding a recent sale of that

-410-

land to George Mason University for 1.3

million dollars.

22) In November of 1985 defendant VO

lied to the plaintiff, telling plaintiff

that VO had a large construction business;

that VO had construction equipment worth

over $500,000.00; that VO employed over 80

people; and that if plaintiff ever needed

anything VO would try to help hin.

23) In January and February of 1986

plaintiff's plans to close down his

existing business and to put capital into

a new business came to the attention of

some or all of the defendants.

24) During the month of February, 1986,

the plaintiff began negotiating with Sun

Refining and Marketing Company (Sunoco) in

order to obtain a lease and franchise for

a Sunoco gas station.

25) In February of 1986 defendants MINH

and LUU asked the plaintiff to work for

them and he did so. It was agreed that

-411-

plaintiff would be paid between $18. and

$25. per hour. Defendants MINH and LUU

failed to pay the plaintiff according to

the terms of that agreement but did manage

to extract information from the plaintiff.

26) During negotiations with the

plaintiff in mid-February of 1986,

defendant VO falsely represented to the

plaintiff that VO would lend the plaintiff

$2,000. that very day. Vo repeated his

misrepresentations regarding his financial

strength, as stated in paragraph 22 above,

and once again offered to help the

plaintiff purchase a business with

friendly financing.

27) During negotiations with the

plaintiff sometime in late February 1986,

defendant VO once again promised to lend

the plaintiff $2,000. on that very day but

failed to do so.

28) During the latter part of February,

1986, or the very early part of March,

-412-

1986, Sunoco representative Ernie Peele

informed the plaintiff that plaintiff

would need capital of $71,000. in order to

obtain and operate the franchise and lease

of a Sunoco gas station.

29) Plaintiff had approximately

$35,000.00 available to him at that time

through his mother-in-law, who had

supplied capital for a number of his

earlier businesses, as was known to the

defendants. So he needed approximately

another $35,000. in available capital to

meet the requirement set by Sunoco.

30) During a meeting with the defendant

vo in early March, 1986, the plaintiff

explained that he had approximately

$35,000.00 available for the Sunoco gas

station franchise and lease investment but

that he needed approximately $35,000. more

in order to obtain the Sunoco franchise

and lease.

31) During the meeting referred to in

-413-

paragraph 30) defendant VO falsely:

(a) Repeated the claims regarding his

financial strength, as previously

explained in paragraph 22;

(b) asserted that he had $100,000.00 in

cash from the operation of his

construction business on hand;

(c) stated that he wanted to do

something with that money;

(ad) stated that HOAI should consider the

$100,000.00 as an available line of

credit;

(e) stated that, therefore, the

$35,000.°0 that Hoai needed was

immediately available;

(f) stated that therefore, the Sunoco

representative should be immediately

informed that HOAI had the money

specified; and

(g) stated that the terms of the loan

would not call for any repayment during

the first year of the business and that

-414-

interest would be accrued at ten or twelve

percent.

32) Defendants MINH and LUU had run for

many years an oriental specialty food

store known as the Mekong Center Food

Store in a wmini-mall catering to the

ethnic Vietnamese community known as the

Mekong Center, located on Wilson Boulevard

in Arlington, Virginia. The business had

lost much if not most of its customer base

and had deteriorated badly.

32A) Defendants MINH and LUU induced the

plaintiff, upon a promise that was never

fulfilled of supplying a lease-ownership

document, to purchase this business by a

“loan and earn out" arrangement involving

the defendant THACH which was never

consummated. This was done in the

following manner:

33) During a meeting with defendants

MINH and LUU in early March 1986, the

plaintiff explained that he had

-415-

——————E

tates

approximately $35,000.00 available for the

Sunoco investment but that he needed

$35,000.00 more in order to obtain the

Sunoco franchise and lease.

34) During the meeting referred to in

paragraph 33, the defendants MINH and LUU

lied to the plaintiff by stating that they

would lend the plaintiff up to $80,000.00

for the gas station business enterprise.

35) Defendants MINH, LUU, VO and THACH

all began communicating with each other

regarding plaintiff's available capital

during the first three months of 1986 and

also regarding the business plans of

plaintiff.

36) On or about March 6, 1986,

defendants MINH and LUU told the

plaintiff:

(a) that because they were involved in a

real estate development project in

Philadelphia they wanted to sell their

oriental specialty food store business.

-416-

|,

iat ii

(b) that they had offers to purchase

that oriental specialty food business for

$25,000.00 and $30,000.00

(c) but that for personal reasons they

wanted to sell the food store business to

HOAI for $20,000.00.

37) On or about March 8, 1986, when the

plaintiff informed defendants MINH and LUU

that his $35,000. available capital was

committed to the acmuinttion and start-up

of the Sunoco gas station lease and

franchise, MINH and LUU informed the

plaintiff that having both businesses was

possible and:

(a) that financing would be arranged

through a friendly banker;

(b) that they could easily arrange a

$50,000.00 loan, $20,000.00 for the

purchase price of the food store business

from themselves, and $30,000. for purchase

of inventory; and

(c) that they would co-sign for such a

-417-

loan.

38) The plaintiff accepted the offer

referred to in paragraph 37.

39) On or about March 9, 1986, the

plaintiff and the defendants MINH and LUU

agreed upon the -sale terms for the

business which were to be incorporated in

a lease which was to be the indicia of the

ownership of the business by the

plaintiff. Thereafter on numerous

occasions defendants constantly evaded

their responsibility and commitment to

sign this document. This evasion rested

upon a variety of seemingly plausible

excuses, such as translation problems,

need for counsel, peculiar superstitious

reasons, and other excuses.

40) On or about March 9, 1986, the

plaintiff informed defendant VO of the

decision to purchase the oriental

specialty food store business. Defendant

VO encouraged the plaintiff and informed

-418-

him that he would lend his support with

the gas station business to enabie the

purchase of the food store business since

it would make a lot of money.

41) On or about March 10, 1986, as

plaintiff commenced his partial

performance of this purchase agreement by

beginning the refurbishing of the

premises, defendant LUU admitted to having

committed insurance fraud by placing out-

of-date food in the basement and then

purposely flooding the basement in order

to obtain insurance money. On or about

March 17, 1986, defendant LUU repeated

this type of fraud and collected

approximately $50,000.00 from the

insurance company.

42) During March, 1986, the defendants

MINH and LUU represented that the

plaintiff would be able to obtain food on

credit for the food store enterprise.

MINH and LUU had ruined the food store's

-419-

credit with suppliers, however, and the

plaintiff was unable to obtain food stock

or supplies on credit from the oriental

specialty distributors and wholesalers in

the area.

42A) Having committed to the purchase,

plaintiff was then compelled to spend his

available capital for inventory pending

the promised loan for the “earn-out"

purchase of the business. Ultimately he

purchased over $49,000.00 worth of

inventory because of the failure to

provide the promised loan. Defendants

MINH, LUU and THACH and the COWBOYS

ultimately took control of this inventory

by force and subterfuge and he was never

reimbursed for it in any way.

43) On or about March 1l, 1986,

defendants MINH and LUU introduced

defendant THACH to the plaintiff as the

owner and president of the McLean Bank who

was going to provide the purchase money

-420-

7 2 _

ont EO def

Re

i

- é - ‘

ien4is. $06 eS

- —_ o

i]

7 = pr

5 ae ee... ‘s

ia ee tet - compan

ind ae

: -

¥

o)

al

A ; a 7 4

t ‘le = abseen reais

t%

Fy i

and inventory acquisition loan.

44) Between March 11, 1986, and March

18, 1986, defendant THACH encouraged the

plaintiff to spend plaintiff's capital on

inventory in accordance with the agreement

to purchase the business from the

defendants MINH and LUU, and led the

plaintiff to believe that he would arrange

for the $50,000.00 loan to avoid

permanently tying up plaintiff's capital.

On or about March 18, 1986, defendants

MINH, LUU and THACH told the plaintiff

that the loan forms for the promised

$50,000.00 loan would be obtained the next

day.

45) On or about March 19, 1986, the

defendant THACH:

(a) informed the plaintiff that he would

begin processing the loan forms for the

promised $50,000.00 loan on the following

day;

(b) got the plaintiff to reveal

-421=-

nd

ill

plaintiff's debts;

(c) promised that the proceeds of the

forthcoming loan would be used in part to

pay off plaintiff's outstanding credit

card debts;

(ad) verified that defendant VO was very

big in the hot dog vending business; that

vo was indeed in the construction

business; and that VO could indeed lend

the plaintiff money for the gas station

business; and

(e) assured plaintiff that he could

arrange for a $100,000.00 line of credit

for the food store business;

(f) assured plaintiff that he could

arrange for $500,000.00 worth of credit

with a Chinese food wholesaler located in

California.

46) In the meantime, on numerous

occasions between mic-February and March

20, 1986, the plaintiff received

assurances from defendant VO that not only

-422-

2

the previously promised $35,000.00 was

available but also that up to $100,000.00

could be borrowed so that plaintiff could

obtain and start up the gas station

business in the manner specified. VO also

visited the food store ani encouraged the

plaintiff to buy more food inventory.

47) On or about March 20, 1986, the

plaintiff was notified by the Sunoco

representative that plaintiff would have

to meet with him, the Sunoco

representative, and make the agreed upon

deposits in the amount of $5,000.00 for

the gas station franchise, or dealership,

and a $2,000.00 rent deposit on-the lease

that went with the franchise.

48) On the evening of March 20, 1986,

defendant VO assured the plaintiff that vo

had $7,000.00 on hand and readily

available and that it would be on hand and

available the next day.

49) On or about March 21, 1986,

-423-

defendant vO met with the representative

of Sunoco, Ernie Peele, and the plaintiff,

and:

(a) VO delivered $7,000.00 to the

plaintiff who, in turn, delivered the

money to the Sunoco representative;

(b) VO was told by the Sunoco

representative that the gasoline franchise

obtained by HOAI could not be assigned or

sold without prior written consent from

the company;

(c) VO informed the Sunoco

representative that VO was the owner of a

construction company and that VO was

making a $35,000. line of credit loan to

HOAI; and

(ad) upon specific questioning from the

Sunoco representative, Ernie Peele, vO

disclaimed any ownership interests or

interest in the gas station, hidden or

otherwise and disclaimed any partnership,

hidden or otherwise, with HOAI and

~424-

asserted that he was only interested in

making a loan on easy terms, which he

stated to Ernie Peele, to his friend HOAI.

50) On or about March 28, 1986,

defendants MINH and LUU assured HOAI that

defendant THACH was arranging for the

$50,000.00 loan and that they would co-

sign that loan.

51) On March 31, 1986, plaintiff signed

the lease and franchise agreement with

Sunoco

52) On March 31, 1986, defendant vO

stole the original of the Sunoco lease and

franchise agreement.

53) On April 2, 1986, defendant vo

opened a bank account at the McLean Branch

under the name of Suntech Company and

deposited $400.00.

54) On April 3, 1986, $4,000. was

deposited into the Suntech account.

55) On April 3, 1986, the balance on the

Suntech account was reduced to $2,703.00

-425-

56) No further deposits were made into

the Suntech account until gas station

receipts were obtained by the defendant VO

beginning on April 10, and then were

deposited into the account beginning on

April 14, 1986.

57) Between April 4, 1986, and April 25,

1986, defendants MINH and LUU made

repeated promises to deliver a signed

lease-ownership document for the oriental

food store business to the plaintiff but

made a variety of excuses not to do so.

58) During April, 1986, the plaintiff

had numerous interstate telephone calls

with the defendants which were in

furtherance of the scheme to deprive the

plaintiff of his food store business and

the scheme to deprive the plaintiff of his

gas station business.

59) On or about April 7, 1986, defendant

0 presented the plaintiff with signature

cards and told the plaintiff that he would

~426-

open the gas station account with the

McLean Bank. Defendant vo led the

plaintiff to believe that he would deposit

$35,000. into the account.

60) On or about April 10, 1986, the

defendant VO informed the plaintiff that

only VO had signature authority over the

gas station bank account because the bank

refused to give HOAI signature authority.

61) On or about April 10, 1986,

defendant VO signed six blank checks from

the gas station bank account and left them

with the plaintiff for payment of, inter

alia, gasoline deliveries from Sunoco.

62) On or about April 10, 1986,

defendant VO told the plaintiff that he

had put about $45,000. in the gasoline

station account.

63) On or about April 10, 1986,

plaintiff HOAI delivered the checks

referenced in paragraph 61, viz: $1,468.00

for inventory on hand; $7,300.00 for

-427-

gasoline; $7,400.00 for gasoline;

$4,500.00 for diesel fuel; and $9,000.00

for new inventory.

64) On or about April ll, 1986,

defendant VO:

(a) began learning the operations of the

gas station.

(b) insisted on controlling gas station

receipts until his lawyer could draw up a

formal loan agreement regarding the

$45,000.00; and

(c) began taking the gas station gas

receipts. |

65) On or about April 15, defendant vO

stationed one of his hot dog vending

vehicles on the gas station lot, over

HOAI's objection.

66) On or about April 17, the defendant

THACH told plaintiff that he would not

loan plaintiff the $50,000.00 that had

been promised.

67) On or about April 18, 1986,

-428-

defendant VO stated to plaintiff and the

Sunoco representative that he had already

loaned HOAI $45,000.00 and now wanted to

invest $55,000.00 to become a partner in

the gas station business.

68) On or about April 18, 1986,

defendant VO told the plaintiff that he

would arrange for certified mechanics to

work at the station. In reality vo

procured untrained laborers, violent

criminals, and others from various states

to associste with the station. He also

promised to finance an advertising and

promotion campaign.

69) On or about April 19, 1986,

defendant VO misrsepresented his status as

a principal in the gas station business

with the local licensing authorities.

70) Between April 10 and April 24, 1986,

the defendant VO took approximately

$1,500.00 from the operation of the gas

station each day.

-429-

71) On April 24, 1986, Sunoco informed

he plaintiff that one of the checks

igned ky VO had been returned for

nsufficient funds.

72) On or about April 24, 1986,

iefendant VO admitted that he had not made

the $45,000.00 available as he had claimed

arlier.

73) On or about April 24, 1986,

iefendant THACH stated to plaintiff that

‘he only money VO put into the gas station

wccount was the money that VO took from

she gas station in the form of its daily

receipts. Defendant THACH also said that

1e would get the defendants MINH and LUU

ro sign the promised lease-ownership

Jocument for the food store business.

74) On or about April 26, 1986,

jJefendant VO stated that he was unable to

get the initial capital which he had

promised to plaintiff because his name was

not on the gas station lease.

-430-

75) On or about April 26, 1986, the

plaintiff demanded that the defendant VO

leave the gas station. Defendant vO

demanded $240,000.00 to do so, claiming

that $140,000.00 had been invested in

inventory and $100,000.00 had been spent

bringing laborers in from out of state.

76) Defendant THACH joined the plaintiff

and VO at the gas station on or about

April 26, 1986, and threatened to kill the

plaintiff unless plaintiff paid vo

$100,000.00.

77) On or about April 26, 1986, the

defendant ARIF told the plaintiff that

THACH was the president and owner of the

McLean Bank. On that same day ARIF tried

to get the plaintiff to sign a contract

selling the gas station business and all

documents and indicia of the business,

such as the lease and franchise agreement

with Sunoco, for one doilar. ARIF was

present and knew that HOAI's life was

-431-

threatened at this meeting. The plaintiff

refused to sign the document.

78) On or about April 27, 1986, the

plaintiff went to THACH's home and met

with THACH and VO. Three other men were

there, one of whom was THACH's bodyguard

and one who was present when the plaintiff

was threatened at the gas station. At

this meeting on or about April 27, 1986:

(a) Defendant THACH stated that he and

VO were like the Mafia;

(b) Defendant THACH asserted that the

plaintiff promised to give the gas station

to VO as a gift; and

(c) Defendant THACH threatened to

arrange for the plaintiff's murder.

79) On or about April 28, 1986,

defendant THACH assembled gang members,

including the defendants DO, LO, RO and

KO, at the restaurant on the second floor

of the building where plaintiff's food

store was located, told the plaintiff that

-432-

the gang members had killed many people,

and intimated that the gang would kill the

plaintiff at THACH's direction. THACH

instructed the plaintiff to give

defendants MINH and LUU $15,000.00 so as

to obtain the long-promised food store

lease and ownership document.

80) On or about April 29, 1986, THACH

told the plaintiff that he would give VO

$15,000.00 and that VO would in turn give

the $15,000.00 to plaintiff who would pay

the same to defendants MIME and LOU in

exchange for the long-promised food store

lease and ownership document.

81) On or about April 30, 1986, THACH

told the plaintiff that he would get

$30,000.00, $15,000.00 of which would go

to MINH and LUU for the lease-ownership

document, and the other $15,000.00 of

which plaintiff could use to purchase

inventory. In "exchange" plaintiff was to

permit VO to keep the gas station.

-433-

82) By promising to loan the plaintiff

$30,000.00 THACH and VO on or about April

30, 1986, induced the plaintiff to write

out a $30,000.00 promissory note. Once

the note was written and signed, however,

these defendants did not give the

plaintiff the promised money or a copy of

the note.

83) On May 1, 1986, THACH told the

plaintiff that he had the power of life

and death over the plaintiff. THACH

threatened to have the plaintiff killed

unless the plaintiff signed the contract

selling the gas station to VO for one

dollar.

84) On May 2, 1986, defendant VO

abducted the plaintiff and threatened to

injure plaintiff's wife. VO promised HOAI

that if HOAI would sign the one dollar

contract, HOAI would get $30,000.00 and

the food store lease-ownership document.

85) Under fear of death, the plaintiff

-434-

signed the one dollar contract in front of

a notary.

86) On or about May 2, 1986, VO obtained

a $15,000.00 certified check made out to

plaintiff from the McLean Bank, drawn on

the account of the gas station. VO and

THACH then threatened the plaintiff and

forced him to endorse the check over to

the defendants MINH and LUU.

87) On or about May 3 or 4, 1986, the

plaintiff and his young son were accosted

by gang members who threatened to kill

HOAI and his son if HOAI did not let Vo

take over the Sunoco gas station business.

88) On or about May 15, 1986, VO

threatened to have the plaintiff's legs

broken unless plaintiff left the gas

station.

89) Between May 2 and May 27, 1986,

defendants MINH and LUU repeatedly

promised to sign the food store lease-

ownership document but never did so.

-435-

90) On or about May 27, 1986, defendants

MINH and LUU added a padlock to the

building in which the plaintiff's food

store business was located and thus locked

the plaintiff out of his food store

business.

91) On or about May 28/ 1986, members of

the gang arrived at the restaurant and

were joined by defendants MINH, LOU and

THACH. The defendants broke off the

padlock to which the plaintiff had been

given the only key as part of the

ownership of the food store business.

Thus defendants MINH, LUU and THACH gained

physical controi over plaintiff's oriental

food store business.

92) On or about May 28, 1986, the

plaintiff hired defendant SOLAND as his

attorney. SOLAND mailed letters regarding

both the gas station and the oriental

specialty food business. She participated

in interstate telephone calls to further

-436-

the frauds involved with each of the

businesses. SOLAND, and/or SOLAND's

partner represented MINH and LUU without

disclosing that fact to the plaintiff.

These frauds are consistent with SOLAND's

pattern of fraudulent activity relating to

other clients.

93) On. or about June 5, 1986, the

plaintiff, SOLAND, VO, THACH, and Sunoco

representative Ernie Peele all met at the

gas station, where the following, inter

alia, occurred:

(a) THACH ordered everyone off the

property;

(b) THACH represented himself as VO's

attorney by way of an interstate telephone

call prior to his arrival;

(c) THACH accused PEELE of taking a

$10,000.00 bribe from VO;

(d) PEELE declared that HOAI was the

only authorized dealer and franchisee of

the station as far as Sunoco was

-437-

concerned ;

(e) THACH called the police;

(f) SOLAND advised HOAI to leave and

promised to take action but did not; and

(g) MINH and LUU arrived and conferred

with SOLAND and the other defendants.

94) On or about July 7, 1986, SOLAND

once again stated that she would take

court action on behalf of the plaintiff,

but did not do so.

95) On or about July 14, 1986, VO and

THACH, in the company of ARIF, threatened

to kill plaintiff if he did not end his

efforts to regain his gas station.

96) ARIF entered into a settlement

agreement on behalf of the ocher

defendants whereby the Sunoco

representative Ernie PEELE would act as a

final arbitrator to decide who was

entitled to occupy the gas station

premises as the legitimate Sunoco

franchisee. Although PEELE designated

-438-

HOAI, neither ARIF nor the other

defendants would permit the plaintiff to

have possession of the station.

97) On or about August 20, 1986, the

defendant SOLAND mailed a letter to the

plaintiff, which she backdated to August

15, 1986, wherein she admitted to having a

conflict of interest and later backdated a

second letter of withdrawal on which she

forged plaintiff's signature.

98) On or about August 25, 1986, Ernie

PEELE stated that HOAI was the only person

authorized to operate the gas station and

HOAI and Ernie PEELE both signed a notice

requesting VO and his hired hands,

including the gang members, to peacefully

surrender the premises. It was presented

at the gas station that day in the

presence of police officers and HOAI

demanded that the VO employees leave and

they did so.

99) On or about August 26, 1986, VO

-439-

attempted to take over the gas station by

force and falsely accused HOAI of stealing

$7,500.00.

100) VO's operation of the gas station

was improper and demonstrated his lack of

qualification for the franchise in that:

(a) VO demanded sex from female

employees;

(b) VO failed to withhold taxes from

employee compensation or keep proper

employee records;

(c) VO permitted customers to be

defrauded;

(d) VO failed to maintain any business

records;

(e) no payments were made for worker

compensation; and

(f) VO permitted the unlawful conversion

and use of customers’ automobiles when

brought in for repairs.

101) The defendants have threatened,

harassed and corrupted potential

-440-

witnesses, or attempted to do wo and have

fabricated false evidence.

102) The defendants furthered the

various frauds by use of the mails by

transmitting, inter alia, the following:

(a) June 12, 1986, letter from ARIF to

HOAI (furthering the $15,000.00 loan

fraud) ;

(b) August 15, 1986, letter from SOLAND

to HOAI (furthering the oriental specialty

food store fraud);

(c) July 21, 1986, letter from SOLAND to

Sunoco (furthering the gas station fraud);

(a) June 10, 1986, letter from SOLAND to

the McLean Bank (furthering the $15,000.

loan fraud);

(e) June 10, 1986, letter from SOLAND to

Sunoco (furthering the gas station fraud);

(f) April 3, 1986, transmittal from VO

to HOAI (furthering the gas station

fraud) ;

(g) May 12, 1986, transmittal from VO or

-441-

SUNTECH COMPANY to MINH (furthering gas

station fraud);

(h) June 10, 1986, letter from SOLAND to

vo (furthering gas station fraud);

(i) Sometime in May and June, 1986,

letters from ARIF to vO (furthering the

gas station and $15,000.00 loan frauds) ;

(j) Various letters and transmittals

received by VO during the operations of

the gas station business.

(k) Various other letters and

transmittals to be identified and obtained

through discovery.

Vi.

__104) Paragraphs 1 through 103 are hereby

incorporated by reference.

105) The defendants violated 18 U.S.C.

1962 (a) because they received and

continue to receive income derived from

~442-

patterns of racketeering activity and used

or invested a part of such income to

acquire an interest in, establish and

operate enterprises in and which affect

interstate or foreign commerce.

106) The defendants violated 18 U.S.C.

1962 (b) because, through a pattern of

racketeering activity, they acquired or

maintained, directly or indirectly, an

interest in or control of one or more

enterprises which are engaged in or which

affect interstate and/or foreign commerce.

107) The defendants violated 18 U.S.C.

1962 (c) because they are employed by or

associated with enterprises engaged in or

which affect interstate commerce and they

conduct or they participate directly or

indirectly in the conduct of such

enterprises' affairs through a pattern of

racketeering activity.

108) The defendants violated 18 U.S.C.

1962 (d) because they conspired to violate

~443-

the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a), (5),

and (c).

109) Each and every one of the

defendants is an individual or entity

capable of holding a legal or beneficial

interest in property.

110) SUNTECH SUNOCO INC. affects

interstate commerce. The oriental

specialty food store business affects

interstate and foreign commerce.

111) The defendants or the enterprises

they were and are associated with

participated in patterns of racketeering

activity, which patterns of racketeering

activity include:

| (a) attempted murder through contract

(par. 18 above as incorporated by

reference herein) ;

(b) threats of murder (pars. 18, 19, 76,

78, 79, 83, 84, 86, 87, and 95, as

incorporated by reference herein);

(c) extortion (pars. 18, 19, 20, 34, 40,

-444-

44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 66, 67, Tay. Sag” Tee

74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85,

86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 95, and 99, as

incorporated by reference herein;

(a) kidnapping (par. 84 as incorporated

by reference herein) ;

(e) bribery (par. 19 as incorporated by

reference herein) ;

(f) extortionate credit transactions

(pars. 31, 34, 35, 37, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46,

48, 49, 50, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76,

77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88,

89, 90, 91 as hereby incorporated by

reference) ;

(g) mail fraud (pars. 20, 21, 22, 25,

26, 27, 30-37, 39-46, 48-50, 53, 55, 56,

58-103 as incorporated by reference

herein) ;

(h) wire fraud (pars. 20, 21, 22, 25,

26, 27, 30-37, 39-46, 48-50, 53, 55, 56,

58-103 as incorporated by reference

herein) ;

-445-

(i) obstruction of justice (pars. 92,

. 93, 94, 96, 97, 99 as hereby incorporated

by reference) ;

(3) interference with commerce (par. 19

as incorporated herein by reference) ;

(k) interstate of transportation of

unlawfully converted property (pars. 52,

56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 70 and 71 as

incorporated herein by reference) ;

(1) fraud in the sale of securities

(pars. 20, 21, 31, 34, 35, 39, 57, 77, 84,

85, 86, 87, 89, 90 as incorporated herein

by reference).

112) With respect to the extortion

alleged in paragraph 111 (c), the person

alleged to have committed the extortion

did, in violation of Va. Code 18.2-10 (c)

through the acts specified in the

paragraphs incorporated by reference,

where such acts occurred in Virginia,

threaten the property, person or character

of the victim and said victim parted with

-446-

money, property, or pecuniary benefit or

some note of evidence of debt. Where said

acts occurred in the District of Columbia

the person who committed extortion did

obtain or attempted to obtain the property

of another with the other's consent which

was induced by wrongful use of actual or

threatened force or violence or by

wrongful threat of economic injury in

violation of the District of Columbia 22-

3851.

113)

-447-

4113) With respect to the mail fraud and

wire fraud alleged in paragraphs 111 (9)

and (h) the schemes and artifices to

defraud included:

(a) a scheme to defraud the plaintiff

out of his $35,000.00 capital;

(b) a scheme to defraud the plaintiff

out of $15,000.00 through fraud;

(c) a scheme to defraud the plaintiff

out of his oriental specialty food store

business;

(a4) a scheme to defraud the plaintiff

out of his gas station business;

(e) a scheme to defraud investors in the

land swindle described in paragraph 20;

(f) a scheme to defraud investors in the

other land swindle described in paragraph

21;

(g) a scheme to defraud an insurance

company as described in paragraph 41;

(h) a scheme to defraud the government

out of taxes as described in paragraph

~448-

100; and

(i) various schemes to defraud various

clients by defendant SOLAND. i

114) With respect to the allegation

involving fraud in the sale of securities

the frauds and securities involved were:

(a) false promises to provide an

oriental specialty food store lease-

ownership document to the plaintiff;

(b) falsehoods and material omissions

used to obtain a one dollar sale of the

franchise and lease and other documents

showing ownership of the gas station

business; and

(c) falsehoods and material omissions

related to the real estate swindles

referenced in paragraphs 20 and 21.

115) With respect to the interstate

shipment of unlawfully converted property,

as alleged in paragraph 111 (k) the

plaintiff states that gasoline and other

deliveries to the station were moved

-449-

across state lines and that the cash

receipts taken by the defendant VO were

taken across a state line.

116) With respect to the enterprises

from which income was derived, which were

acquired through patterns of racketeering,

and whose affairs were being conducted

through a pattern of racketeering activity

the following enterprises were involved:

(a) the enterprise consisting of THACH

and certain gang members who were

associated in fact?

(b) the enterprise consisting of THACH,

MINH and LUU who were associated in fact;

(c) the enterprise consisting of THACH

and VO who were associated in fact;

(a) the enterprise consisting of all the

defendants who were associated in fact;

(e) the enterprise consisting of MINH

and LUU who were associated in fact;

(f) the Mekong Center;

(g) the oriental specialty food store;

-450-

(h) the gas station.

117) All of the enterprises referred to

in paragraph 115 affected interstate or

foreign commerce.

118) All of the defendants conspired to

violate 1962 (a), (b) and (c), committed

one or more overt. acts in furtherance of

said violations and joined into the

various conspiracies at various times.

COUNT II

VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

ACT OF 1934

119) Paragraphs 1-103 are hereby

incorporated by reference.

120) The defendants violated the

Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and

Rule 10 (b)5 promulgated thereunder by

using false and misleading statements

and/or omitting to state material

information necessary, in light of the

circumstances, to make the statements that

they did make not misleading, to the

-451-

plaintiff regarding:

(a) the ability of the restaurant

business to obtain credit;

(b) the financial resources that the

defendants were to have made available to

the plaintiff;

(c) the securities involved in

connection with the sale or purchase

thereof, namely:

(ad) the documents listed in the $1.

contract instrument between HOAI and vO

concerning the gas ‘station business;

(e) the lease agreed upon concerning the

food store business but never executed by

defendants;

(f) documents connected with the land

swindles referenced in paragraphs 20 and

21.

COUNT III

BREACH OF CONTRACT

121) Paragraphs 1-103 are hereby

incorporated by reference.

-452-

122) THACH breached his contract with

the plaintiff to make credit available.

123) MINH and LUU breached their

contract to pay for services rendered by

HOAI and their contract to provide credit

for an “earn-out" purchase to HOAI and

their contract to sell the food store

business to HOAI.

124) VO breached his contract with the

plaintiff to make credit available.

125) SOLAND breached her contract with

the plaintiff to institute legal action

against the other defendants.

126) ARIF, VO and THACH breached their

contract to abide by the decision of

Sunoco Representative Ernie PEELE as to

the possession and ownership of the gas

station business.

127) VO breached the alleged contract

for the sale of the gas station business

for one dollar in that he never gave the

dollar and then plaintiff, not admitting

-453-

the validity of the contract, nonetheless

specially and formally rescinded for that

breach.

COUNT IV

INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

128) Paragraphs 1-103 are hereby

incorporated by reference.

129) Defendants interfered with HOAI's

various contracts identified in paragraph

130 below because each of the defendants:

(a) knew of plaintiff's contractual

rights with others; °

(b) interfered therein without

justification; and

(c) damaged the plaintiff thereby.

130) The contracts interfered with

include HOAI's contracts with Sunoco and

HOAI's contractual rights with each of the

defendants other than the interfering

defendant or defendants as identified

particularly in paragraphs 122 through

127.

-454-

COUNT V

FRAUD

131) Paragraphs 1-103 are hereby

incorporated by reference.

132) The defendants committed fraud

because:

(a) They made representations regarding

the availability of credit with knowledge

that the representations were false;

(b) They intended that the plaintiff

rely on said representations in making his

investment decisions;

(c) The representations made were in

fact false;

(ad) The plaintiff did in fact rely upon

said representations in making his

investment decisions; and

(e) The plaintiff was injured in so

relying on the representations.

COUNT VI

MALPRACTICE

133) Paragraphs 1-103 are hereby

-455-

incorporated by reference.

134) Defendant SOLAND had a duty to HOAI

to act as his attorney and counsel.

135) Defendant SOLAND failed to carry

out her duty to plaintiff by, inter alia,

conflicts of interest, failing to pursue

his lawful objectives as her client,

breach of trust, duality of agency,

voilating the applicable disciplinary

rules of her profession.

COUNT VII

COMBINATIONS TO INJURE REPUTATION, TRADE

AND BUSINESS

136) Paragraphs 1-103 are hereby

incorporated by reference.

137) The defendants violated VA. Code

Secs. 18.2-499 and 18.2-500 by combining,

associating and agreeing to wilfully an

maliciously injure:

(a) plaintiff's oriental specialty foo

business;

(b) plaintiff's gasoline statio:

~456-

business; and

(c) plaintiff's business reputation with

Sunoco, other gas station and petroleum

suppliers, food wholesalers and jobbers,

suppliers of goods and services to these

businesses, the Vietnamese ethnic

community generally and the business

community in which he must live and work.

COUNT VIII.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

DISTRESS

137) Paragraphs -1-103 are hereby

-457-

incorporated by reference.

138) Defendants intentionally inflicted

emotional distress and mental suffering

upon the plaintiff by willfully and

maliciously threatening the plaintiff and

the plaintiff's family with physical

injury through extortion and through

through deception.

139) The said infliction of emotional

distress and mental suffering was wanton

and vindictive.

COUNT IX

SLANDER AND FIGHTING WORDS

140) “Paragraphs 1-103 are hereby

incorporated by reference.

141) The various defendants did at

various times as set out above slander the

plaintiff, for example:

(a) The defendant VO told many people

the lie that plaintiff was a liar and a a

cheat who had sold him his business and

then tried to lie about it;

-458-

(b) VO told the lie that the plaintiff

had slept with his wife;

(c) THACH told the lie that plaintiff

had stolen one hundred thousand dollars

form the sister of THACH;

(a) MINH, LUU, THACH and VO told Ernie

Peele that plaintiff was a person of bad

business reputation and of low integrity

in the opinion of the other Vietnamese;

(e) SOLAND disparaged the business

ability of the plaintiff to the Vietnamese

community;

(f) MINH and LUU stated that the

plaintiff was hated and disliked in the

Vietnamese community and that the

plaintiff and his wife were delinquent in

paying the rent on the food store; and

(g) the defendants DO, RO, IW and KO

told numerous people that the plaintiff

was a liar and a cheat and had no business

ability.

142) The foregoing statements, together

-459-

with the physical threats against the

plaintiff, violated Virginia's fighting

words statute, VA. Code Sec. 8.01-45

because in their common acceptation they

are construed as insults and tend to

violence and to breach of peace “r are

disparagements of plaintiff's business

abilities.

COUNT X

CONSPIRACY

143) All of the foregoing paragraphs and

allegations are incorporated herein by

reference.

144) The defendants formed various

conspiracies and conspired together.

145) The purpose of their conspiracy as

set out herein was to commit wrongful acts

against the plaintiff.

146) The plaintiff was harmed by the

conspiracies of the defendants in his two

businesses as set out herein and in his

general reputation and business

-460-

intima caine aaa

reputation.

vit

INJURY AND DAMAGES

__147) As a result of the defendants

actions the plaintiff has been injured in

his business and property in the following

amounts:

(a) $175,000.00 representing the market

value of the gas station “franchise that

was destroyed by the acts of the

defendants complained of;

(b) Special damages in the form of lost

profits on the gas station dealership over

the average life of such a dealership

based on the facts and history of this

site and station in excess of

$25,000,000.00. based also on plaintiff's

operation of it;

(c) Special damages in the form of lost

profits on the oriental specialty food

store business over the life of the

remaining lease time in excess of

-461-

$12,000,000.00 as based on its history and

the facts of its operation under the

plaintiff;

(a) $64,000.00 representing the value of

the inventory of the food store taken from

plaintiff unlawfully by the defendants;

(e) $6,000.00 in rent payments on the

food store;

(f) $2,000.00 for services and materials

in refurbishing the food store; and

(g) $2,100.00 on sales taxes unlawfully

converted by the defendants to their own

use.

148) As a result of the defendants’

actions plaintiff suffered emotional

distress and his business reputation was

injured.

149) Plaintiff has been injured in many

and various ways that cannot be

compensated for by money damages alone.

-462-

iia ane.

__WHEREFORE the plaintiff respectfully

prays the Court for $37,074,100.00 in

compensatory and business and property

special damages, treble damages in the

amount of $111,222,300.00, damages for

emotional distress and mental suffering in

the amount of $10,000,000., punitive

damages in the amount of $37,074,100.00

and the attorneys's fees for this suit and

litigation and for equitable relief and

for such other legal and equitable relief

as to the Court shall seem just and

proper.

2X.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff respectfully demands trial by

jury.

Respectfully

submitted,

THANH VONG HOAI

BY COUNSEL

-463-

Laurence A. Elgin

2762 Woodley Place, N.W.

peeerens mance D.C. 20008

ing Pro Hac Vice

(202) 628-1114

William Steven Paleos

PALEOS & KURLANSKY

431 N. Lee Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

(703) 941-0387

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served a true

and accurate copy of the foregoing AMENDED

COMPLAINT by United States Mail, first

class, postage prepaid, this day of

May, 1987, upon the following:

Thomas Gentile, Esq.

P.O. Box 612

Arlington, Virginia 22216

Alan Croft, Esq.

4804 University Drive

Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Alan H. Yamamoto

9677 Main Street

Suite B

Fairfax, Virginia 22031

William Steven Paleos

-465-