US embassy cable - 04HANOI1190

UNCLAS HANOI 001190 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR G/TIP, EAP/BCLTV, EAP/RSP, INL/AAE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM, KWMN, KCRM, ELAB, VM, OMIG, TIP, LABOR 
SUBJECT:  LAWSUIT AGAINST DAEWOOSA TRAFFICKING VICTIMS 
 
Ref: A. Su-Moeling email 4/26/04    B. Hanoi 336 
 
1. (U) Ref A contained documents originally provided by 
G/TIP allegedly supporting the assertion that the GVN sued 
victims in the Daewoosa trafficking case to recover the back 
wages they were paid in the U.S. as part of the court 
settlement.  It also described G/TIP's position that this 
lawsuit was indicative of the GVN's failure to protect 
victims of trafficking.  Embassy Hanoi has reviewed the 
documents in detail and consulted with the Hanoi Lawyers' 
Association and the Ministry of Labor, Invalids, and Social 
Affairs' Department of Overseas Labor.  Our conclusion is 
that the documents do not indeed support G/TIP's position. 
 
2. (U) The Ref A documents show that IMS, the labor company 
whose CEO and CFO were convicted and jailed in Vietnam for 
their illegal actions in this case, was required by the GVN 
to advance the amount of the agreed back wages in cash to 
the victims upon their return to Vietnam, plus USD 250, or a 
total of USD 1,750.  According to court documents included 
in ref A, this was done to ensure that the victims were not 
destitute while waiting for the money from Daewoosa to 
arrive.  In order to receive the advance, the victims were 
required to promise to return USD 1,500 of the advance to 
IMS upon receipt of the back wages award.  The court 
documents included in Ref A email indicate that the 
defendants, including Nguyen Thi Mai Hoa, declined to 
fulfill their end of the contract upon receipt of the 
Daewoosa funds delivered by the U.S. Embassy.  IMS then sued 
to recover the funds lent to Hoa under the agreement. 
 
3. (U) In simpler language, the victims received the back 
wages twice -- once as a GVN-ordered loan from IMS to the 
victims upon their return to Vietnam, and then again as a 
cash settlement payment by Daewoosa facilitated by the U.S. 
Embassy.  The terms of the advance required the victims to 
pay back USD 1,500 of the original USD 1,750 advanced 
temporarily by IMS.  Thus, the GVN's actions were to ensure 
prompt access to funds for recently returned victims, plus 
an additional USD 250. 
 
4. (U) Comment: These actions did not, as apparently argued 
by G/TIP, represent a "clear failure to protect its TIP 
victims."  After examining the evidence, we come to the 
opposite conclusion: in making sure that these victims had 
money to live, and forcing the offending labor company to 
advance the amount of their compensation, the GVN both 
protected the victims and punished the trafficker.  The fact 
that the company had to sue the victims to force them to 
comply with their contractual obligation to refund the 
advance is not relevant to the GVN's ability or willingness 
to protect trafficking victims. 
 
5. (U) Comment, continued:  We also would like to underscore 
that, under the 2003 labor code (as reported Ref B), the 
practice of labor export companies requiring substantial 
cash fees (beyond one month's wages) from laborers before 
providing them with labor contracts is illegal and 
punishable by a fine or a jail term.  What happened to the 
Daewoosa victims is now (and was then) a violation of 
Vietnamese law. 
BURGHARDT