In May 2024, Lau Vu Nhat Dang, born in 1996, came under investigation following a series of attacks in which older women were suddenly struck in the head with a metal pipe in the former Nha Trang City, Khanh Hoa Province.
On the afternoon of May 6, a 56-year-old woman was cycling to the beach. While she was stopped at a traffic light on Dien Bien Phu Street, a motorcyclist suddenly struck her in the head with a metal pipe before fleeing.
The following morning, N.T.M.L., 63, was cycling along 2 Thang 4 Street when she was attacked from behind. She suffered a traumatic brain injury and died two days later.
Also on May 7, a 73-year-old woman walking along Pham Van Dong Street was attacked from behind and suffered serious head injuries.
After receiving reports of successive attacks, police launched an investigation and identified Dang as a suspect. During questioning, Dang said he had attacked five people on the street with a metal pipe.
Notably, police determined that none of the victims knew Dang or had any prior conflict with him. The case file was later transferred to Khanh Hoa Provincial Police for further investigation into alleged murder.
Being strangers does not necessarily mean there was ‘no motive’
According to lawyer Nguyen Thanh Hai, director of An Hoang Gia Law Co., Ltd. under the Hanoi Bar Association, the fact that an alleged perpetrator and victim were complete strangers with no previous dispute is important when authorities assess the cause, motive and nature of an offense. However, the absence of a prior relationship is not, by itself, an independent element establishing an offense or an aggravating circumstance.
A person who intentionally takes another person’s life may be prosecuted for murder under Article 123 of Vietnam’s Penal Code. If an attack is committed without apparent cause, arises spontaneously or stems from a trivial reason while demonstrating aggression and disregard for the law and for the life and health of others, authorities may consider whether it constitutes conduct of a “hooligan nature.”
Clause 4, Article 4 of Resolution 04/2025/NQ-HDTP issued by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court provides specific guidance on determining this circumstance. Therefore, deliberately attacking a complete stranger is significant evidence, but it is not sufficient on its own to automatically characterize an offense as being of a hooligan nature. Authorities must still establish the cause, motive, manner in which the act was committed and the specific circumstances of each case.
Hai particularly emphasized that “not knowing the victim” does not necessarily mean acting “without a motive.” For example, someone may choose to kill members of an unfamiliar family in order to steal their property. Although the perpetrator and victims have no prior relationship, there is still a clear criminal motive and purpose. In such a case, authorities may consider the circumstance of “murder to commit or conceal another crime,” while the offender may also face prosecution for robbery where sufficient grounds exist.
Depending on the circumstances, an offender may also face the more severe sentencing provisions under Clause 1, Article 123, including for killing two or more people, killing a person under 16, committing murder in a barbaric manner, using a method capable of killing multiple people, or acting for a despicable motive.
In determining a sentence, courts also consider the number and characteristics of the victims, the weapon used, the level of preparation, the intensity of the attack, the consequences, the offender’s attitude, personal background, and applicable aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
A circumstance already used to establish an offense or determine the applicable sentencing bracket cannot be counted again as an aggravating circumstance when the court decides the sentence.
Duc Phong

