Before the trial, Binh Phuong said that she respected the proceedings and would not comment on contents under the evaluation authority of the Trial Panel.
According to Binh Phuong, the signature appraisal conclusion is only one of the sources of evidence in the case. The value of this evidence needs to be considered in relation to the entire file, including the origin of the appraised documents, the signature samples used for comparison as well as other objective evidence according to the provisions of law.
She also said that the will was made at a notary office in the US, with a notary and two witnesses directly witnessing the signing. According to Binh Phuong, these are details that need to be fully and objectively assessed by the Trial Panel along with other documents in the file.
The wife of the late actor Duc Tien affirmed that from the beginning until now, her and her children have never requested to revoke the legal inheritance rights of anyone, and there is no purpose to receive the entire inheritance.
Binh Phuong said that his position has not changed, which is that there are three heirs and each person will enjoy benefits in accordance with the law as well as according to the effective judgment of the Court.
She emphasized that continuing to participate in the appellate trial is not aimed at prolonging disputes or winning more assets, but for the Court to comprehensively consider the case, including resolving property obligations and legal expenses of late actor Duc Tien before the inheritance is divided.
According to her sharing, after her husband passed away, Binh Phuong was the one who directly paid many expenses, including hospital fees and other legal expenses. Therefore, she continued to carry out procedures as requested by the Court so that these expenses could be considered and resolved in accordance with regulations before the remaining inheritance was divided.
More than two years after the incident occurred, Binh Phuong expressed her desire that the appellate court will issue a legally effective judgment, clearly defining the rights and obligations of the parties, thereby closing the case so that everyone can soon stabilize their lives.
She said she would respect the final verdict of the Court, and hoped that the public would wait for the outcome of the trial instead of drawing conclusions when the case is still under consideration.
