Entrapment Was a Factor in Acquittal of Viet Doctor

A jury that acquitted a Vietnamese physician and his assistant of Medi-Cal fraud charges agreed Wednesday that a police undercover agent used entrapment, the jury foreman said.

Milton C. Grimes of Santa Ana, one of the defense attorneys, said in an interview that he believes entrapment was systematic and will affect similar cases awaiting trial.

“The agent came from Vietnam and was on welfare. He was involved in 42 undercover operations in which 18 to 20 people were charged,” Grimes said. “I think many of the cases he worked on were tainted because of that attitude (of entrapment). How can you be sure he didn’t con people into doing things?”

The defendants--Dr. Bang Dinh Nguyen and Thang Toan Huynh--were rounded up with about 50 others during a crackdown on alleged Medi-Cal fraud in 1984. Nearly half of the suspects were arrested in Orange County.

Some of the defendants have pleaded guilty and been given sentences ranging from probation to prison terms. Others are awaiting trial.

According to Alan May of Santa Ana, attorney for Dr. Bang, his was the first trial of any defendants in the 1984 sweep. “They stampeded a lot of doctors and pharmacies into pleas,” said May, who said he represents “nine or 10” other defendants.

“This verdict sets the stage for all the other trials. The jury did buy that this whole investigation was creation of the crime by government overreaching.”

Bang had been charged with 13 counts of presenting false Medi-Cal claims and one count of grand theft. Thang, accused of being a “driver”--one who buys Medi-Cal cards, then sells them to doctors for making false claims--was charged with 11 counts of filing false claims and one count of grand theft.

After a monthlong trial, both were acquitted of all charges Tuesday by a jury that deliberated three days.

The jury foreman, Dennis Boren of Huntington Beach, said that the defense proved to the jury that the undercover agent had approached Thang “without any control or any urging from the Police Department themselves. (The agent) proposed (to police) that they work Mr. Thang as a driver. There were some questions of control of the police agent.”

Boren said: “Dr. Bang was a separate issue. That wasn’t an issue of entrapment but finding whether Dr. Bang had knowledge that the (fraudulent) billing was being run through his office.

“There was not one witness presented that had a bad thing to say about Dr. Bang, whether by reputation or that he was involved in any way, shape or form.”

Boren said, however, that he felt it had been “valid to try the case.”

“This was not a case of us walking into the jury room and saying, ‘Oh, he’s not guilty.’ We had a lot of discussion before we came to the conclusion,” Boren said.

Thomas Yanger, the assistant state attorney general who prosecuted the case, could not be reached for comment.