Vaa Vaa And Tafia Steve The Men Accused In The Vietnam Shooting

Vaa Vaa And Tafia Steve The Men Accused In The Vietnam Shooting

My name is Va’a Va’a.

Born on November 8th, 1999.

I am a Samoan national.

Together with Tafia Steve, I came to Ho Chi Minh City, Minh Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and used a gun to commit murder, and I was the person who directly used the gun to shoot and kill someone on May 21st, 2026, in Ho Chi Minh City.

After committing the crime, I was arrested by the Vietnamese police.

I advise anyone who intends to come to Vietnam to commit crimes to give up their idea immediately, because you will be you will certainly be arrested by the Vietnamese police, just like I was.

I realized that my actions were wrong, and I deeply regret what I have done.

The Vietnamese police have also treated me kindly and provided me with food and drink to ensure that I remain in good health.

>> Less than 72 hours after a Sydney gang figure was shot dead in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnamese police said they had found two men near the Cambodia border.

They were not the two Australian names first circulated in the early wanted notice.

They were two Samoan nationals, Va’a Va’a, 27, and Tafia Steve, 23.

Police in Vietnam allege Va’a was the man who fired the weapon, while Steve acted as an accomplice.

The victim was Lorenzo Lamalou, a 24-year-old Australian linked in reporting to Sydney’s Coconut Cartel.

A second Australian, Sony Sam, was seriously injured.

The shooting happened outside CFC Food Restaurant in Binh Thanh Ward on the night of 21 May 2026.

What makes this case different is not only where it happened, it is what police say happened before and after.

According to Vietnamese authorities, the two suspects entered the country through Tan Son Nhat International Airport on 14 May.

They allegedly spent several days watching the movements of the two Australian victims before the the After the shooting, police say the pair fled toward the border area between Vietnam and Cambodia, where they were captured after a large-scale manhunt.

Then came the detail that widened the case beyond the two men in custody.

Police said early testimony suggested the suspects acted under instructions from someone overseas.

That claim has not yet answered the biggest question.

It only opens it.

Who allegedly sent them and why was a Sydney underworld figure being targeted in Vietnam?

At first, the public story was confusing.

Vietnamese police had earlier named two Australian nationals they wanted to speak to after the killing.

Soon after, the arrests involved two Samoan men.

That shift matters because early information in a cross-border murder case can move quickly.

A wanted notice, an arrest, a confession, and a final court finding are not the same thing.

For now, the public record is this.

Vietnamese police allege Vay used the gun.

Steve is accused of helping.

Both men were arrested near the border.

Local authorities also detained Vietnamese citizens accused of helping the suspects evade capture or failing to report the crime.

Back in Australia, the case immediately fed into a larger concern.

Lam Alou’s death was linked in reporting to Sydney’s gangland conflict and police were watching for possible retaliation.

But the Vietnam investigation now has its own path.

Who followed the victims?

Who supplied the weapon?

Who arranged the escape?

And whether the order came from another country.

This is no longer only the story of Lorenzo Lamalou.

It is now the story of two alleged shooters from Samoa, a killing on Vietnamese soil, and a question that reaches back across the region.

Who was really behind the order?

Vava and Tafia Steve entered the public record through the Vietnam shooting investigation, not through a long known Australian crime profile.

Vietnamese authorities identified both men as Samoan nationals after the fatal attack outside CFC food restaurant in Ho Chi Minh City on 21 May 2026.

Police said Vay, a 27, was the person who directly fired the weapon, while Steve, 23, acted as an accomplice.

Those are police allegations at this stage, not final court findings.

The victim was Lorenzo Lamalu, a 24-year-old Australian linked in reporting to Sydney’s coconut cartel.

Another Australian, Sonny Sam, was seriously injured.

That connection is why the case immediately crossed into Australian true crime coverage.

The shooting happened in Vietnam, but the people targeted were tied in reporting to Sydney’s underworld conflict.

The two Samoan suspects were not the same people first named in the early wanted notice.

In the first stage of the investigation, local police circulated names of two Australian nationals they wanted to locate.

Soon after, the public focus shifted when authorities announced the arrest of Va and Steve near the Vietnam-Cambodia border.

That shift made the case confusing in the first days, so it is important not to merge the early Australian names with the two men later arrested.

Vietnamese police said the pair entered the country through Tan Son Nhat International Airport on 14 May.

Investigators allege they spent several days monitoring the movements of Lamalu and Sonny before the shooting.

That detail made the case look planned rather than spontaneous.

Police also said early testimony suggested the two men acted under instructions from someone based overseas.

Their arrest happened quickly.

Authorities said they were captured less than 72 hours after the shooting while hiding near the border with Cambodia.

Police credited surveillance measures and the city command center’s digital mapping system for helping trace their movements and escape route.

At this point, the public record around Va and Steve is narrow but serious.

They are not established Australian underworld figures in the way Lamalu was described.

They are two Samoan nationals accused by Vietnamese police of carrying out a targeted shooting on Vietnamese soil, allegedly after entering the country days earlier and following the victim’s movements.

The unanswered question is larger than their names.

Who allegedly gave the order from overseas, and how far does that lead back into the Sydney conflict?

The timeline police described begins a week before the shooting.

Vietnamese authorities said the two Samoan suspects entered the country through Tan Son Nhat International Airport on 14 May 2026.

They did not arrive on the night of the attack and that detail changed the way investigators framed the case.

Police alleged the pair had several days inside Ho Chi Minh City before the shooting outside CFC food restaurant on 21 May.

The older suspect, Vava, was later accused of being the person who fired the weapon.

Tafia Steve was described by police as the alleged accomplice.

At this stage, those are police allegations in an active investigation, not final court findings.

The two men were arrested near the Vietnam-Cambodia border after a manhunt that local authorities said was solved in less than 72 hours.

What makes the days before the attack important is the claim that the victims were watched.

Vietnamese authorities alleged the suspects studied the movements of Lorenzo Lam Lu and Sauni Sam before the shooting.

That suggests police are not treating the incident as a random street confrontation.

Their version points to planning, arrival, surveillance, waiting for the right moment, then the attack outside the restaurant.

The target list also matters.

Lam Lu was killed while Sauni was seriously injured.

Vietnamese reporting recorded the two Australian victims as Lam Lu Lorenzo Tovia and Sauni Sam.

Australian outlets linked Lam Lu to Sydney’s Coconut Cartel, which is why the case immediately drew attention back home.

The shooting happened in Vietnam, but the victims pulled the investigation into Australian organized crime reporting almost immediately.

Police also said early testimony pointed to someone outside Vietnam.

According to reporting from Ho Chi Minh City police, the two suspects claimed they acted under instructions from an overseas organizer.

That statement does not yet identify who allegedly gave the order.

It does, however, move the case beyond the two men in custody.

If police are right, the pair may have been the visible part of a plan arranged somewhere else.

The airport date gives investigators a starting point.

From there, they can look at immigration records, hotel stays, transport, phone activity, cameras near the restaurant, and any contact the suspects may have had before the attack.

A week inside the country leaves a trail.

The question is how much of that trail shows independent movement and how much shows coordination with someone giving instructions.

There is also the issue of preparation.

A shooting with a military-grade firearm in a central city location is not something police can treat as a sudden argument.

Vietnamese authorities said the case involved two foreign suspects using military weapons outside the restaurant in Binh Thanh Ward.

That detail raises questions about how the weapon was obtained, where it was kept, and who helped the pair before the night of the shooting.

For Australian viewers, the important part is the gap between what is alleged and what is still unknown.

Police have accused two Samoan nationals of entering Vietnam, tracking two Australians, carrying out the shooting, and fleeing toward the border.

They have also raised the possibility of an overseas organizer.

What has not been publicly answered is who arranged the job, who supplied the weapon, and whether the order came from Sydney’s gang conflict or another network entirely.

That is where the case now sits, not just with the men who allegedly arrived on 14 May, but with whoever may have been waiting behind them.

The shooting happened on the night of 21 May 2026 outside CFC Seafood Restaurant in Binh Thanh Ward, Ho Chi Minh City.

Police say Lorenzo Lamalou and Sonny Sam had been at the restaurant after a gathering with friends.

What happened next lasted only seconds, but it turned a Sydney underworld dispute into a Vietnamese murder investigation.

Vietnamese state media reported that Lamalou was killed and Sonny was seriously injured.

Security footage became one of the first pieces of public evidence.

ABC reported that the video showed two men dressed in black opening fire as bystanders ran for cover.

Other reporting said one attacker approached the group outside the venue before shots were fired.

La Malu was hit and later died, while Sonny survived with serious injuries.

Police later alleged that Va Va was the person who used the gun.

Tapia Steve was described as the alleged accomplice.

That wording matters.

At this stage, the public record is based on police allegations, reported confessions, and statements from Vietnamese authorities.

A final court outcome is a different thing.

The location made the attack especially serious.

Ben Thanh is not a hidden area.

It is central, busy, and surrounded by restaurants, hotels, local workers, tourists, motorbikes, and street traffic.

A shooting there does not only target the intended victims.

It puts everyone nearby into the same danger for a few seconds.

That is why the footage of bystanders running mattered.

It showed how quickly a dispute connected to Australian crime reporting could become a public safety issue in another country.

Vietnamese authorities said the suspects had entered the country on 14 May, then allegedly followed the two Australian victims before the shooting.

If that version is accepted, the attack was not spontaneous.

It was prepared over days.

Police would then have to look at hotel records, immigration entries, phone activity, taxi movements, CCTV around the restaurant, and who the suspects may have contacted before the night of the attack.

The weapon also raised questions.

Vietnam Plus reported that Ho Chi Minh City police described the case as involving two foreign suspects using military-grade firearms.

That detail moves the investigation beyond the two men seen at the restaurant.

A weapon has to come from somewhere.

It has to be stored, carried, and used in a city where the suspects had only arrived days earlier.

After the shooting, the escape began quickly.

Vietnamese police later said the two suspects were captured near the border with Cambodia within less than 72 hours.

That short timeline suggests investigators moved fast through surveillance, digital mapping, local information and transport records.

For the people involved, the plan may have been to leave the area before police could close in.

For local authorities, every hour mattered.

There is still a larger question sitting behind the restaurant scene.

Police said early testimony suggested the two Samoan suspects acted under instructions from someone overseas.

If that is correct, then the shooting outside CF was only the visible part of a wider plan.

The person who allegedly gave the order has not been publicly identified in a way that settles the case.

So, the restaurant shooting should be understood in two layers.

The first is the physical attack.

Two Australian victims, one dead, one seriously injured, and two Samoan suspects accused by Vietnamese police.

The second is the unanswered planning question.

Who knew the victims’ movements, who supplied the weapon, and who allegedly wanted Leuluai dead badly enough to send men into Vietnam.

After the shooting, the trail moved west.

By then, Ho Chi Minh City police had a public murder scene, footage from the restaurant area, and two foreign suspects they believed were trying to get away.

The city was still working through what had happened outside CF Seafood Restaurant, but the search was already moving beyond the streets around Binh Thanh.

The direction police focused on was Tay Ninh, near the Cambodia border.

Vietnamese authorities said Va Va and Teofilo Steve were captured less than 72 hours after the attack.

Local reporting described the arrest as the result of a fast operation involving Ho Chi Minh City police and officers from nearby provinces, with investigators working through escape routes, transport details, surveillance footage, and local information.

For the two suspects, the border area would have been the place where the case could have changed completely.

Once someone crosses into another country, the investigation becomes slower.

Police need coordination, paperwork, and another legal system.

That is why the hours after the shooting mattered so much.

The longer the men stayed ahead of police, the more difficult the file could become.

The arrest also changed the public understanding of the case.

In the first hours, police had circulated names of two Australian nationals they wanted to locate.

Then the men taken into custody were identified as Samoan nationals.

That shift made the early reporting messy.

It also showed how quickly information can move in an international case before every role is confirmed.

Vietnamese police later said the two suspects had entered the country on 14 May, several days before the shooting.

Authorities allege they watched the movements of Lorenzo Lamalu and Sonny Sam before the attack, then fled after the gunfire.

Police also said early testimony suggested the pair had acted under instructions from someone overseas.

The capture near the border did not close the whole story.

It only stopped the immediate flight.

From that point, investigators still had to work backwards.

Where had the suspects stayed after arriving at Tan Son Nhat?

Who paid for the trip?

Who gave them information about the victims?

How was the weapon obtained?

Did anyone in Vietnam help with transport, accommodation, or movement after the shooting?

Police soon widened the case beyond the
Two men.

Vietnam Plus reported that emergency detention orders were issued for Nguyen Thanh Nha, a 24-year-old from Tay Ninh involved in passenger transport on the Ho Chi Minh City-Tay Ninh route, along with seven others accused of failing to report the crime or helping the suspects escape.

That detail gives the manhunt a different shape.

It was not just two foreign men running alone through a country they barely knew.

Police were also looking at whether local help made the escape possible.

A driver, a route, a hiding place, a phone call, a person who stays silent, any of those can become important after a shooting.

There was something very human in the speed of that chase.

A restaurant shooting happens at night.

Someone dies.

Another man is seriously injured.

Bystanders run.

Then, while people are still watching the footage online, officers are already following roads out of the city, checking cameras, speaking to drivers, and trying to reach the suspects before they disappear.

Vietnamese police later presented the arrests as a quick result in a particularly serious case.

That is true as far as the capture goes.

But a fast arrest does not mean a simple investigation.

If the allegation about overseas instructions is correct, then the two men near the border were only one layer of the plan.

The harder part comes after the chase.

A gunman can be caught, an alleged accomplice can be named, a driver can be detained.

But the person who allegedly sent them may be somewhere else, outside Vietnam, outside the camera footage, and away from.

So, the border arrest gave police control of the immediate suspects.

It did not answer who stood behind them.

After the arrests near the Cambodia border, Vietnamese police still had a harder problem in front of them.

Two men were in custody.

The alleged gunman had been named.

The alleged accomplice had been named.

But if the early police account is correct, the plan did not begin with them.

Vietnamese authorities said the suspects claimed they had acted under instructions from someone overseas.

That does not identify the person behind it.

It does not prove where the order came from.

But it does change the way investigators have to look at the shooting.

A man can pull the trigger outside a restaurant.

Another can help him get away.

The person who arranged the attack may never have been anywhere near Ho Chi Minh City.

Police alleged the two Samoan nationals entered Vietnam on 14 May.

For several days, they are accused of watching the movements of Lorenzo Lamalu and Sonny Sam.

On the night of 21 May, the group had been outside CFC Food Restaurant when the shooting happened.

Lamalu was killed.

Sonny survived with serious injuries.

That timeline is what makes the case feel planned.

The suspects were not alleged to have arrived that night by chance.

They were already in the country.

They had time to move around, observe, wait, and leave after the attack.

If someone overseas really gave the instruction, investigators now have to find the line between that person and the men arrested near the border.

That line may not be obvious.

It may sit in phone records, encrypted messages, travel bookings, money transfers, hotel stays, or someone who arranged transport without knowing the full plan.

In cases like this, the person closest to the shooting is not always the person who wanted it done.

Vietnamese police also detained several local people after the arrests, including a passenger transport driver on the Ho Chi Minh City to Tay Ninh route.

Authorities accused some of them of helping the suspects evade capture or failing to report the crime.

Those allegations suggest police were looking beyond the restaurant and into the movement that followed.

The escape route matters because it can show who helped after the shots were fired, but it may not answer who organized the attack before the men ever arrived in Vietnam.

Back in Australia, the possible motive sits in a different file.

Lamalo had been linked in reporting to Sydney’s coconut cartel and to a conflict involving rival networks.

That background is why Australian police and media treated the killing as more than a foreign homicide.

If the shooting was tied to Sydney’s gang dispute, the order may have come from someone with a reason to settle that feud from a distance, but that still has to be proven.

An underworld link can explain why investigators are interested.

It cannot name the person who gave the order.

It cannot prove who paid for the trip, who supplied the weapon, or who told the suspects where the victims would be.

The injured man may become important here.

If Sonny is able to give a statement, he could help police understand the days before the shooting, where they went, who knew they were there, whether anyone seemed to be watching them, and whether Lamalo believed he was in danger overseas.

Small details can carry weight.

A repeated face near a hotel, a car seen more than once, a message sent before dinner, someone asking where they were going that night.

The restaurant footage shows the final seconds.

The investigation has to find the days before it.

For now, the public record leaves a gap.

Vietnamese police say two men carried out the attack.

They also say those men claimed they were acting on orders from outside the country.

What has not been publicly answered is who gave those orders, how the job was arranged, and whether the motive leads back to Sydney’s gang conflict or somewhere else entirely.

Until that part is clear, the arrests near the border are only one layer of the story.

In the first hours after the shooting, the public story did not move in a straight line.

The first names many people saw were not Vo and Ta.

They were Lam Kenny Chong Men Do and White Justin John, two Australian nationals named in an urgent notice from police in Tay Ninh.

Local reporting said the pair were believed to have left Ho Chi Minh City by taxi and traveled toward the Choang Bang area after the killing.

People were warned not to approach them and to contact police if they saw anything.

That notice created the first version of the story.

Two Australians were being sought after an Australian crime figure was shot dead in Vietnam.

For anyone watching from Sydney, it sounded like the whole case might stay inside Australian circle, Australian victim, Australian suspects, Australian gangland background.

Then the arrests came and the picture changed.

Vietnamese authorities later identified the two men in custody as Vo and Ta, 27 and 23, both Samoan nationals.

Police alleged Vo fired the gun while Steve acted as an accomplice.

ABC reported that the pair were captured near the Vietnam-Cambodia border less than 72 hours after the shooting.

That shift is where the confusion began.

The public had already seen two Australian names.

Then officials announced two Samoan arrests.

Some outlets reported the update while still noting that it was unclear whether the people arrested matched the names first circulated in the wanted notice.

News.com.au reported that Vietnamese authorities had arrested two suspects, but it remained unclear if they were the same men earlier named for questioning.

For a true crime script, that gap cannot be brushed over.

It is exactly where mistakes happen.

A wanted notice is not a conviction.

A person named early in a search may be someone police want to locate, question, rule in, rule out, or connect to a movement after the crime.

An arrest is a different step.

A confession or police allegation is different again.

A court finding is another step after that.

In this case, early reporting moved faster than the full explanation.

First came the shooting outside the restaurant.

Then came the search for two Australian nationals.

Then came the arrest of two Samoan nationals.

Then came the claim from Vietnamese police that the arrested men had entered the country days earlier, tracked the victims, and acted under instructions from someone overseas.

The names also became messy because different outlets rendered them differently.

The early wanted notice used White Justin John, while some Australian reporting referred to Justin John White.

Later reports around the arrested men also used variations such as Steve Tapia and Tapia Steve, and Va Va was also reported in some places as Joseph Va.

That does not necessarily mean different people.

It shows how names can shift when local language, passport records, media translation, and police notices all move at once.

There is a simple way to keep it clean for viewers.

The first pair, Doan White, were the two Australian nationals named in the early search notice.

The second pair, Vea and Steve, are the two Samoan nationals Vietnamese police later said they arrested and accused over the shooting.

Unless officials clearly connect those two stages, they should not be treated as the same thing.

The confusion also says something about cross-border investigations.

In a local case, police, media, and courts usually work from the same legal language.

In a case like this, information moves between Vietnamese authorities, Australian reporters, translated names, border alerts, state media updates, and crime sources back in Sydney.

The facts can still be accurate, but the public may receive them out of order.

That is why this section matters for the video.

It slows the story down before it turns into something too neat.

Two Australians were named early.

Two Samoan nationals were later arrested.

Vietnamese police alleged the arrested men carried out the shooting.

The role, if any, of the Australians first named in the urgent notice remains something that should be described carefully unless later official material makes it clear.

The safer version is not weaker.

It is more honest.

The case did not begin with a perfect timeline.

It began with a shooting, a rush to stop people leaving the country, public alerts, border searches, and names that changed as police gathered more information.

For viewers, that confusion is part of the story, not a mistake to hide, but a warning about how careful we have to be when a murder investigation crosses borders.

By the time Va’a and Taufia Steve were brought back into Ho Chi Minh City, the loudest part of the chase was over.

The roads near the Cambodia border had been searched.

The suspects were in custody.

Cameras, transport routes, and police units had done what they needed to do in the first 72 hours.

But the harder part of the story was only beginning.

Vietnamese police alleged the two Samoan nationals entered the country days before the shooting, watched Lorenzo Lamal and Sauney Sam, then carried out the attack outside CFC Food Restaurant.

Va’a is accused of firing the weapon.

Steve is accused of helping.

Local authorities also said the men were captured near the Vietnam-Cambodia border after a large-scale manhunt.

For the public, that sounds like a fast result.

For investigators, it is only the front layer.

Two men can be arrested and the file can still be missing the person who allegedly gave the order, the person who arranged the weapon, the person who paid for the travel, or the person who knew where the victims would be that night.

That is the uncomfortable part of cross-border gang violence.

The shooting happens in one country, the motive may sit in another.

The people closest to the weapon may not be the people who wanted the death most.

Lamal was linked in Australian reporting to Sydney’s Coconut Cartel, and his death was immediately viewed through the wider tension around Sydney’s underworld.

But the murder scene belonged to Vietnam.

The police work, the arrests, the local witnesses, the detention of alleged helpers, all of that had to happen under Vietnamese law, not Australian law.

That creates a strange split.

In Sydney, people may read the killing as part of a gang war.

In Ho Chi Minh City, it was a violent attack outside a restaurant in a busy ward with locals and tourists nearby.

The people running from the gunfire were not part of the feud.

They were just there.

Police in Vietnam also detained several local people, including a passenger transport driver, over allegations of helping the suspects escape or failing to report the crime.

That part of the file shows how quickly an overseas hit can pull ordinary routes and local contacts into a much larger investigation.

The alleged overseas order is still the part that changes everything.

If police are right, then Vo and Steve were not acting on their own anger in a foreign city.

They were moving for someone else.

That means the most important person in the plan may not appear in the restaurant footage at all.

They may not have crossed the airport.

They may not have touched the weapon.

They may have stayed behind a phone, a message, a payment, or another person passing instructions along.

That is why this story should not end at the border arrest.

The arrest tells us who police allege carried out the attack.

It does not yet tell us who wanted it done.

And until that part is answered, the killing remains bigger than two men in custody.

For Australia, the lesson is hard to ignore.

If a gang conflict can follow people from Sydney to Vietnam, then distance does not offer the protection people imagine.

A target can leave the country and still carry the same enemies with him.

A dispute can move through airports, hotels, restaurants, taxis, and border roads.

The setting changes.

The pressure follows.

For Vietnam, the case brought foreign gang violence onto local streets.

That has its own cost.

A city becomes the stage for a conflict that started somewhere else.

Police resources are pulled in.

Local people become witnesses.

Drivers, hotels, cameras, and neighborhoods become part of a file they never asked to join.

So, the question I want to leave with viewers is simple.

When Australian gang disputes spill into another country, should we treat them as overseas crimes or as part of the same underworld problem that began back home?

Let me know how this video felt.

Was the timeline clear?

Did the story have enough context without getting repetitive?

Your feedback helps improve the pacing and make each case feel more human.

Subscribe to the channel for more Australian true crime stories based on court records, police reporting, and verified public sources.