The defendant swore before the jury that he did not accept a bribe of 10 billion VND.

During the interrogation, the defendants Duong Chi Dung and Mai Van Phuc still claimed that they were wrongly convicted of embezzlement. For the crime of intentional wrongdoing, Duong Chi Dung asked for a lighter sentence.

On the morning of April 22, the Supreme People's Court held an appeal hearing for the case of Duong Chi Dung and his accomplices for embezzlement and intentional wrongdoing. The appeal hearing for Duong Chi Dung for the crimes of "embezzlement" and "intentional wrongdoing..." took place under tight security. Perhaps due to insufficient facilities, the number of press allowed to report was not as widespread as at the first instance hearing.

Among the defendants at today's trial, Duong Chi Dung stood out in a white shirt while the other defendants still wore blue uniforms like at the first instance trial.

Duong Chi Dung also appeared quite comfortable without his hands and feet shackled, but Mai Van Phuc was the opposite. The former Vinalines CEO was still handcuffed and only removed when the jury asked the police force to remove the handcuffs when entering the court proceedings.

Duong Chi Dung at the trial. Photo: VNA

If at the first instance trial, there were 10 defendants brought to trial, at the appeal trial, only 9 defendants appealed (defendant Bui Thi Bich Loan did not appeal) and there were 16 lawyers defending the defendants.

Duong Chi Dung invited three lawyers, including lawyers Tran Dinh Trien, Ngo Ngoc Thuy and Tran Dai Thang. Defendant Mai Van Phuc also had two defense lawyers, including lawyers Nguyen Huy Thiep and Hoang Huu Duoc.

The panel of judges includes three judges, including the presiding judge Nguyen Van Son and two judges Nguyen Duc Nhan and Nguyen Thi Minh Thu. The two prosecutors holding the right to prosecute at the trial are prosecutors Bui Dinh Tien and Nguyen Quang Huy of the Supreme People's Procuracy.

Lawyer Tran Dai Thang, defending Duong Chi Dung, and Lawyer Hoang Huu Duoc, defending Mai Van Phuc, both requested that Tran Hai Son's driver be summoned to clarify who Son gave the money to. Lawyer Tran Dinh Trien provided the panel of judges with documents he collected in Singapore and documents showing Tran Hai Son's activities in the Russian Federation.

Mr. Trien said that this is new evidence, never before in the file, so the panel of judges needs to postpone the trial so that the lawyers and the panel of judges can study the file. "Only then can we evaluate the case comprehensively and objectively," said lawyer Tran Dinh Trien.

After listening to the lawyers' opinions, the panel of judges discussed and decided that the documents provided by lawyer Tran Dinh Trien could be photocopied and sent to other lawyers for study. As for the testimony of the driver for Son, it had already been given at the investigation agency, so there was no need to summon him and continue the trial of the case.

During the interrogation, defendant Duong Chi Dung still claimed that he was wrongly convicted of embezzlement. For the crime of intentional wrongdoing, Duong Chi Dung asked for a reduced sentence.

The defendants at the trial. Photo: LDO

Similar to Duong Chi Dung, Mai Van Phuc also claimed that he did not embezzle and did not receive money from Tran Hai Son. Therefore, the first instance verdict convicting the defendant was incorrect and unjust.

Duong Chi Dung stated in court that he was aware that his intentional wrongdoing was wrong, however, he wanted to consider the fact that he did not intentionally do it knowing it was wrong; during the process, he did not directly instruct the CEO because defendant Dung was only a member of the council.

Regarding the embezzlement, the defendant Dung claimed that he did not receive any money from Son. He only visited during Tet and received a bottle of wine and an envelope, but did not receive any large sums of money. He only received money at the hotel once, at the Sheraton Hotel.

“The defendant swears to heaven and earth that he did not receive a bribe of 10 billion VND from Tran Hai Son. During Tet, Son came to visit, brought a bottle of wine but no money. The defendant told the investigation agency that he did not receive anything at Victory Hotel” - Duong Chi Dung testified.

Regarding the reason for claiming injustice but still paying compensation, Dung stated that his responsibility was to affect the company and society, causing loss of money, and that in fact he did not benefit from the floating dock case. Therefore, Duong Chi Dung paid the court for compensation. This amount is for general compensation, not to determine the amount paid to compensate for embezzlement or intentional wrongdoing.

Defendant Dung stated that his family has paid 4.7 billion VND (sold all assets). However, the presiding judge said the court has not yet received this amount.

Defendant Dung said that he now regrets his decision to buy this dock and would like to comply with the court's decision on the responsibility to compensate for the damage of more than 360 billion VND to the state because of this. Duong Chi Dung said that according to calculations, the cost of bringing the dock back, including repairs, is 26 million USD. The investment money was borrowed from the bank. Later, the debt repayment plan is to establish a joint stock company to mobilize capital and compensate. The defendant's role is only as Chairman of the Board of Directors, making collective decisions, not personal opinions. The defendant also did not have any instructions on the purchase and sale of the floating dock.

At the end of the session, the panel of judges gave defendant Dung a break and moved on to question defendant Tran Hai Son and defendant Mai Van Phuc, former General Director of Vinalines. Defendant Phuc also affirmed that he did not commit the crime of embezzlement because he did not receive a single dong from Son from the amount of 1.66 million USD. According to defendant Son, defendant Duong Chi Dung's testimony was incorrect. According to defendant Mai Van Phuc, defendant Phuc can only be charged with lack of responsibility, the defendant did not commit the crimes of "embezzlement of property" and "intentional violation". "The defendant received a bottle of Chivas 18 wine and an envelope of 2 million from Tran Hai Son at the end of 2008, at the defendant's house in Thang Long International Village. The rest of Son's testimony is completely false," defendant Phuc stated.

The panel of judges adjourned its morning session. It will resume its afternoon session at 2:00 p.m.

According to LDO