Former Navy Admiral Nguyen Van Hien on trial
The first-instance trial of Mr. Nguyen Van Hien and 7 defendants is scheduled to open in the courtroom of the Capital Military Court.
 |
| Mr. Nguyen Van Hien. Photo: Thanh Nguyen |
Four former subordinates of Mr. Hien in the Navy were prosecuted for the crime of Violating regulations on land management (Article 229 of the Penal Code), namely Mr. Bui Nhu Thiem (former head of the Economic Department), Bui Van Nga (former director of Hai Thanh Company, under the Navy), Doan Manh Thao (former head of the Finance Department), and Tran Trong Tuan (former colonel, deputy director of Hai Thanh Company).
In connection with the case, 3 people were prosecuted for the crime of Fraudulent appropriation of property (Article 174 of the Penal Code), including: Dinh Ngoc He (Ut "Troc", former deputy general director of Thai Son Corporation), Pham Van Duyet (former general director of Duc Binh Group Joint Stock Company), Vu Thi Hoan (former director of Yen Khanh Company).The Navy Military Court is handling the case, but the trial is scheduled to open at the Capital Military Court on May 18.
Previously, on May 3, the Central Inspection Committee issued a notice determining that Mr. Hien had "seriously violated the provisions of the law in the criminal case that occurred at the Navy" and therefore proposed that the Politburo and the Central Executive Committee consider and implement the disciplinary measure of expulsion from the Party.
According to the indictment, more than 7,300 m2Land lots No. 2, 7-9, 9-11 Ton Duc Thang Street (HCMC) are of national defense origin, under the management of the Navy. On March 13, 2006, the Standing Committee of the Navy Party Committee agreed on the plan to merge the above land lots. Hai Thanh Company was assigned to organize cooperation with enterprises on these three land lots but ensure to maintain sovereignty, comply with legal regulations and benefit the Navy.
On October 2, 2006, the Standing Committee of the Navy Party Committee proposed and was approved by the Ho Chi Minh City People's Committee to leave all land use fees to the Navy Command to pay for site clearance costs (if any) and invest in building barracks or welfare facilities for navy units.
During the implementation process, the defendants Thiem, Nga and Thao proposed to the Standing Committee of the Party Committee of the Navy Command and directly implemented plans to convert the purpose of using the three above-mentioned land plots into economic land, contrary to land management regulations.
In July 2006, the Navy had not yet submitted a report requesting the Ministry of National Defense to submit to the Prime Minister for adjustment of the land use plan, but defendants Thiem and Thao submitted a report to the Standing Committee of the Party Committee of the Navy Command for approval to sign joint venture contracts to build office buildings for lease for 45 - 49 years with a fixed rate of 4.5 to 5 USD per month per square meter.
Authorities accused Mr. Hien, then Commander of the Navy, of failing to check and being irresponsible in managing defense land, and thus agreeing to the above proposals that were not in accordance with regulations. He signed many documents requesting the Ministry of Defense and related units to change the purpose of using defense land to put three plots of land into cooperation to build offices for lease.
After authorizing the Director of Hai Thanh Company to sign the contract, he did not check the implementation of the related units, leading to the partner mortgaging the land use right certificate, converting the business type, and transferring it to a third party.
The actions of Mr. Hien and the defendants caused the Navy to lose the right to use three plots of land for 49 years, causing a loss of VND939 billion to the state budget, the Central Military Procuracy determined.
Authorities said the investigation did not find any "self-interested motives or goals." From 2005 to 2009, he had to perform many duties and responsibilities as the Navy Commander, which is believed to be the reason for the lack of review and approval that led to the case.
In the indictment, the Central Military Procuracy requested the court to give Mr. Hien mitigating circumstances of "honest confession"; having many contributions to the construction of the country's seas and islands, building the army...
