The proposal is to uphold the death sentences for Duong Chi Dung and Mai Van Phuc.

During the court session on the afternoon of April 23, the representative of the Supreme People's Procuracy, acting as prosecutor, presented the indictment against Duong Chi Dung and the other defendants in the economic misconduct case at Vinalines. Accordingly, Duong Chi Dung was still recommended the death penalty.

Accordingly, the representative of the Procuratorate at the appellate trial argued that defendant Duong Chi Dung was the mastermind and played the most active role, therefore he should receive the highest penalty and the highest compensation. The first-instance court's sentence of 18 years imprisonment for intentionally violating the law was too lenient, and the sentence should be increased.

The prosecution stated that there was no basis to reduce the sentence for defendant Duong Chi Dung - Photo: TNO

Regarding Mai Van Phuc, in his role as General Director of Vinalines and as an accomplice of Duong Chi Dung, the defendant should receive a lighter sentence than Dung. The 18-year prison sentence imposed by the first-instance court for the crime of intentionally violating regulations is considered high for the defendant.

Regarding Tran Huu Chieu, an accomplice of Duong Chi Dung and Mai Van Phuc, who signed documents that formed the basis for the submission approving the shipbuilding and repair factory project and the purchase of a floating dock, the first-instance judgment sentencing him to 9 years in prison for intentionally violating regulations is correct, and there is no basis to accept his appeal.

Regarding defendants Tran Hai Son and Mai Van Khang, the Procuratorate found insufficient grounds to accept their appeals.

Regarding defendant Le Van Duong: the court's sentence of 7 years imprisonment for intentionally violating regulations is justified; however, the 15 billion VND compensation penalty is high, and it is deemed necessary to reduce the compensation amount for the defendants.

Regarding defendants Huynh Huu Duc, Le Ngoc Trien, and Le Van Lung: the defendants have made sincere confessions, and the Procuratorate deems it necessary to reduce their sentences and compensation amounts.

Regarding the embezzlement charge against defendant Duong Chi Dung, the Procuratorate argued that at the appellate level, the defendant did not honestly confess his guilt, and although his family had repaid 4.7 billion VND, given the dangerous nature of the crime, the death sentence imposed by the first-instance court was appropriate.

Defendant Mai Van Phuc also did not honestly confess his guilt, and although his family paid 3.5 billion VND to compensate for the damages, given the dangerous nature of the crime, the Procuratorate believes that the first-instance court's death sentence for defendant Phuc is appropriate.

Regarding defendant Tran Hai Son, the 14-year prison sentence for embezzlement imposed by the lower court is considered lenient. As for Tran Huu Chieu, although he did not participate in the embezzlement scheme, Son gave him 340 million VND. The 10-year prison sentence for embezzlement imposed by the lower court is appropriate.

During their arguments in court, Duong Chi Dung's lawyers presented several points to exonerate their client. The lawyers requested that the initial verdict be overturned and that the embezzlement charge be reinvestigated.

According to lawyer Tran Dinh Trien, who is defending defendant Duong Chi Dung, he presented a set of documents he had just collected from Singapore and argued that a series of statements by Tran Hai Son accusing Duong Chi Dung need to be reconsidered.

Accordingly, the lawyers contacted Mr. Goh Hoon Seow and obtained his sworn statement regarding the case. Specifically, Mr. Goh knew Mr. Dung, the former chairman of Vinalines, and his children during their time studying in Singapore. However, Mr. Goh never contacted or communicated directly or indirectly with Mr. Dung about the sale of the 83M floating dock; nor did he ever contact or communicate with Mr. Phuc, the former general director of Vinalines, about the purchase of this 83M floating dock. Mr. Goh only paid a courtesy visit to Mr. Phuc at Vinalines' headquarters in Hanoi once, accompanied by Mr. Chieu, Mr. Son, and an interpreter.

According to the lawyer, these statements are consistent with Duong Chi Dung's statements during the investigation.

In addition, the director of AP company provided information that the negotiations for the purchase of the 83M floating dock were conducted between me and Vinalines representatives, headed by Mr. Tran Hai Son.

Concluding his arguments, lawyer Tran Dinh Trien requested that the first-instance judgment be overturned and that the part concerning the charge of embezzlement be reinvestigated.

Previously, lawyer Thang, who defended defendant Duong Chi Dung, argued that Duong Chi Dung did not make any personal decisions regarding the investment in the shipbuilding and repair factory project or the purchase of the floating dock, as he was only a member of the Board of Directors. If Dung disagreed with the policy but the Board of Directors still agreed to proceed, Dung would have to bear the consequences. Therefore, the lawyer requested that the former Vinalines Chairman not be found guilty of "intentionally acting against the law."

According to LDO