Original price of floating dock is only 2.3 million USD

This morning, April 29, the appeal trial of the case of Embezzlement of Property and Intentional Violation of State Regulations on Economic Management, Causing Serious Consequences, occurring at Vietnam National Shipping Lines entered its 6th day of trial.

Defendant Tran Hai Son

At 8:00 a.m., the court continued to announce the new documents received from Russia and transferred to Vietnam on the afternoon of April 28. Including the results of the investigation in Russia. The court received documents verified in Nakhodka (Russia), by the Internal Affairs Department in Nakhodka, a witness and a record of interrogation of another witness, an investigation result at Nakhodka Company and AP Company and other companies in 2007-2008, a certificate of recording in the legal entity registration for the Russian joint stock company Nakhodka; the contract between Nakhodka and AP, taxes related to the purchase and sale, a memorandum of the contract to purchase the floating dock; a calculation table according to the purchase and sale contract between AP and Nakhodka, which calculated 2.3 million USD, a certificate of deregistration of the ship Nakhodka, a detailed inspection record of the goods...

Nakhodka Company confirmed that the Russian witness was not a member of this company. Mr. Anavic, General Director of Nakhodka Company, confirmed that he knew nothing about the agreement of the amount of 1.666 million USD. The settlement price of the floating dock was about 20 million rubles (equivalent to 2.3 million USD), received in July 2008. The representative of the buyer and the person who signed the contract was Mr. Goh (AP Company, Singapore). Regarding the purchase documents, he did not provide them because the prescribed retention period had expired.

Lawyer Ngo Ngoc Thuy is concerned about the authenticity of the documents, because many of them are not certified and do not have originals. “If the court has the originals to send to the lawyer, I assure the court that I can translate them, because I have been in Russia for 10 years and speak Russian no differently than Vietnamese.”

Lawyer Nguyen Huy Thiep requested that the panel of judges consider Article 24 of the Law on Mutual Legal Assistance in terms of legalizing documents exchanged between the two countries. These documents do not satisfy the first sign of form and therefore cannot be used as evidence.

Lawyer Tran Dinh Trien suggested: "The panel of judges must have the original Russian version for comparison.

The Russian Supreme People's Procuracy transferred this document on March 12, 2014, according to Mr. Aprikhodka's statement, meaning this document has been around for a long time. Although this document is beneficial to my client, that is, Mr. Dung has no connection to Russia, I still request the panel of judges to consider it.

Lawyer Nguyen Huy Duoc argued that all legalizations must be translated at the Vietnamese consulate, and that this document has no value as evidence, whether it is beneficial or disadvantageous to the defendants.

Lawyer Tran Dai Thang requested the panel of judges to summon a number of foreigners related to the case.

Presiding Judge Nguyen Van Son stated: This document was transferred to the court by the Supreme People's Procuracy, so the Supreme People's Procuracy is requested to clarify the legality of the document.

The representative of the People's Procuracy exercising the right to prosecute at court said: This document was transferred by Department 1B to the Court of Appeal and was transferred to the panel of judges on the afternoon of April 28. As for the lawyer's claim that the original must be photocopied with a translation, then it will be photocopied. The People's Procuracy believes that these documents are sufficiently legal. The People's Procuracy's view is that if there is not enough evidence to charge the defendants with embezzlement, the People's Procuracy cannot prosecute the defendants for this crime.

8:50 a.m., answering the People's Court about the fact that when giving money to Phuc and Dung, the company signed a labor contract with Quynh for several months, defendant Tran Hai Son stated that he signed a 6-month labor contract with Quynh.

At the court representing the Ministry of Finance's appraiser, Mr. Tran Thai Son said: we only consider following the appraisal request, as for the damage of the purchase of the floating dock, we must first appraise whether the floating dock is still worth 2.3 million USD as the selling price of Nakhodka Company to the Russian brokerage company and AP Company, then AP Company sold it to Vinalines for 9 million USD. Temporarily, we still calculate the floating dock at 2.3 million USD, plus the towing fee,... The total damage is nearly 367 billion VND.

"In the appraisal team of dock 83M, whether it is a ship or dock lacking appraisal from the Ministry of Transport, the police agency will request participation if deemed necessary, while our appraisal team has 5 representatives from 5 ministries and branches with enough capacity to appraise the damage of dock 83M. And up to now, there are different understandings about dock or ship, but for us, I still base it on the HS Convention" - Mr. Tran Thai Son said.

Mr. Tran Thai Son gave an example: “The code name and the goods must definitely be identical. If we return the floating dock to Russia and label it as a ship, it will definitely not be recognized by foreign countries, because the HS Convention has international legal status.”

A representative of Maritime Bank said about the review of cash withdrawals using Tran Hai Son's ID card: "Since yesterday evening, the bank has mobilized its best people to find transactions related to Mr. Tran Hai Son but has not been able to identify any transactions related to Mr. Son in 2008. We request the People's Court to give the bank more time to continue searching in the software and in the documents.

At Maritime Bank, when withdrawing money, you do not need to show your ID card, but the recipient does. Around 2008, they kept the documents, but if you can't find them on the software, it's hard to find them on paper."

At 9:25 a.m. on April 29, the Vinalines appeal trial moved to the debate phase. The representative of the People's Procuracy exercising the right to prosecute at the trial stated his views on the case:

Regarding the issue of lawyer Trien presenting Duong Chi Dung's plane ticket and claiming that Dung had not yet entered Ho Chi Minh City so Son did not give money to Dung, the Procuracy said that Son had stated that the time was 18 hours before or after, not specifically 18 hours. Dung's plane ticket was 15:00, so the time to arrive in Ho Chi Minh City would coincide with this time.

Regarding Mr. Quynh's labor contract, the lawyer presented the labor contract dated September 2008 because the Company was established in March 2008. Due to difficult conditions, the Company signed many contracts. Meanwhile, the lawyer only presented one contract, so it is impossible to confirm whether Quynh had previously worked as a driver for the Company or not.

The document of Deputy Prime Minister Hoang Trung Hai agreeing to the bidding for Vinalines is correct but not related to the purchase of the floating dock because this document was issued after Vinalines had completed the transaction and purchase of Dock 83M.

Regarding Tran Hai Son's cash withdrawal transaction, Vietnam Maritime Bank has officially responded in writing that it has not found any cash withdrawal transaction using ID card, so it cannot answer whether it exists or not.

Regarding the price offer letter from AP Company to Mr. Trung, Mr. Trung stated that he had nothing to do with this matter.

The panel of judges received the results according to the law on judicial assistance, this is the document that the Procuracy received from the Supreme People's Procuracy of Russia. The Procuracy affirmed that this document is legal. The Procuracy affirmed that there is sufficient evidence to charge the defendants with the crime of embezzlement of 1.666 million USD. The further questioning in court did not change the nature of the truth of the case, did not change any content, so the Procuracy maintained its opinion of charging the defendants at the appeal hearing.

At 9:45 a.m., defendant Mai Van Phuc asked the panel of judges to consider Son's statement that when he gave the money to the defendant in the middle room, his house did not have a partition, and Chieu's statement: "Son said I had reported this to Mr. Dung and Mr. Phuc, so please let me do it." This was only Son's statement, with no evidence to show that the defendant directed anything in the purchase of pier 83M. Son himself was the one who agreed to buy pier 83M.

At 9:52 a.m., defendant Tran Huu Chieu requested the panel of judges to consider the fact that AP Company had received money from the seller twice. Page 44 of the first instance judgment shows that on June 18, 2008, after 5 days of paying the 83M deposit, AP Company and Phu Ha Company used import-export invoices to receive 1.666 million USD. Mr. Son stated that he had made a fake contract to receive the money, so after receiving the money, Phu Ha Company only needed to make a contract liquidation, but Phu Ha Company issued invoices 6 times, which is inappropriate.

The investigation agency based on 4 regulations to confirm that the dock is a ship, while the Ministry of Transport confirmed that dock 83M is a floating dock, not a ship.

Defendant Mai Van Khang requested that C48 remove the crime of intentional wrongdoing, but the People's Procuracy said that to convict the defendant, the People's Procuracy had to base it on many other pieces of evidence.

The remaining defendants had no further comments.

10:00 a.m. After asking defendant Son, the court continued to ask defendant Khang: Does defendant Khang have any additional comments or arguments?

Defendant Khang: Yes. Your Honor, after hearing the conclusion of the Procuracy, the defendant still feels that the Procuracy has not clarified the defendant's actions. For the defendant, there is nothing new, the conclusion is still the same.

Dear Judges, up to this point, the Procuracy has not yet been able to show where the defendant has committed any wrongdoing. The defendant has sufficient evidence to show that his actions were unintentional and not intentional.

The court asked: Does defendant Duong have any additional comments?

Defendant Duong: Defendant no.

10:05 AM, Lawyers gave additional comments on the new conclusion of the representative of the People's Procuracy. Lawyer Thuy: I wonder why the supplementary part only has one representative of the People's Procuracy, the other is absent. Is that legal or not?

Lawyer Thuy said: The Court of First Instance considered Mr. Quynh driving for Son as a witness to the money transfer. The panel of judges needs to re-evaluate this matter and take back Mr. Quynh's testimony to clarify the act of driving the defendant Son to deliver the money. Up to this moment, the representative of Maritime Bank has not yet provided any documents or evidence to show that defendant Son withdrew money from this bank.

Next, lawyer Thuy expressed his opinion on the new documents provided by the Russian side. These documents also only pointed out a part of the case. We need to clarify whether there was an agreement between GS company and AP company about sharing commissions,...

It is necessary to clarify who decided to divide the amount of 1.666 million USD from the project to buy the 83M floating dock. During the interrogation, defendant Son sometimes said he did not remember, sometimes said he did not remember clearly. Thus, there is not enough basis to charge the two defendants Duong Chi Dung and Mai Van Phuc with death.

Finally, lawyer Thuy concluded: I still maintain my opinion and request that the panel of judges return the case file to the police and reinvestigate this case.

At 10:15 a.m., Attorney Trien presented his argument. According to the attorney, defendant Dung left at 3:00 p.m., the plane took off at 3:30 p.m. according to aviation regulations, not at 3:00 p.m. The prosecutor also did not base his conclusion on the driver Quynh's testimony. Quynh stated that he once picked up defendant Son (he did not remember the time or location) at the hotel and took him out to eat. Quynh's testimony was unclear and did not provide enough evidence.

At 10:30 a.m., according to Cong Ly, Lawyer Nguyen Huy Thiep, defending defendant Mai Van Phuc, expressed his opinion. Lawyer Thiep reserved the content of his defense of defendant Phuc on the afternoon of April 23. In addition, Mr. Thiep questioned why the new documents provided by the Russian side were from 2013.

However, it was not until today's court session that these documents were brought to the appellate panel. "That does not include the documents that the Russian side said they would continue to send later," said lawyer Thiep. Lawyer Thiep also questioned the form, legal value and translator of these new documents. "The form is not guaranteed, and the content has no proof of authenticity, so they cannot be presented as evidence," said the lawyer.

Lawyer Thiep said that all the initial steps from receiving the bid, contacting, negotiating and exchanging, including receiving the amount of 1.666 million USD were all the work of defendant Tran Hai Son, not the two leading defendants (Duong Chi Dung and Mai Van Phuc).

11:03. Duong Chi Dung asked to add his opinion. Mr. Quynh was a witness for Mr. Son, the defendant had Mr. Viet, who was the defendant's assistant at the time, pick him up and the two brothers went out to eat together so they could not meet Son. The defendant relies on the accuracy and fairness of the jury.

Dung also said that his house is in Hanoi, why didn't Son give it to him in Hanoi but in Saigon? How did the defendant bring five billion dong to Hanoi?

11:08. Lawyer Nguyen Chien proposed that there is sufficient basis to declare the customs group defendants not guilty of intentional wrongdoing. However, to be more cautious, he suggested returning the case file for further investigation and requesting additional expertise.

11:10. Representative of the Procuracy: Whether the Procuracy has additional opinions or not, the panel of judges must still consider all issues comprehensively and objectively. At the trial, the lawyers made comments: the Procuracy intentionally left out the file, the Procuracy was not objective... The proceedings go through many steps, sometimes the opinions expressed are contradictory, the appellate court can overturn the first instance judgment... this happens quite often. When giving opinions, the Procuracy only said that it was the Procuracy's opinion, and requested that the lawyers not make such subjective comments.

We are sitting here talking about an event that happened 5 years ago, this is not easy. If the defendants confess without other sources of evidence, that is not the basis for convicting the defendants.

Nearly 7,000 documents, not everything the Procuracy presented in today's trial, so lawyer Trien should not attribute this document or that document to the Procuracy leaving it out of the file.

11:17. At the end of the debate, the defendants were given the last word.

Duong Chi Dung: As Secretary and Chairman of the Board of Directors, the defendant admitted his guilt for the violations at Vinalines and did not deny it. The defendant relies on the compassion, virtue, and fairness of the jury to avoid the situation of "the mandarin makes the orange suffer". If the defendant's innocence is not yet proven, please let him live. If he is guilty, he must suffer even if he dies, but if he dies unjustly, he cannot tell anyone. This is a gift from the Party, the State, and the people.

Mai Van Phuc: Request to exonerate the defendant on both charges. The defendant hereby guarantees that all the contents of the petition and the defendant's statement are completely true. If there is any mistake, the defendant will take full responsibility before the law. The defendant accepted the position with only one motive, which is to consolidate and develop the Corporation. Despite the defendant's efforts, it still happened. The defendant accepts responsibility. The defendant will continue to encourage the family to overcome the consequences for the defendant.

Tran Hai Son: During the investigation and trial, the defendant has realized his mistakes. The defendant hopes that in the coming time, his family will help him overcome the consequences. He only hopes that the panel of judges and the law will give him a fair sentence, the right crime, as well as the other defendants in this case.

Tran Huu Chieu: The defendant has requested the panel of judges to consider reducing his responsibility for the crime of intentional wrongdoing. Regarding the crime of embezzlement, the panel of judges is requested to exempt him from criminal prosecution. The defendant feels that he is wronged. The defendant borrowed money from Son for a purpose, and in addition to borrowing from Son, he also borrowed from many other people... Regarding civil liability, the panel of judges is requested to clearly determine that the dock is not a ship, then the customs officers can be considered to be exempted from criminal liability. The defendant himself has many illnesses, and since April he has also suffered from high blood pressure. I hope the panel of judges will consider reducing his sentence. His parents have achievements in the resistance war, I request the panel of judges to consider. His father is a 35-year Party member... If the re-education conditions are too harsh, I wonder if the defendant will have a chance to return to his family by land...

The panel of judges deliberated and adjourned. The court will announce its verdict at 2:00 p.m. on May 7.

According to Infonet/PLO/VTConline