The trial of the Carina apartment fire case reopened today.
After more than 8 months of returning the case file for further investigation, the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City has reopened the trial of the fire at the Carina apartment building that left more than 70 people injured and dead.
On December 21, the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City opened the first instance trial of defendants Nguyen Van Tung (former Director of Hung Thanh Production, Trade and Service Construction Company Limited, investor of Carina Apartment) and Nguyen Quoc Tuan (former Head of Carina Apartment Management Board) for the crime of "Violation of regulations on fire prevention and fighting".
The trial is expected to last until December 25, with Judge Pham Luong Toan presiding.
Previously, in early April, after a day of trial, the court found that the case had many issues that needed to be clarified to avoid missing criminals, so it decided to return the file and request further investigation.
According to the prosecution, at about 1:15 a.m. on March 23, 2018, an electrical wiring problem of a motorbike in the basement of block A of the apartment building caused the motorbike to catch fire, then the fire flared up fiercely. Nearly 10 minutes later, the lighting system in the basement area was turned off, smoke, hot air, and toxic gas seeped through the fire escape to the upper floors of the apartment building.
According to the conclusion of the Criminal Science Institute of the Ministry of Public Security in Ho Chi Minh City, the cause of the fire was an electrical short circuit in the motorbike's electrical system.
Regarding criminal responsibility in the case: Defendant Tung was informed by the Apartment Management Board that the fire alarm system was not working and the automatic fire extinguishing system could not be checked or operated.
In July 2017, defendant Tung signed a contract for maintenance of fire protection equipment and signed a test report at the end of January 2018. The test report clearly stated that the fire protection and fire fighting systems were not working, but Tung did not repair or replace them. This resulted in the fire alarm and fire fighting systems not working when the fire broke out.
Regarding defendant Tuan, although he clearly knew that the fire prevention and fighting system was damaged and could not operate when a fire broke out, as the head of the management board, Tuan did not fully fulfill his responsibilities in receiving the handover from the old head of the management board; did not firmly request Hung Thanh Company to replace and repair it, leading to the fire.
The fire killed 13 people, injured 60, and burned nearly 500 motorbikes and 81 cars. Total property damage was about 126 billion VND.
