Initial statements of Mr. Dinh La Thang and Trinh Xuan Thanh

Trial of Mr. Dinh La ThangTrinh Xuan Thanh and the defendants on charges of "Intentionally violating State regulations on economic management causing serious consequences" and "Embezzlement of property" continued with the questioning.

According to the indictment, during the implementation of the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant project, Mr. Dinh La Thang (former Chairman of the Board of Directors of PVN) played a key role in proposing policies and assigning PVC to carry out the EPC package, directing PVPower to sign EPC contract No. 33 with PVC in violation of regulations, then directing subordinates at PVN and the Project Management Board to use this contract to advance more than 6 million USD and more than 1,312 billion VND to PVC so that Trinh Xuan Thanh and his accomplices could use more than 1,115 billion VND for the wrong purpose, not put into the project, causing a loss to the State of more than 119 billion VND.

In his testimony at the court, Mr. Dinh La Thang said that the appointment of PVC as the general contractor stemmed from the Politburo's policy of building PVN into a strong economic group with high revenue. In particular, PVC was directed to become a strong oil and gas construction unit of PVN. From there, the defendant directed PVC to implement the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant project.

According to Mr. Dinh La Thang’s testimony, this is a project that the Prime Minister directed to start construction soon and implement urgently. In that context, if implementing the joint venture general contractor plan, it will take a lot of time.

Meanwhile, if the general contractor is a domestic contractor, it can be implemented soon. Therefore, the defendant agreed to let PVC be the general contractor instead of the foreign general contractor as originally planned.

The transfer of the general contractor to PVC is based on the capacity and actual situation of PVC when PVN just sold PVC shares, earning more than 2,600 billion.

Mr. Dinh La Thang stated that the Board of Members worked through support departments. They reported that PVC had sufficient capacity. Based on the investor's report, they agreed in principle to let PVC carry out the project.

Receive advance payment in violation of regulations

Responding to the interrogation in court, defendant Trinh Xuan Thanh stated that when PVC was facing financial difficulties, PVN directed PVC to take over the Thai Binh 2 project, PVC was very happy to be the general contractor of this project. At that time, the defendant himself contacted a foreign contractor, even though he knew that PVC was not capable of doing it.

According to Trinh Xuan Thanh, at the time of receiving the contract, PVC's financial capacity had a relatively big problem, due to the investment exceeding the charter capital. However, when PVC received the project, it was a good thing because it could solve the problem of jobs, gain more experience and certainly implement the project to make a profit.

"The more difficult it is to find a job, the happier it is, even though PVC may not be qualified enough," said Trinh Xuan Thanh.

According to Thanh's statement, the projects that PVN assigned to the units all had money, were paid very well, and were even paid in advance, so accepting more projects was convenient, not difficult.

Trinh Xuan Thanh stated that after signing contract 33 and receiving the advance payment, all expenditures of this advance payment were under the authority of the Board of Directors. The Chief Accountant reported to the Board of Directors without reporting to the Board of Directors.

Later, in September 2011, the defendant discovered the illegal spending from the advance payment for the Thai Binh 2 project. At this time, the defendant requested a report to the Group.

PVC's contribution of capital to other projects from the advance payment of the Thai Binh 2 project was wrong. At that time, Mr. Pham Tien Dat (former chief accountant of PVC) was very upset and reported to the defendant. Mr. Dat almost cried. The defendant had issued many directives in writing, requesting that the project's advance payment not be used.

PVC has an imbalance in cash flow but continues to contribute capital to other projects because the parent company can always borrow money.

Regarding Trinh Xuan Thanh's testimony, defendant Pham Tien Dat (former chief accountant of PVC) said that there was no principle for the bank to lend money to invest in capital contribution. At that time, there was no other way but to take money from the Thai Binh 2 project to invest.