One person pocketed over $1.6 million?

At the Vinalines appeal hearing on the afternoon of April 24, the lawyers all argued that the $1.666 million in kickbacks transferred to Vietnam was real. However, only some subordinates shared in that money, while the two highest-ranking leaders of Vinalines did not receive a single cent.

Intense debate

During the arguments at the appeals court hearing on the afternoon of April 24th, the lawyers presented numerous viewpoints and arguments to defend their clients, using a rather "aggressive" style of presentation.

Scenes from the appeal hearing on the afternoon of April 24th.

The representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office had to calm the tense atmosphere at the trial, stating that the lawyers' opinions seemed "a bit too harsh." This representative also did not assert that the Public Prosecutor's Office was entirely correct. Both the prosecution and the defense have the right to present their own evidence and viewpoints. The final decision rests with the Panel of Judges.

"This case involves two death sentences, so we have to be very careful. If we wrongly convict someone, we will be held accountable to the Party, the State, and the people. We must not only prevent wrongful convictions but also ensure that no criminals escape justice," said the representative of the Procuratorate.

The Procuratorate affirmed that the two Vinalines leaders directed the purchase of the 83M floating dock and shared the commission fees. Although the defendants did not admit to it, based on the evidence obtained, the Procuratorate maintained its stance of accusing defendants Duong Chi Dung and Mai Xuan Phuc of embezzlement and intentional wrongdoing.

The prosecution argued that the defendants' actions should be considered within a chain of activities from the beginning until the 83M floating dock was imported into Vietnam. In this chain, the stages from research, the decision to purchase, and the delivery of the floating dock... were all not carried out in accordance with official duties.

Unrealistic?

During the arguments, the defense lawyers for the defendants all acknowledged that the sum of over $1.6 million (approximately 28 billion VND) transferred to Vietnam by the AP brokerage company (Singapore) was real.

The question that needs clarification is who received that money; who negotiated this commission agreement?

Lawyer Tran Dai Thang (defending Duong Chi Dung) argued that the agreement with AP company was made by defendant Tran Hai Son, without the participation of Duong Chi Dung and Mai Xuan Phuc. Lawyer Tran Dinh Trien also presented evidence confirming that Tran Hai Son alone "profited" from the entire 1.666 million USD.

Lawyer Ngo Ngoc Thuy also questioned: What legal basis is there to say that 1.666 million USD is the property of Vinalines and to claim that the defendants embezzled it?

The Procuratorate affirmed that the $1.666 million disbursed was part of the $9 million Vinalines had in its bank deposit, and was taken from the $130 million Vinalines deposited as collateral for a loan secured by Vinalines' assets. Therefore, it can be confirmed that Vinalines used state funds to purchase the floating dock. The Procuratorate stated that although the two Vinalines leaders did not admit to sharing the money, and there were some conflicting details, the Procuratorate had sufficient "belief and grounds" to affirm that Mr. Tran Hai Son's testimony regarding the disbursement of money to Mr. Dung and Mr. Phuc was correct.

"With a Chairman of the Board, a CEO, and a trusted person in such a superior-subordinate relationship, is it realistic for only the subordinate to receive kickbacks while the superior does not?" the representative of the Procuratorate asked.

A moment of reflection

Throughout the appeal trial, defendant Tran Hai Son (former General Director of Vinalines Ship Repair Company Limited) was repeatedly accused by top-level leaders of fabricating stories and providing false evidence to frame them. Furthermore, Mr. Son was also accused of embezzling a total of 1.666 million USD.

But when given the opportunity to speak his final words, Mr. Son broke down in tears and "begged the court to reconsider the sentences for Mr. Dung and Mr. Phuc, hoping that they would not receive the death penalty."

In his final statement, Duong Chi Dung affirmed that he was not afraid of death, even though he loved life. He still believed he was innocent and would be exonerated. He requested a postponement of his execution so that he could live until his guilt was proven. Dung stated that he was not trying to evade punishment. If he took any money, he would definitely repay it all. He said he would mobilize his wife and children, sell everything he owned, and do everything possible to compensate for the damages, hoping to live.

Defendant Mai Van Phuc – the General Director, played a crucial role, along with Chairman of the Board Duong Chi Dung, in leading Vinalines. When led into the courtroom, Mr. Dung politely shook hands with his former colleague. But during his self-defense statement, to protect himself, defendant Phuc openly admitted: "I and Mr. Dung are sworn enemies, so there could be no discussion or agreement between us."

The court is expected to announce the verdict tomorrow afternoon (April 25).

According to TBKTSG Online