Second day of trial: Defendants Dung and Phuc "rival" each other?

During the appeal hearing on the morning of April 23, 2014, the defendants continued to plead not guilty and insisted that they had done the right thing.

Cause factions and divisions within the company

Responding to the question of lawyer Pham Huy Duoc (defending defendant Mai Van Phuc, former general director of Vinalines), defendant Tran Hai Son (former general director of Vinalines Ship Repair Company Limited) said that there were internal conflicts within Vinalines.

Duong Chi Dung (at the time Chairman of Vinalines Board of Directors) and Mai Van Phuc "faced each other", causing factions within the corporation.

Specifically, at the investigation agency, Son stated that Duong Chi Dung and Mai Van Phuc did not get along and had conflicts with each other, so they did not trust people in the head office of the company.

Duong Chi Dung (white shirt) and Mai Van Phuc at the appeal court

Duong Chi Dung and Mai Van Phuc could not sit alone together, so Tran Hai Son had to meet each person to discuss and could not meet both of them at the same time.

Previously, at the first instance trial, Mai Van Phuc also said that since taking office as General Director of Vinalines, Phuc knew that Duong Chi Dung had been persuading many people not to trust him, so the two had conflicts.

Lawyers also participated in questioning the defendants to clarify the act of embezzlement.

Defendant Tran Hai Son said it was a long time ago, he could not remember the exact date and time he gave the money to Dung and Phuc, he only remembered the time period.

No one witnessed Son giving Dung and Phuc 10 billion VND each. There is no concrete evidence that Duong Chi Dung and Mai Van Phuc directed Son to receive the money, but only verbal instructions.

Regarding Tran Hai Son's statement that he gave him money, defendant Mai Van Phuc said that it was "blatant and deceitful".

Previously, lawyer Tran Dinh Trien (defending Duong Chi Dung) said he went to Singapore to meet Mr. Goh Hoon Heow to collect evidence.

Mr. Goh wrote an affidavit saying he never agreed with Duong Chi Dung to transfer the kickback of 1.666 million USD.

According to Mr Goh, the amount was part of the payment under a letter of credit to cover the preparation of permit applications, customs and export procedures related to the 83M floating dock.

There are favorable circumstances for Duong Chi Dung.

In the April 22 trial, lawyer Tran Dinh Trien said he had gone to Singapore to collect evidence from the testimony of the director of AP company. The case file and the first instance verdict both showed that the former leaders of Vinalines had agreed with Mr. Goh Hoon Seow on the amount of “kickback” after successfully purchasing the 83M floating dock. However, in the affidavit (translated and notarized in Singapore), there was a contradiction.

Below is the full text of the affidavit: “I knew Mr. Dung, former chairman of Vinalines, and his children during their time studying in Singapore. However, I have never directly or indirectly contacted or discussed with Mr. Dung about the sale of the 83M floating dock.

I have never contacted or discussed with Mr. Phuc, the former general director of Vinalines, about the sale of the 83M floating dock. I only once paid a courtesy visit to Mr. Phuc at the Vinalines headquarters in Hanoi, accompanied by Mr. Chieu, Mr. Son and an interpreter.

Due to a previous relationship, I was approached by Global Success (GS) Company to advise on the delivery method and insurance for the delivery of the floating dock. I reported this to the Vietnamese investigation agency according to the declaration record dated November 2, 2012.

Before I participated in the sale of the 83M floating dock, GS had negotiated with Vinalines. The owner of the 83M floating dock only wanted to sell the floating dock through his company abroad under the FOB method via Nakhodka, Russia while Vinalines wanted to buy it under the CIF method - delivered at the Vietnamese port. When the negotiations reached a deadlock, GS approached AP and asked AP to act as an intermediary to help carry out the transaction. The first time I met the Vinalines delegation buying the floating dock was in Vladivostok, Russia.

After both GS and Vinalines agreed on the sale of the 83M floating dock through AP, an official offer was sent by AP to Vinalines under GS's instructions and then the negotiation of the sale of the floating dock began. The negotiation was conducted between me and the Vinalines representatives, with Mr. Son as the head.

AP and GS have entered into an agreement to provide a basis for AP to act as a broker for GS. The terms of the sale agreement are determined and determined by GS.”

Regarding the $1.666 million “kickback,” Mr. Goh said: “During the discussion and negotiation with Mr. Tran Hai Son and his people representing Vinalines, I did not say anything about kickbacks. As far as I know, Mr. Son cannot speak English. All discussions and negotiations between me and Mr. Son were conducted through an interpreter.

Payment for the purchase of the 83M floating dock was made under a letter of credit from Vinalines under the sales agreement. The $1.666 million was part of the payment under the letter of credit to cover the preparation of permit applications, customs and export procedures related to the 83M floating dock. Before the agreement was signed. The AP did not know Phu Ha Company.

I did not require Mr. Son to open an account for Phu Ha Company at UOB Bank. The name of Phu Ha Company first appeared when GS informed AP about the name of the company that would receive payment for the preparation of documents for the permit application, customs procedures and export related to the 83M floating dock, after the letter of credit was issued.

The details of Phu Ha Company's account were informed by Mr. Son to AP so that I could make payment under the letter of credit to Phu Ha Company as agreed. I have never discussed with Mr. Dung and Mr. Phuc about the amount of 1.666 million USD.

After receiving this document provided by lawyer Tran Dinh Trien, the trial panel said it would consider clarifying whether or not the defendants received embezzled money.

According to DVO