In Nghe An, there is a situation of using hot weapons to influence auction results.

(Baonghean.vn) - On the morning of October 24, the National Assembly discussed the draft Law on Property Auction. Delegate Hoang Thi Thu Trang, Nghe An delegation, had many enthusiastic opinions, attracting attention. Nghe An Newspaper introduces the full text of Ms. Hoang Thi Thu Trang's speech.

Delegate Hoang Thi Thu Trang, Deputy Director of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Department of Nghe An province, spoke at the discussion session on the morning of October 24 of the National Assembly on the draft Law on Property Auction.

Through research and through the opinions of those working in the property auction industry, we believe that this draft law has been prepared in a very receptive, elaborate and methodical spirit, with specific and clear regulations that are highly feasible, including new, groundbreaking regulations on auction procedures, ensuring encouragement of voluntary property auctions by organizations and individuals, while being strict in the auction of state assets as well as assets for execution of judgments.

However, to complete the draft law, we would like to send the National Assembly three practical issues as follows:

The first,Regarding the issuance of auction practice certificates. The draft law has clearly and specifically regulated the issuance of certificates in the direction of minimizing administrative procedures, creating favorable conditions for citizens. I agree with the draft, according to which the auction of assets is a conditional business activity, belonging to the field of judicial support. However, regarding the cases where auction practice certificates are not granted and not re-granted, as stipulated in Clause 4, Article 15 and Point b, Clause 3, Article 17 of the draft, it stipulates that certificates are not granted and not re-granted to those who have been convicted of crimes related to fraud and corruption, including cases where the criminal record has been cleared.

Here we see two problems:One is, propose not to prescribe crimes related to fraud and corruption because it is very difficult to determine which crimes are related to fraud and corruption. Propose to clearly prescribe convictions for fraud, appropriation of property and crimes prescribed in the chapter on corruption crimes in the Penal Code.

The draft only sets out a permanent ban for those convicted of fraud and corruption, which is not really convincing. Because if we make a comparison, we see that there are many crimes that can affect the quality and ethics of auctioneers such as those who commit crimes against property, against economic management order, not just fraud or corruption. We think that there should be a review to expand the permanent ban to those who have been convicted of crimes in corruption, crimes against property, against economic management order or not permanently ban all of these crimes, which I think is more fair and appropriate.

Monday,Regarding the revocation of auction practice certificates. Point c, Clause 1, Article 16 stipulates that "violations of the provisions of Clause 1, Article 8 of this law will be revoked". Meanwhile, Clause 1, Article 8 stipulates prohibited acts for auctioneers. I think this provision is not suitable for state management activities. Any act that violates the prohibited acts will be revoked. I think it is not suitable. It should be more reasonable to have a provision that those who have been administratively sanctioned or disciplined with a warning or higher but continue to violate the acts specified in Clause 1, Article 8 will have their certificates revoked.

Regarding the order and procedures of auctions. It can be affirmed that this draft has a breakthrough to prevent collusion, price-fixing, blue and red teams, a current painful situation in the auctioning of assets. However, to ensure objectivity and safety for auctions, from practice we have two recommendations: First, in addition to auctioneers, to organize an auction with the active participation of another force other than auctioneers such as secretaries, specialists, etc. Practice shows that this could be a group of people with a very high potential for violations, but the draft law has not mentioned it.

Therefore, it is recommended that the draft consider adding regulations on standards, conditions, prohibited acts and other regulations to manage the behavior of this group of people. The second practical problem shows that property auctions, especially real estate, are currently being controlled by a group of subjects that we often call brokers, even gangsters, although not directly participating, still use all means to threaten auction participants.

In Nghe An, there are cases of using firearms and guns to influence the auction results, making illegal profits and invalidating the state's legal regulations, causing confusion among the people. We have great confidence and hope for the new breakthrough regulations of the draft. However, we are not sure that these regulations will completely eliminate brokers and gangsters in property auctions.

Therefore, we believe that there should be specific regulations on the responsibility of coordination between local authorities, police forces and auction organizations in protecting auctions, especially those involving large-value auctioned assets.

Regarding the cancellation of property auction results, Clause 1, Article 72 stipulates the cancellation of property auction results according to the agreement between the owner of the auctioned property, the auction organization and the auction winner. However, in reality, for property that is property subject to execution, who is the owner of the property here determined to be, the owner, the user or the civil enforcement agency, or the bank in the case of the bank accepting the mortgage of the property, practice shows that this content is currently being implemented inconsistently, even in some cases taking advantage to affect the legitimate rights and interests of the property owner.

One last issue, a practice of civil enforcement shows that unlike the normal auction of assets, the auction of assets in civil enforcement has its own characteristics such as the subject of the person requesting the auction of assets is not the owner or user but the enforcement agency, while the assets are held and managed by the person subject to enforcement.

The auction of assets in civil enforcement is compulsory, does not depend on the subjective will of the property owner, has the participation and very important role of state agencies here through civil enforcement agencies and enforcement officers.

Practice shows that there are countless difficulties and problems related to the auction of assets in civil enforcement. Sometimes we feel helpless before the invalidity of legal regulations, helpless before the waste of time, effort and money of state officials in organizing the auction of this type of asset.

Except for market and financial reasons, perhaps the biggest difficulty here is that the assets put up for auction are still held by the person subject to the judgment, so customers are reluctant to buy this type of asset.

In fact, there are many auctions that fail because there are no registered customers. Many auctions are held multiple times, some up to 14 or 20 times, but still cannot be sold. There are cases where the property has been sold but still cannot be delivered because the owner strongly opposes, leading to the case lasting for many months or years, causing frustration and disrupting social order and safety.

According to the Government report, in 2016 alone, there were 11,080 cases that were seized and auctioned but still unsold, with the amount of 32 trillion VND. There were 260 cases that were successfully auctioned but still not handed over.

We still know that the delivery of auctioned assets is a legal relationship of civil judgment enforcement and it is regulated by the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement. However, we think it is the result of the legal relationship of property auction and should be regulated by the law on property auction.

From these characteristics and from the difficulties and obstacles in practice to effectively regulate the auction of assets, we earnestly request the National Assembly to consider having separate, breakthrough regulations on the procedures for auctioning assets to enforce civil judgments. Only then can we hope to resolve the difficulties that have been encountered.

Duong Gim - Anh Tuan