Mr. Dinh La Thang was sentenced to 18 years in prison and ordered to pay 600 billion VND in compensation.

Do the jobof the Prime Minister

On the afternoon of June 26, the High People's Court in Hanoi announced the appeal verdict in the case of "Intentionally violating State regulations on economic management causing serious consequences" and "Abusing position and power to appropriate property" occurring at the Vietnam Oil and Gas Group (PVN).

In particular, defendants Dinh La Thang - former Chairman of the Board of Directors/Board of Management of PVN and Phan Dinh Duc - former member of the Board of Management of PVN appealed all the contents related to them. Nguyen Xuan Son - former Deputy General Director of PVN appealed to declare Ninh Van Quynh - former Chief Accountant of PVN responsible for 180 billion VND received from OceanBank. Other defendants asked for a reduction in criminal and civil liability... The representative of the People's Procuracy holding the right to prosecute requested the Panel of Judges to uphold the first instance verdict.

The defendants listened to the court's verdict.

Through the trial, the court determined that PVN is a 100% state-owned enterprise, subject to the supervision of the Prime Minister and competent authorities regarding the use of capital... Only the Prime Minister can make policies or decide whether PVN will contribute capital to banks or not. Therefore, the views that the Board of Directors or the Chairman of the Board of Directors of PVN has the right to propose policies on capital contribution are unacceptable.

In the case, defendant Dinh La Thang proposed and signed the capital contribution agreement of PVN to OceanBank with Ha Van Tham - former Chairman of OceanBank without the Prime Minister's approval, which was wrong. Then, from 2009 to 2011, the defendants contributed a total of VND800 billion of PVN to OceanBank three times. This violated PVN's working regulations and the State's laws... When the State Bank bought OceanBank for VND0, PVN's rights and obligations with this VND800 billion no longer existed.

Prime ministeris the owner of capital

According to the chairman, the relationship between PVN and OceanBank when contributing capital is an economic cooperation investment relationship, so it is subject to the regulation of civil, enterprise and investment laws. OceanBank's business activities are regulated by credit and banking laws. The relationship between Oceanbank and State management agencies is regulated by administrative law. Next, the relationship between the State capital owner, i.e. the Prime Minister, and the representative at PVN (Board of Directors or Board of Members) is regulated by administrative and financial economic laws.

From the above relationships, the panel of judges affirmed that the views that OceanBank operated effectively, PVN received dividends; the cause of capital loss was that the State Bank bought OceanBank for 0 VND; PVN wanted to divest and had a partner who wanted to buy but the Prime Minister did not agree, leading to capital loss... are not within the scope of this case.

Regarding the 244 billion VND in dividends that PVN received from OceanBank, the appeal court said that it should be confiscated and transferred to the State budget. However, because PVN has been using it for a long time, it cannot be recovered at present. The views that this 244 billion VND should be deducted from the 800 billion VND in damages are unfounded.

Thus, the defendants’ signing of investment documents in OceanBank was against the authority, order, and procedures of the State on economic management. The defendants must have known that their actions were wrong because they themselves issued the working regulations of PVN and the standard for members of the Board of Directors of PVN is to understand the law. From that, the Panel of Judges affirmed that the court of first instance’s decision to declare the defendants guilty of “Intentionally violating…” was in accordance with the law. As for defendant Phan Dinh Duc, there is no basis to determine that the defendant agreed to contribute capital for the third time to OceanBank but the defendant did not prevent it, which is irresponsible.

Uphold the sentence of defendant Dinh La Thang

Regarding the amount of 20 billion VND, the court affirmed that there was no basis to accept Nguyen Xuan Son’s testimony that he had given Ninh Van Quynh 180 billion VND. Therefore, the court of first instance declared the defendant Quynh guilty of “Abusing position and power to appropriate property”; Mr. Quynh was responsible for the 20 billion VND, which was correct.

From there, the appellate court decided to accept Phan Dinh Duc's appeal, rejecting all other appeals. The court sentenced defendant Dinh La Thang to 18 years in prison for "Intentionally violating...", adding the 13-year prison sentence in the Thai Binh 2 case to 30 years in prison. For the same crime, defendants who are members of the Board of Directors of PVN were also sentenced, including Vu Khanh Truong to 5 years in prison; Nguyen Xuan Thang to 22 months in prison; and Nguyen Thanh Liem to 22 months of non-custodial reform.

Defendant Nguyen Xuan Son received 30 months in prison, adding the death sentence in the OceanBank case to the death sentence. Defendant Ninh Van Quynh received 7 years in prison for “Intentionally violating…”; 16 years in prison for “Abusing power…”, totaling 23 years in prison. The court also issued a warning to Phan Dinh Duc for “Lack of responsibility causing serious consequences”, no compensation required.

In civil matters, the defendants must jointly compensate PVN 785 billion VND (Take 800 billion VND minus 15 billion VND exempted by Phan Dinh Duc- PV), in which Mr. Dinh La Thang must compensate 600 billion VND.

According to the chairman, the opinions that OceanBank operates effectively, PVN receives dividends; the reason for the loss of capital is that the State Bank bought OceanBank for 0 VND; PVN wants to divest and has a partner who wants to buy but the Prime Minister does not agree, leading to the loss of capital... are not within the scope of this case.