Mr. Dinh La Thang: Even if I sell my house, I will only get a small amount of compensation.
“If I sell the apartment I am living in, it will only fetch a small fraction of the compensation. I am ready to work with my family to fix the problem when the court decides on the right responsibility.”
For the crime of intentionally violating the law in the case that occurred at the Vietnam National Oil and Gas Group (PVN) and the Vietnam Oil and Gas Construction Corporation (PVC) related to the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant project, defendant Dinh La Thang was sentenced by the court of first instance to 13 years in prison and ordered to pay 30 billion VND in compensation.
In the appeal hearing this afternoon (May 9), defendant Dinh La Thang affirmed to maintain his appeal regarding the assessment of the crime and civil liability because he believed that the first instance court's assessment was not correct within the scope of his responsibility.
|
| Defendant Dinh La Thang: I felt so sad when the case happened that I could not write about my achievements to ask for a lighter sentence. |
In response to the question from the representative of the People's Procuracy about whether he would appeal for a lighter sentence or claim innocence, the defendant Dinh La Thang did not confirm his innocence or wrongdoing but said he did not commit the crime of intentional wrongdoing. Mr. Thang said that he was irresponsible and accepted responsibility as a leader.
“I am at fault and irresponsible. I hope the court will objectively consider it. I, as well as the group's leaders, never knew we were wrong but still did it. We did not intentionally do wrong for personal gain, but all for the purpose of building and developing the group,” said Mr. Dinh La Thang.
When asked about mitigating circumstances, defendant Dinh La Thang said he did not disclose his personal achievements because he felt pain and remorse when the case happened in the unit he headed.
“During the past time, I have not been able to sleep many nights within these four walls. I cannot hold a pen to declare my achievements to ask for a lighter sentence, but I still ask the panel of judges to consider my case,” Mr. Thang replied.
Citing the provisions on mitigating circumstances, including voluntary compensation, the representative of the People's Procuracy noted that up to this point, defendant Dinh La Thang and his family have not yet remedied the civil part, while the appeal trial of the case of loss of 800 billion VND in capital contribution to Oceanbank is also about to take place, related to the defendant.
However, defendant Dinh La Thang once again emphasized his request for the appellate court to reconsider the basis for calculating the value of damages and the scope of responsibility and authority of the Chairman of the Board of Directors for causing damages.
“The defendant accepts responsibility, but only within his authority. I have an apartment that I am living in, and if I sell it, I will only get a small portion of the compensation. When the high court decides on the right responsibility, the defendant and his family will try their best to make amends,” defendant Dinh La Thang replied to the representative of the People’s Procuracy.
Also at today's trial, citing the announcement of the conclusion of the meeting on March 31, 2011 chaired by Mr. Dinh La Thang, in which it was stated that PVC was the first general contractor, the panel of judges asked on what basis PVC had experience as a general contractor for selection? Responding, defendant Dinh La Thang said that, through assessment, PVC was assessed to have sufficient capacity and experience having carried out many large projects. Based on the assessment and proposal, the General Director reported to the Board of Directors for approval to allow PVC to be the general contractor of the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant project.
In response to the defendant's testimony about not knowing about the errors in the EPC 33 contract, the panel of judges asked: "The contract is very important for such a key national project, but the defendant does not know the content of the contract?". In response to this question, Mr. Dinh La Thang said that it was the responsibility of the investor, even the Board of Directors did not know, the Board of Members did not know either. When the investor was transferred to PVN, the defendant was not allowed to see contract 4194 because the General Director signed and was responsible./.
