Mr. Dinh La Thang: Even if I sell my house, I will only get a small amount of compensation.
“If the apartment I am living in is sold, it will only fetch a small fraction of the compensation. I am willing to work with my family to remedy the situation when the court judges my responsibilities properly.”
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. |
When asked by the representative of the People's Procuracy whether he was appealing for a lighter sentence or claiming innocence, the defendant Dinh La Thang did not confirm whether he was innocent or wrong 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. I and 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 also 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 the 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 the scope of 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 remedy the situation,” 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 statement about not knowing about the errors in the EPC 33 contract, the panel of judges asked: "The contract is very important for such a national key 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, and 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./.
