Mr. Dinh La Thang declared that PVN was appointed as the contractor.

On the morning of May 9, the appellate court questioned Mr. Dinh La Thang (former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Oil and Gas Group - PVN) - the last defendant among the appellants in the case of Intentional Violation and Embezzlement of Assets occurring at PVN andVietnam Oil and Gas Construction Corporation (PVC).The court of first instance found that Mr. Thang directed the appointment of the general contractor for PVC in violation of regulations, and advanced money to PVC when the conditions were not met, causing a loss of 119 billion VND.

He was sentenced by the Hanoi People's Court to 13 years in prison for intentionally violating State regulations on economic management causing serious consequences (Article 165, Penal Code 1999), and compensated for damages of 30 billion VND.

Mr. Thang affirmed that he did not violate the procedure.

Responding to questioning this morning, using the word "I", Mr. Thang held a document stating the reason for his appeal, claiming that he did not commit the crime as charged by the first instance court.and said the project was approved by a Deputy Prime Minister.regular direct instruction

According to Mr. Thang, choosing PVC as the general contractor is "not against regulations", and is in accordance with the Deputy Prime Minister's opinion.Official Letter 978 of the Deputy Prime Minister said that PVN must be responsible for selecting a qualified general contractor. And he only urged the implementation progress, while the contractor appointment and implementation of all subsequent signings belonged to the investor.

The project was assigned by the PVN Board of Members to the investor, PVPower, General Director of PVPowerWork with 3 Deputy General Directors of PVN in charge of assigned areas. PVPower is an independent legal entity responsible independently before the law as well as PVN.

Mr. Thang 'praised' PVC's capacity

Explaining why PVC was chosen, according to Mr. Thang, the financial reports of the last 3 years show that PVC has been...achieved financial targets to become general contractor. In 2009-2011, the company earned thousands of billions of dong in profit.

Interrupting the defendant, the judge asked: "At the time of 2011, did the defendant know PVC's finances?". Mr. Thang said he did not receive the report, and that by the end of 2011 PVC was still profitable.

"But the testimony of other defendants in the past few days shows that PVC's financial situation that year was very difficult, having to pay a lot of bank interest, invest in many subsidiaries..., what do you think about this?", the judge asked. Mr. Thang said "it was only based on the financial report at that time".

"Has PVC ever carried out a project as big as this?", the judge asked. Mr. Thang replied: "They have carried out even bigger projects. At the Dung Quat oil refinery project, Ca Mau was both a subcontractor and general contractor with Lilama."

Considering that in the above projects, PVC was not the general contractor, the judge asked the question: "The government has opinions on the general contractor consortium, so why did PVC become the general contractor?" In response, Mr. Thang said that PVN was given the right to appoint the contractor. Because negotiations with foreign contractors were unsuccessful, the domestic contractor was allowed to do it.

Explaining the accusation of being forced to sign a contract to change the investor from PVPower to PVC, Mr. Thang said that PVPower reported that it was qualified to sign an investment contract and start construction, but he "did not"Don't do things wrong because of pressure from schedule."

"The Prime Minister requested the project to be implemented from the second quarter of 2009, so the schedule had to be pushed. Even if we don't do it, it's okay, but if we do it, it has to be done according to regulations," he said.

"Signing a contract without sufficient legal basis, making an incorrect advance payment, and using the advance payment for the wrong purpose. Does the defendant see that these things were due to his wrong direction?", the judge asked.

Mr. Thang replied: "Toi always directs to do the right thing. No group leader directs the two companies to sign the contract when they do not meet the conditions. The two units PVPower and PVC fabricated the terms and conditions themselves."

"But in the end the project was still behind schedule, did the defendant see his responsibility?" the judge asked. Mr. Thang still affirmed that he "did the right thing".

Debate on 1,000 billion VND advance payment for PVC

The former chairman of PVN accepted responsibility as the leader in the advance payment, but said that the main responsibility should be on the person who directly advanced the wrong money.

The chairman said that according to the contract, the advance payment to PVC was only 6%, but Mr. Thang directed to increase it to 10%, while the items had not been implemented, and the conditions for implementation were not met, but they were still urging and pressuring for payment.

Responding immediately, with both hands on the witness stand, Mr. Thang said in a slightly harsh voice: "I did not urge or pressure anyone to make an advance payment.10% advance payment for PVC is in accordance with regulations".

When asked about "how he directed PVN's deputy general director in charge of finance, Nguyen Xuan Son, regarding the advance payment to PVC", Mr. Thang stated that he directed in accordance with regulations, requiring the project's finances to be ensured for effective and timely implementation.

The judge repeated Mr. Chuong's testimony yesterday that he was called into the room by Mr. Thang and there he heard Mr. Thang ask Mr. Son to immediately transfer money to PVC.

Mr. Thang denied Mr. Chuong's testimony, continuing to affirm "Do not direct anyone to violate the law for the sake of progress.

After announcing that Mr. Ho Cong Ky (former chief of staff of PVN) would be summoned to the trial this afternoon, the court announced the end of the morning session. At 2:00 p.m., the appeals court continued the questioning.