Mr. Dinh La Thang: "I feel like the more I talk, the heavier the crime."

Today, the fifth working day, the appeal hearing of Mr. Dinh La Thang and his accomplices entered the debate phase.

Defending himself in court, Mr. Dinh La Thang (former Chairman of the Board of Directors of PVN)He put the papers aside, leaned his hands on the wooden platform, spoke slowly, emphasizing his words. He saidWhen receiving a 13-year prison sentence, he was very hesitant "should I appeal or not?", because he thought "the more he talks in court, the more serious the crime will be, and he will be seen as evasive and insincere."

However, after consideration, he perceived the appeal as "an opportunity to clarify the unsatisfactory attributions of the first instance court" andhave faith in this.

Holding the document to read, Mr. Thang repeated the content of the appeal, hoping that the appellate court would clearly consider his actions, roles and responsibilities... Mr. Thang also asked the court to consider reducing the maximum sentence for his subordinates.

Regarding the assessment of the Supreme People's Procuracy stated yesterday when it proposed not to reduce his sentence, Mr. Thang said that he had not seen the Procuracy update the developments and new details at the trial, and many of the comments given were not objective. The charges against him were almost the same as the first instance verdict.

"I feel that there are things that are not my responsibility but are still attributed to Dinh La Thang's direction. Even though I have accepted the responsibility of the leader, it does not mean that I have to take responsibility for all matters, big or small."

The former chairman of PVN hopes that the jury will objectively consider the conviction and not think that he deliberately assigned the bid "indiscriminately".

Mr. Thang does notagree with the way of calculating damages, propose to cancel civil liability with him. He likened the wayThe court of first instance applied the calculation as if the husband and wife had income from selling pigs, chickens, etc., and then could not distinguish which money belonged to the wife, which belonged to the husband, or which money came from selling pigs, chickens, etc.

The first instance judgment determined that Mr. Thang had illegally directed the appointment of contractors with the Oil and Gas Construction Corporation (PVC) in the implementation of the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant project, directed the signing of the project construction contract (EPC33) when it did not meet the conditions, advanced more than 1,000 billion to PVC that did not meet the conditions, causing the money to be misused, causing a loss of 119 billion VND.

Sentenced to 13 years in prison for intentionally violating State regulations on economic management causing serious consequences (Article 165 of the 1999 Penal Code) and having to pay 30 billion VND in compensation, Mr. Thang appealed for a reconsideration.

Lawyer: The testimony of 10 people is not equal to one witness

Previously, as the first person to defend Mr. Thang, lawyer Phan Trung Hoai said that from 2007 to 2010, there were many documents and Resolutions of the Government allowing PVN to appoint its subsidiaries to provide services for key national projects.

According to the lawyer, the Government did not direct PVN to do wrong. This spirit was reflected in the resolution of the PVN Board of Members and the directive documents of Mr. Thang in implementing the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant project. "It can be understood that the project has a special mechanism of both implementation and design, and submission to competent authorities for approval of investors," said lawyer Hoai.

According to the lawyer, although the first instance judgmentPVC is assessed to have difficulties and not be qualified to be the general contractor, but in reality PVC is still the only general contractor of this project.progress is 93% complete.

Mr. Hoai said that the People's ProcuracyThe high-level people's court, when evaluating the case at the appeal hearing, almost kept the indictment and the first-instance verdict unchanged. The evidence to evaluate Mr. Thang's behavior was based on the testimony of Mr. Vu Huy Quan.g (General Director of PVPower), Vu Hong Chuong (former head of the management board of Thai Binh 2 oil and gas power project). NAccording to the lawyer, the statements of Mr. Quang and Chuong were denied by Mr. Thang and many other defendants.

Lawyer Nguyen Huy Thiep then continued to defend Mr. Thang,that the use of his testimonyQuang's accusation of Mr. Thang is not objective because Mr. Quang was "forced to exclude" his responsibility in signing contract number 33 with PVC.

The lawyer said that in the meeting on March 31, 2011, there were dozens of people, but everyone did not know, did not hear or see Mr. Quang report "intervening" the signing of the contract, only Mr. Quang confirmed that it happened.

“So the physical evidence of dozens of people’s testimonies is not equal to the testimony of one person? This is a serious violation in the evaluation of evidence,” Mr. Thiep said.