Mr. Dinh La Thang: "I always take responsibility as a leader..."

On the morning of May 11, the appellate panel of judges in the case of Dinh La Thang and 13 defendants appealing in the case of intentional violation and embezzlement of assets that occurred at the Vietnam National Oil and Gas Group (PVN) and the Vietnam Oil and Gas Construction Corporation (PVC) continued with the debate.

The defense lawyers for the group of defendants convicted of intentional wrongdoing presented their views. In particular, the lawyers for defendant Dinh La Thang spent most of their time pointing out the irregularities in the case, arguing that the attributions were somewhat biased by the first instance court and the representative of the People's Procuracy at the appeal court.

Why is the "root" cause not being treated?

The lawyers cited the conclusion of the People's Procuracy that the defendant could not provide new evidence, was not sincere, and did not proactively correct the situation, so there were no mitigating circumstances. They proposed to uphold the first instance sentence of 13 years in prison and compensation of 30 billion as the first instance verdict.

"Defendant Dinh La Thang was accused of being the one who strongly directed and pressured all levels, from the leaders of the PVN Board of Directors to the PetroVietnam Power Corporation (PVPower) - a subsidiary of PVN and the investor - to sign a contract to appoint a contractor for PVC.

Dinh La Thang clearly knew that contract No. 33 appointing the EPC general contractor (to construct the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant, worth 1.2 billion USD) was flawed and violated the law, but he still pressured and forced PVC to transfer an advance payment of more than 6 million USD and more than 1.3 trillion VND.

"On what material evidence did the court of first instance and the People's Procuracy base their accusations against the defendant Thang? There is no material evidence to show that in the case file. It is all based on the testimony of Mr. Vu Huy Quang - former General Director of PVPower," lawyer Nguyen Huy Thiep emphasized.

Mr. Vu Huy Quang's testimony was quoted by the lawyers with a very harsh attitude: "Mr. Quang directly signed contract 33. This is the cause of all causes leading to this particularly serious case, bringing dozens of officials and leaders of PVN and PVC to court as defendants.

But this man sat outside as a witness. With the desire to preserve his witness status, for his own benefit, providing testimony to defend himself, blaming others, how can we ensure the objectivity of the testimony?

"In the meeting, there were dozens of people, everyone affirmed that they did not hear, did not see, did not know, only Mr. Quang said that he had reported, then he was informed and used that as the basis to process and charge the defendants.

All other physical evidence in the case is not worth as much as such a testimony? Why is such a strange way of thinking and legal assessment used as a basis to convict the defendant?

The acts of fraud, falsification of a series of bases for signing contracts, using fake official documents to sign contracts, from the contracts creating a series of violations leading to the consequences of the case, but up to now all the defendants have been handled, but the person who directly signed has not. Is this fair or not?", the lawyer defending defendant Dinh La Thang indignantly stated.

According to the lawyers, all the records and documents in the case show that Mr. Dinh La Thang directed and urged the project's progress, but all the instructions were carried out in accordance with the law.

The fact that PVPower's proposal to increase capital to advance money to PVC was rejected by Mr. Thang twice is proof that Mr. Thang did not intentionally force PVPower to advance money to PVC.

In the directive document used as the basis for charging defendant Dinh La Thang, the defendant concluded: "Capital must be used for the project according to the law and is not allowed to be used for other purposes?".

The more you explain, the more you are accused of denying the crime?

At court, defendant Vu Duc Thuan affirmed that PVC did not prepare any documents, files, plans, estimates... even the minimum to convince the investor PVPower to sign a contract to appoint a contractor for PVC.

The lawyer defending the defendant Nguyen Quoc Khanh - former Deputy General Director of PVN, who signed the contract to replace the EPC 33 contract - said that all the illegal actions leading to this case were based on the content of Contract No. 33. However, the person who falsified the documents and made mistakes leading to serious consequences was not punished.

The appellate court also asked the representative of PVN whether they would handle the responsibility of those involved in the violation of making mistakes and recording the number of official documents before signing the EPC contract as requested by the investigation agency. This person said: "Currently, there is no decision yet. We are considering it very carefully, ensuring compliance with legal regulations."

Supplementing the defense of the lawyers, defendant Dinh La Thang affirmed: "The viewpoint of the People's Procuracy has not changed or been updated compared to the first instance court. I alone am responsible for every action, even though there are 6 levels of leaders, from the government down, but I am the one who must take responsibility for everything.

The more I spoke, presented, and cited evidence to show that I did not commit the crime of intentional wrongdoing, the more I was accused of being evasive and denying my crime, and of not being sincere.

Defendant Dinh La Thang

"I always accept responsibility as a leader, accept irresponsible behavior that caused serious consequences and am very remorseful about this. I admit my guilt and do not deny it, so I hope the jury will consider it," defendant Thang said.

According to the lawyers, until the appeal hearing took place, PVC was still the general contractor of the project, performing more than 90% of the work, so it was unreasonable to assess PVC as incompetent. Because if it was incompetent, it should have stopped and replaced the contractor, so why did it continue to do so until now? This is a basis for the lawyers to request the panel of judges to evaluate the whole case when resolving the case.