Mr. Dinh La Thang asked for bail

On the morning of January 16, the first-instance trial of Mr. Dinh La Thang and Trinh Xuan Thanh in the case of Intentional Violation and Embezzlement of Assets occurring at the Vietnam Oil and Gas Group (PVN) and the Vietnam Oil and Gas Construction Corporation (PVC) continued its 9th working day.

Please go home

At the beginning of the afternoon session, continuing the dialogue, Mr. Thang asked the panel of judges to consider the conclusion of the financial appraisal. He wanted the prosecutor to explain more clearly why he said: The appraiser confirmed that if there was no misuse of money, there would be no loss to PVN.

When requesting to have the charges reviewed, Mr. Thang said he wanted to change the preventive measure by releasing him on bail. "Some defendants have been released on bail, people like him do not pose a danger to society," he said and was interrupted by the panel of judges.

Mr. Dinh La Thang at the trial.

Late in the morning, in the response to the prosecutor about being accused of having group interests, Mr. Thang said that anything that is not part of the investigation, prosecution, and questioning process should not be included in the impeachment.

Mr. Thang said that inIn a business, the head's appointment of officials according to their functions and duties cannot be blamed on group interests. "Those who sit in the top positionsHey, from Mr. Phung Dinh Thuc (former General Director of PVN) down, all were appointed by the defendant. The defendant himself was also appointed by his superiors. I hope the People's Procuracy will reconsider, here it is not purely an accusation, but then the conscience, responsibility, and honor of the defendant and of the entire large PVN group."

Regarding the prosecutor's assessment that "the subordinates accept but the superiors do not accept", Mr. Thang said that he has always taken responsibility as the leader and the responsibility for the subordinates. According to him, these people committed violations to speed up the progress and goals, not for personal gain.

Mr. Thang repeatedly told the lawyer: "Defend whatever you want, but don't blame anyone."Party, State, blame subordinates.Absolutely do not defend the defendant while someone else is guilty.".

Mr. Thang also said that his citation of Conclusion 41 of the Politburo was not wrong. He did not say that the Politburo assigned the bid to PVC.

According to Mr. Thang's defense, cThe policy of appointing contractors has existed since 2006, when he had not yet returned to PVN. The Prime Minister agreed with the policy of PVN being appointed to the group's member units. Conclusion 41 of the Politburo raised many issues, including the intention to develop PVN into a leading economic group in the country, doing multi-sector business domestically and internationally. He said in the conclusion that it was very clear that due to Vietnam's limited oil and gas output, revenue from service activities must be rapidly increased from 10-15% to 30-35%.

"Conclusion 41 cannot specifically mention the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Project or Dung Quat, Ca Mau 1, Ca Mau 2... Based on the Party's conclusion 41, the Government approved the Vietnam Oil and Gas Industry Development Strategy to 2015, with a vision to 2025, and approved 5-year plans...", he explained.

Mr. Thang affirmed that the authority to appoint a bid for the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant project belongs to the PVN Board of Members and the Board of Members has assigned the Vietnam Oil and Gas Power Corporation (PVPower) as the investor.Therefore, the authority to sign contract 33 belongs toPVPower.

According to him, throughout the indictment, the prosecutor said that "the Chairman of the Board of Directors must know everything and must direct", but he can only do things within his authority. "The defendant affirmed that he did not receive any reports from PVPower, the Board of Directors, or the Management Board of the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant Project," he said.

"The person who directly kills people is not prosecuted," Mr. Thang said, referring to the fact that PVPower directly signed contract 33 without being prosecuted.

Mr. Dinh La Thang denied having group interests.

Regarding the advance payment of more than 6.6 million USD and 1,300 billion VND to PVC, Mr. Thang said that he was aware that this was the people's money and had to be used respectfully. Therefore, he requested that it be used for the right purpose. He repeated what he had stated in court "if the defendant had agreed to the advance payment, the money would have been transferred within just one hour" to prove that he knew nothing about the signing of contract 33.

"The thing that the defendant clearly directed was not "mentioned" by the prosecutor, which was to use the money for the right purpose and in accordance with the law.The defendant does not look down on money, it is because the defendant values ​​the people's money that he has written comments and instructions on prohibiting the use of money for illegal purposes," Mr. Thang defended himself and "asked" the prosecutor to review the case.accuse

Mr. Thang still wanted to present but the panel of judges interrupted and announced it was time for lunch break.

Defendant Trinh Xuan Thanh. Photo: VNA

Also this morning, the lawyers of defendant Trinh Xuan Thanh (former chairman of PVC's board of directors) took turns defending their client. Lawyer Nguyen Van Quynh said |"disappointed" when the prosecutor cited evidence that Mr. Thanh directed former PVC general director Vu Duc Thuan to sign contract 33. Therefore, the lawyer wanted to respond to clarify Mr. Thanh's role.

According to the lawyer, the conclusion as well as the indictment both determined that Mr. Thanh played the second role in the case, but in reality Mr. Thanh only played a role on the contractor's side. "Public opinion is very heavy on defendant Trinh Xuan Thanh.", said the lawyer.

Assuming that PVPower played a prominent role in this case, the lawyer read the transcript that had never been published or mentioned at the beginning of the trial, showing that at the time of taking testimony (June 2017), Mr. Vu Huy Quang (former general director of PVPower) admitted to knowing very well about the lack of important documents when signing contract 33.

"The first person to make a mistake was the PVPower Board of Directors," lawyer Quynh defended and affirmed that "in the case's evidence, we do not see the role of PVN or PVC, but PVPower."

Regarding contract 33,Lawyer Le Van Thiep said that the party that proposed the contract must take responsibility. "How can the party that accepts favorable terms be accused of violating the law? Regardless of PVC's violations in any circumstances, PVN still bears some responsibility because its capital contribution is more than 50%," the lawyer defended and affirmed.My client's role is always the lowest, the contractor's role is the biggest."

"When the state gives money, it must inspect, monitor, and develop laws... Seven years later, it was prosecuted with extremely serious charges, affecting society's attitude," said lawyer Thiep.

Lawyer Le Van Thiep defends Trinh Xuan Thanh

He cited a case that caused damage of 3,900 billion VND but was only sentenced to 5 years in prison. In this case, the damage was not calculated correctly, the full calculation was only more than 119 billion VND but the defendant was proposed to be sentenced to more than ten years in prison.

Regarding Mr. Thanh's alleged "intentional wrongdoing", lawyer Thiep assessed the prosecution as "unreasonable".true to nature, behavior". He believes that the above behaviorssatisfy Article 142 of the 1999 Penal Code - Crime of illegal use of State property.

Continuing to defend the defendant Trinh Xuan Thanh, lawyer Nguyen Quoc Hung suspected that there was a "staged scene" in giving 4 billion VND to Trinh Xuan Thanh. The lawyer assessed that the testimony of the witnesses and the defendant were all contradictory and forced. As for the witness, Mr. Thanh's driver, the lawyer repeatedly requested to confront him in court but did not see him. According to the indictment, driver Toan received a bag of 4 billion VND from the driver of another boss at PVC and then gave it to Mr. Thanh.

Adding to Mr. Hung's defense, lawyer Thiep said yesterday whenThe prosecutor said that the evidence was enough to convict Mr. Thanh of embezzlement. But the lawyer found that the file and all the evidence did not show this.

Lawyer Thiep said that belief alone is not enough to prove a crime because it is a "hidden crime". With this behavior, lawyer Thiep also proposed to change Mr. Thanh's charge to Lack of responsibility causing serious consequences.

According to the accusation, seeing that PVC Corporation, chaired by Mr. Trinh Xuan Thanh, was facing financial difficulties, Mr. Dinh La Thang (chairman of the Board of Directors of Vietnam Oil and Gas Group) illegally assigned contractors to PVC.

Mr. Thang then directed his subordinates to quickly sign a contract with PVC and advance the company 6.6 million USD and 1,300 billion VND to PVC, according to Contract No. 33, contrary to State regulations.

PVC used part of the advance payment for the wrong purpose. Although this amount was later requested to be recovered, it was not until the end of 2017, when the case was in the investigation stage, that VND1,087 billion was collected. The amount of more than VND119 billion was determined to be a loss.