Mr. Dinh La Thang asked to consider in the context of 10 years ago.

Design and construction

On the afternoon of January 9, when answering the question of Lawyer Phan Trung Hoai (Defense Lawyer for former Chairman of the Board of Directors of PVN Dinh La Thang), defendant Dinh La Thang stated that the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant Project is part of the development strategy of the Vietnam National Oil and Gas Group (PVN) as well as the Vietnamese electricity industry. Due to the urgent progress, the Government allowed the implementation of a special mechanism to promote the progress of the project.

“With a special mechanism, according to Decision No. 1195 of the Government, the Government allows both design and implementation of the policies and decisions of the Investor,” defendant Dinh La Thang said. “To put it simply, it means both design and construction, items that do not affect the project will be implemented first,” Mr. Thang added.

Lawyer Hoai asked when the project progress was requested by the Government and how the defendant "forced" his subordinates to do so. Defendant Thang replied: "This is an urgent project, the Government requested that it start in the first quarter of 2009. Therefore, PVN must implement it according to the progress requested by the Government. The Board of Members also forced the units to closely follow the progress and implement it according to the specific mechanism."

Looking back 10 years ago, former Chairman of the Board of Directors of PVN Dinh La Thang said that up to now, he has all the information that was not available at that time. The defendant also expressed his "regret" when he said that he was hasty and forced the progress, causing his "subordinates" to not have enough time to carry out the project, leading to violations of procedures for implementing the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant project.

Before the jury, defendant Dinh La Thang said in a choked voice: “I myself am extremely troubled and troubled by the violations. Once again, I accept responsibility as the leader as well as responsibility for being hasty.”

Defendant Dinh La Thang. Photo: Cong Ly Newspaper.

Never been warned?

“Haste” was also mentioned many times by Mr. Dinh La Thang this afternoon when talking about his instructions for this project. Mr. Thang also earnestly requested the panel of judges to consider the context of 10 years ago, in the context of an incomplete legal corridor.

“After 10 years of looking back, with the help of the Investigation Agency, the Procuracy and the Trial Council, the defendant realized that the implementation of the project (Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant) was still procedurally incorrect. Of course, at that time the defendant did not know, but now the defendant knows. The defendant is responsible as the leader and accepts responsibility. Because of the defendant's drastic direction, the brothers did not have enough time to carry out the work, leading to the brothers violating procedures. The defendant accepts responsibility to the brothers for that.”

Along with claiming that it was thanks to the authorities that he only now realized the violations, defendant Thang affirmed that he had never previously received a report from any individual stating that Contract No. 33 assigning PVC as the general contractor for the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant project did not ensure legality.

The above statement of defendant Thang is contrary to the previous statement of defendant Vu Hong Chuong (former Head of the Management Board of Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant Project). Defendant Chuong replied while the panel of judges was isolating Mr. Thang: “The defendant warned the group’s leaders in 3 documents that EPC Contract No. 33 had problems and was not eligible for implementation, and asked the group to comment on this matter, but the group still had no comment.”

Before Chuong's testimony, Judge Truong Viet Toan asked why, when he knew that Contract No. 33 was against the rules, the defendant still signed to transfer the advance payment to PVC. Vu Hong Chuong said: "The defendant was forced by the group's leaders. I have fulfilled all my responsibilities but still could not stop Mr. Dinh La Thang and the CEO from always urging for a quick resolution."

While other defendants admitted that PVC had no experience in implementing a large project like the Thai Binh 2 Thermal Power Plant project, Mr. Thang still firmly believed in PVC: “We assess that PVC has enough capacity and up to now PVC is still implementing the project. It can be affirmed that PVC has enough financial capacity and experience to carry out the project.”

Responding to the question of Lawyer Nguyen Huy Thiep (Defense Lawyer for defendant Dinh La Thang), defendant Thang expressed regret, saying that if the defendant had checked and urged regularly, the consequences could have been prevented.