Returning to the questioning phase is appropriate.

"Returning to the questioning phase after the deliberation process has begun also demonstrates the panel of judges' careful consideration of evidence before making a final decision," said lawyer Dang Van Cuong.

This morning, the Hanoi City People's Court of Appeals continued its fifth session of the appeal trial in the embezzlement and intentional wrongdoing case against Duong Chi Dung and his accomplices.

Previously, over three days (April 22, 23, and 24), the court successively questioned the defendants to clarify the embezzlement charges against defendants Duong Chi Dung and Mai Van Phuc (both sentenced to death), both of whom appealed, claiming innocence.

During the sessions, the court also questioned representatives from relevant agencies to determine whether the floating dock was a seagoing vessel, in order to assess the guilt or innocence of the customs group defendants for intentional wrongdoing.

According to the schedule, the court was supposed to announce the verdict on April 25th, after deliberation lasting more than half a day. However, due to many details of the case remaining unclear, and to avoid wrongful convictions or the failure to prosecute criminals, instead of announcing the verdict, the panel of judges decided to postpone the announcement and re-examine the defendants and those involved.

This morning (April 28), the panel of judges continued to question the defendants.

Mai Van Khang was questioned at the appellate court on April 28.

At 8:05 AM, the trial resumed with the questioning phase, and defendant Tran Huu Chieu was the first to be questioned.

In court, defendant Chieu testified that initially he understood the floating dock not to be a ship, but the regulations for floating docks are part of the maritime regulations system. When he went to Russia, Tran Hai Son said, "I have reported all the issues to Mr. Phuc, just let me handle it."

Responding to questions about her testimony at the investigative agency, Chieu stated that she sometimes couldn't remember. While in Russia, she vaguely heard that the floating dock was being offered for under $5 million USD, a price that included Tran Hai Son. "When the survey team returned, I reported to Mr. Phuc, and he didn't give any instructions, only saying to consider resolving the issue quickly. When reporting, I also told Mr. Phuc that the condition was bad, the operation wasn't normal, and it was only being bought for repair."

The court announced the testimony of defendant Chieu dated May 21, 2012: "If my report on the floating dock stated a price below $5 million, then Mr. Dung and Mr. Phuc could not have signed the contract to purchase the floating dock for $9 million." Defendant Chieu affirmed that he had given this testimony.

Defendant Chieu testified that when surveying the Russian offer price, it was just under $5 million, but he later purchased the floating dock through AP Company for $9 million, and he prepared a proposal for Mr. Phuc to sign the contract to purchase the floating dock for $9 million.

"When purchasing the floating dock, the accounting staff prepared the paperwork and invoices, and the defendant initialed them before forwarding them to Mr. Phuc for signing. It was only when the case went to the investigative agency that the missing procedures were discovered. The defendant made a mistake by not reviewing the procedures before presenting the floating dock purchase contract to Mr. Phuc for signing."

As the project manager, the documents submitted to Mr. Phuc for signing were all initialed by the defendant beforehand. The defendant hopes the court will consider the context at the time to reduce the sentence. The defendant received 340 million VND from Son about 8 months after the floating dock project was completed. The defendant borrowed 1 billion VND from Son, and Son gave him an additional 340 million VND. When Son gave the 340 million VND, he said, "This has nothing to do with the 83M floating dock; I just saw you were in difficulty, and I have a company that's doing well," the defendant Chieu said.

"At that time, I wanted to show filial piety to my wife's parents who were struggling in Hai Phong, so I bought a house in Cau Giay to bring them up to live with me and take care of them. That's why I borrowed money from Son to buy the house and pay for medical treatment. I didn't just borrow from Son, but from many other people as well."

"The defendant's purpose in submitting the proposal for Mr. Phuc to sign the contract to purchase the 83M floating dock was to expedite the project's progress. The defendant had no intention of embezzling or profiting from the purchase of the floating dock. In late 2008 and early 2009, the defendant borrowed money from Son," defendant Chieu stated.

The court announced Chieu's statement to the investigating agency: "When Son gave the defendant 340 million VND, the defendant immediately thought that this money was for buying the 83M floating dock."

At 8:45 AM, defendant Mai Van Phuc testified that the establishment of the survey team was proposed to him by Tran Huu Chieu, who was then the Deputy General Director and head of the project management board, and that he did not assign anyone to be the team leader.

"The defendant asserts that Mr. Chieu did not report that the Russian company offered the floating dock for less than 5 million USD, and previously the defendant testified that the kickback of 1.666 million USD was handled by Mr. Dung or someone with the authority to decide on the kickback agreement with AP Company, but later, at the trial, the defendant changed his mind because he found Son to be too formidable," defendant Phuc testified.

"During the meeting, Mr. Dung told the defendant, 'If you don't organize the purchase of the 83M floating dock and let it affect the project's progress, I will report to the Prime Minister to have you dismissed,'" defendant Phuc testified.

However, when the judges questioned Duong Chi Dung about this, Dung denied having said that.

"The defendant's house in Hai Phong is only accessible by passenger cars; I don't know if a 7-seater car can get in. The house is only about 250 meters from the main road. Son claimed he only parked on the main road, but a 7-seater car can enter the alley leading to the defendant's house," defendant Phuc stated.

The defendant knew Mr. Goh before 2000. The floating dock purchase project was part of the construction of the Southern Ship Repair Factory. While Deputy Prime Minister Hoang Trung Hai approved Vinalines' direct awarding of contracts for the Southern Ship Repair Factory project in October 2008, Vinalines had already begun purchasing the floating dock in 2007.

"At that time, the Deputy General Director of Vinalines in charge of external relations and business was Mr. Bui Van Trung, but the purchase of the 83M floating dock was Mr. Trung's responsibility. However, for some reason, Mr. Phuc assigned Mr. Tran Huu Chieu to carry out the task," defendant Dung testified.

Defendant Duong Chi Dung testified: "It's not pleasant to say this, but Mr. Phuc always opposed the Chairman of the Board of Directors, disobeyed instructions, and I did not participate in the purchase of the 83M floating dock. If I were greedy, I would have dealt directly with Mr. Goh, and I would never have shared anything with Phuc because I had a conflict with Phuc."

The presiding judge announced Dung's statement to the investigating agency: "The purchase of the 83M floating dock and the kickback of 1.666 million USD could not have been manipulated by Son alone." Dung then explained: "Due to my oversight in signing this statement, I did not make such a declaration. I am innocent, but the evidence is false."

Defendant Dung admitted that the purchase of the 83M floating dock was a loss due to Vinalines' investment decision, and that he, as Chairman of the Board of Directors, was responsible. The total cost of purchasing the floating dock was 26 million USD.

The presiding judge presented figures after calculating that the purchase of the 83M floating dock by Vinalines caused losses to the state of nearly 367 billion VND and 1.666 million USD that the defendants embezzled.

11:30 AM: The panel of judges announced the conclusion of this morning's trial of Duong Chi Dung and his accomplices. The panel of judges will resume work at 2 PM this afternoon.

According to Infonet