Appeals trial of "Chairman" Kien: Prosecutor's Office responds to arguments in the proceedings.

At the end of this morning's session (December 10th), the representative of the Procuratorate responded to the arguments after hearing the views of the lawyers and the defendants' self-defense statements.

First, the Procuratorate agrees with the views of some lawyers regarding the approach to the case, which is to focus on the first-instance judgment in the appeal process. Therefore, the Procuratorate considers all opinions and testimonies in its conclusion on the case. Regarding the comments of some lawyers that the Procuratorate is not up-to-date on the case's developments, this is inaccurate.

Defendant Nguyen Duc Kien defended himself in court.

Regarding the charge of illegal business activities, the defendant Kien continued to present concepts from the Enterprise Law, the Investment Law, and Decision 165 to assert that the act of contributing capital to purchase shares and stocks does not require business registration.

The Prosecutor's Office shares the defendant's view on Circular No. 6388 of the Ministry of Planning and Investment regarding the concept of business. According to this circular, business is the continuous performance of some or all stages of the investment process, and must meet three criteria: it must be performed continuously; it must aim to generate profit; and investment activities conducted through transactions aimed at generating profit constitute business activities.

Specifically: The fact that the five companies owned by the defendant Nguyen Duc Kien contributed capital to purchase shares was a continuous activity aimed at generating profit; therefore, there is grounds to affirm that this constitutes a business activity.

According to Official Document 935 of the General Statistics Office on the Vietnamese economic sector classification system 2007, the activity of purchasing shares and stocks is classified under code 64990. Meanwhile, the five companies that the defendant conducted business with have the industry code 64990 but were not registered to do business, which is a violation of the law.

Regarding Thien Nam Company, this business was registered in 1995 and underwent its seventh registration change in 2000. According to the law, a change in the legal representative requires a new business registration, and the old business registration certificate must be returned to the business licensing authority.

Regarding the trading activities in contract 017, which were alleged to be illegal business: The defendant still maintains that trading in gold positions is a form of buying and selling goods and does not violate the law. The Prosecutor's Office questioned: Was the gold trading activity on Thien Nam's foreign account documented in Thien Nam's certificate? This is a trading activity; Article 2 of the contract states: Party A and Party B agree to buy and sell gold positions, but Article 5 of this contract mentions transaction fees. Transaction fees only exist when ACB acts as an intermediary in the transaction, further confirming that Thien Nam was trading gold on a foreign account.

The contract contains provisions for buying and selling gold that can be converted into physical gold or raw materials; therefore, it cannot be considered a derivative activity.

Therefore, Thien Nam's operations are subject to the regulations of Decision No. 03 of the State Bank of Vietnam. Trading in gold futures is classified under code 46624, meaning Thien Nam was conducting business without a business registration.

The defendant Kien placed the orders over the phone and conducted the transactions. The Prosecutor's Office asserts that the accusation against Kien for illegal business activities at Thien Nam is well-founded.

Defendant Kien argued that some other businesses operated in the same way without being prosecuted, but the prosecution found this to be outside the scope of the case.

"Based on the above analysis, the first-instance judgment convicting the defendant of illegal business activities is well-founded," the representative of the Procuratorate emphasized.

Regarding the charge of tax evasion, according to the Prosecutor's Office, there are three contracts: Contract No. 01 dated December 25th signed by Ms. Lan with ACB; Contract No. 010109 between Ms. Nguyen Thuy Huong and B&B Company; and the contract addendum signed between the three parties including Ms. Nguyen Thuy Huong, Nguyen Duc Kien, and B&B Company.

Regarding this matter, the Prosecutor's Office raised three issues: Firstly, the Prosecutor's Office questioned whether the two contracts and one contract addendum were backdated, and whether this was in accordance with legal regulations. Although the contract addendum was signed by three parties, there is no basis to confirm that it was backdated.

However, according to the representative of the Procuratorate, the legal violations in these contracts are as follows: In the contract appendix, the defendant Kien, as the legal representative of B&B, received authorization from Ms. Huong, violating Article 144, Clause 5 regarding the scope of authorized representation. Thus, establishing Ms. Huong's authorized representation for the defendant Kien was a violation of the law. On the other hand, during the authorization process at BB, Ms. Huong stated: "I (i.e., Huong) was only in charge of clerical work and managing the seal. Nguyen Duc Kien was the one who planned and decided on the implementation. According to the contract, I did not have to pay a deposit, and Mr. Kien issued the order directly."

Meanwhile, Ms. Dang Ngoc Lan (wife of Mr. Kien) testified, "I am not the legal representative of B&B. Because Mr. Kien was away on business, he signed the power of attorney. Regarding the gold trading entrustment, I didn't know much and only signed the documents. When I saw the losses, I asked him about it, and Mr. Kien said that he and Huong would handle the business."

Ms. Nguyen Thuy Huong and Ms. Dang Ngoc Lan continued to confirm the above testimony at the first-instance and appellate trials. At the investigative agency, Nguyen Duc Kien confessed: "The documents my wife and Huong signed were at my request." Thus, Kien directed the signing of the power of attorney contract and used illegal documents to determine the amount of tax payable, which is a violation of the law.

Defendant Kien repeatedly stated that he had no intention of evading taxes, and that Ms. Nguyen Thuy Huong benefited from the tax exemption policy. Regarding the content of the indictment, which alleges that the defendant knew about the tax exemption beforehand, defendant Kien testified that after hearing the accountant's report, knowing that Resolution 32 had not yet been implemented, he did not deduct and pay personal income tax at that time. However, the Prosecutor's Office agreed not to include this content in the proceedings.

Regarding the charge of fraud and misappropriation of assets, defendant Tran Ngoc Thanh, representing ACI, signed an agreement with Hoa Phat Steel One-Member Limited Company. Point 1 of this contract states that ACI committed to ensuring that the transferred shares were legally owned by ACI, had not been transferred, and were free from disputes.

By June 27th, Hoa Phat had transferred the money to ACI's account, and ACI had spent all of it but still did not release the collateral. On September 7th, 2012, the investigating agency issued document No. 497 requesting ACB to return 264 billion VND, but ACI only had 53 billion VND left.

ACB's leadership also decided not to approve the release of ACI's shares from collateral.

It wasn't until September 17, 2012, that the Investigation Agency of the Ministry of Public Security issued a decision to file additional charges of fraud.

The defendant's lawyer and the defendant argued that the prosecution originating from the investigating agency was inaccurate. In this specific case, the investigating agency has the right to initiate prosecution upon discovering a criminal act.

During the investigation, the defendant Kien submitted a request to mitigate the consequences, but he did not acknowledge this request during the trial.

According to VOV