On the second day of the three-day appeals hearing of eight of the nine defendants who have been indicted for wrongdoings causing serious consequences in the Vinashin case, the Supreme People's Procuracy asked the Jury Panel to dismiss the appeals and retain the earlier judgment of the court.
On August 29, the Jury Panel chaired by Dao Thi Nga, deputy chief judge of the appeals court of the Supreme People's Procuracy, briefed the earlier indictment decided by the Hai Phong City People's Court in March.
However, eight of the defendants involved in the high-profile scandal at Vietnam Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (Vinashin) petitioned the Supreme People’s Court to mitigate their sentences and reduce the damages they have to pay.
The hearing was opened to consider the appeals of eight of the nine defendants who had been sentenced by the Hai Phong City People’s Court in March for ‘intentionally violating State economic management regulations, causing serious consequences’. It has been determined that they caused a total loss to the national budget of VND910 billion (US$43.5 million).
Among the eight was Pham Thanh Binh, former Vinashin chairman, who has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.
According to the indictment, Binh and his accomplices abused their positions and violated state laws and regulations on investment, management and use of State capital in the purchase of the Hoa Sen Ship; the Red River thermal power plant project in Nam Dinh Province; the Cai Lan diesel thermal power plant in Quang Ninh Province; the investment project of Binh Dinh Star Ship and the sale of the Bach Dang Giang Vessel.
Binh blamed the loss from the purchase of the Hoa Sen on outside factors, including an economic crisis during which fuel prices soared, leading to a suspension of use of the ship.
When questioned by the court on this issue, Binh admitted that he had incorrectly implemented the government’s directions on investment since he had misunderstood the policy, but he took responsibility for his wrongdoings.
“I have not complied with relevant regulations, but it was only because of the circumstances at that time. It is not true that I deliberately did so to spite laws,” Binh said.
Asked why he decided to purchase such an old ship without organizing a competitive bid, Binh said, “It is wrong not to launch a bid, but I had to decide on the purchase soon since if a time-consuming bid had been opened, we would have missed the chance to buy the ship, which was a type that is difficult to find.”
He also disagreed on the calculations made by investigators of damages from the ship project. He said it was not correct to say the damage was the difference between the total investment of the project (VND1,400 billion) and the residual value of the ship when it was no longer used.
He explained that about VND1,200 billion of the total investment had been used on purchasing the ship, while the remainder had been spent on two wharves.
When answering the question of civil liability in this case, the defendant Binh claimed that compensation level of VND800 billion that the defendant must bear is too high, and it should be reviewed.
In addition, Binh said, the charge of more than VND600 million should be reduced, because "My family cannot afford to pay this”.
Meanwhile, the other defendants asked the court to mitigate their sentences and reduce the damages they have to pay, explaining that they had only carried out what they had been ordered to by Binh.
Trinh Thi Hau, 48, another former deputy director general of Vinashin Finance Company, rejected all of the allegations levied against her and asserted that she had not committed the offense of “intentionally violating the State’s economic management regulations, causing serious consequences”.
Trinh Thi Hau said she was forced. Though she had been aware that such implementation was wrong, but she had no other option. She had to do it according to the group’s duty assigned to me or she would have been disciplined.
Hau also said he “did not act against the Government’s direction”, since she had not known about the Government’s policy not to buy old ships like the Hoa Sen.
Hoang Gia Hiep, 40, former deputy director general of Vinashin Finance Company and former director of Shipping Industry Finance Leasing Company, said his 13-year sentence was too heavy.
The Procuracy requested to keep intact the indictment, blaming Binh for the main responsibility of Vinashin’s projects which caused some of the largest losses to the national budget. Binh had agreed to purchase the Hoa Sen ship, a second hand vessel, for VND1,400 billion, a transaction that eventually cost the company more than VND650 billion.
This project was developed by the giant shipbuilding group without prior approval from the Prime Minister and was not in accordance with the PM’s directive on building seagoing ships for North-South passenger transportation.
The People's Procuracy also asked the Jury Panel to reject the appeals of defendants Tran Van Liem Tran Quang Vu; To Nghiem; Nguyen Van Tuyen; Trinh Thi Hau; Hoang Gia Hiep Do Dinh Con because they saw no basis to reduce either the levels of their crimes or the amounts of compensation.
Therefore, the Procuracy argued that the indictment that the first trial court sentenced for the eight accused was not heavy. Furthermore, during the appeals hearing, most of the defendants admitted their offenses but could not give proof or details to be considered or new evidence to reduce crime.
Thus the court suggested that the earlier judgment be retained and not accept the appeal of the eight defendants and recommend the Panel to pass jail sentences, as well as civil responsibilities as declared in the judgment of first instance.
The hearing is expected to end today, Thursday, August 30.
