[ad_1]
Ms. Le Thi Thanh Thuy after the trial on September 20 – Photo: DUYEN PHAN
Investment under city guidelines
Hoa May Company said that the policy of establishing a project on land 8-12 Le Duan was formed in 2007. But until 2010, it has not been implemented because the original project participants are not qualified. strength to do the project.
The home business management company has proposed to the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Committee to establish a new legal entity and mobilize additional sources of capital to implement the project.
Furthermore, through the commercial promotion programs organized by the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Committee, the Hoa May Company knew that the 8-12 Le Duan project had an investment policy. At the same time, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thu Thuy, former director of City Housing Business Management Company, also proposed to Hoa May Company to contribute capital to implement the project.
Under the direction of Ms Thuy, Hoa May Company has sent a request letter to the City Housing Business Management Company to request to contribute 30% of the investment. Later approved by the Popular Committee of the City.
According to the representative of Hoa May Company, this company that contributes capital to the project is due to a change in the investment policy and the policy of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Committee, by the will of both parties they are investors and the People’s Committee of the City represented by the home business management company, not because Ms. Thuy influenced Mr. Nguyen Thanh Tai to benefit from the project.
Why just confiscate Hoa May’s capital contribution?
According to the representative of Hoa May Company, this company participating in the project is in accordance with the law. By Hoa May Company is one of the founding shareholders of Lavenue Company.
Lavenue Company implemented the necessary procedures, paid 647 billion to the budget to implement the project, of which the Hoa May Company contributed 235 billion VND. Hoa May Company contributed capital is the common and indispensable property of Lavenue Company.
Hoa May May Company has the same rights and obligations, corresponding to other shareholders, the Housing Company Management Company, 4 companies under the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, and then Kinh Do Company. Hoa May Company is not a unit that directly enjoys or receives benefits over other shareholder companies.
However, the first instance verdict states that the remaining shareholders who are City Housing Business Management Company, Kinh Do Company will have the capital contributed to the project returned, while Hoa May May Company will be confiscated. this capital.
In addition, the City Housing Business Management Company with legal representative is Ms. Nguyen Thi Thu Thuy (the defendant is wanted in the case). Ms. Thuy also takes advantage of the Housing of the Business Management Company to contribute capital to the project, by nature, the behavior is also to use the capital contributed, which leads the company to participate in the investment but it is not managed, it is confiscated the property. .
Hoa May Company believes this is unfair to investors.
Additionally, Hoa May Company said that there are no documents or evidence to show that Hoa May Company was established for criminal purposes, so the amount contributed to Lavenue Company is not evidence.
Previously, the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court tried and sentenced Ms. Le Thi Thanh Thuy (Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Hoa May Company) to 5 years in prison for violating the regulations on the administration and use of state property , causing losses. , waste.
For Hoa May Company, the Panel said that Ms. Thuy established Hoa May Company as a method to commit the crime and used her contributed capital to commit the crime, thus it was necessary to confiscate State Budget. Since then, the Panel has confiscated 189 billion VND that the Hoa May Company contributed capital to Lavenue Company.
Disagreeing with the previous decision, the representative of Hoa May Company appealed the entire sentence.
