[ad_1]
VKS representatives argued and responded to the opinions of lawyers and defendants – Photo: QUANG Định
At the beginning of the response, the representative of VKS confirmed that he had heard all the opinions of the defense lawyers and defendants.
The state has property rights
One of the issues raised by the attorney is that when Cuu Long Corporation transfers the right to collect fees to Yen Khanh Company, is the amount of the collection owned by the Yen Khanh Company or owned by the State?
In debating and responding, the VKS said that according to Articles 197 and 198 of the Civil Code of 2005, public property, including transport infrastructure, is owned by the State, owned by the State. .
The collection of fees from this project is a source of revenue for the state budget. The State has ownership of the revenue even though it has transferred to Yen Khanh Company the right to collect fees for a period of 5 years from 1-1-2014 to 1-1-2019.
The contract for the sale of toll rights between Cuu Long Corporation and Yen Khanh Company does not include the transfer of state ownership. Yen Khanh Company is only obliged to organize the collection in accordance with the regulations.
On the acts of appropriation of the accused Dinh Ngoc System
VKS believes that the defendant Dinh Ngoc System has committed a number of deceptive acts from the beginning, including tricks using high technology to seize state property.
Mr. Dinh Ngoc System said he did not appropriate 725 billion VND – Photo: QUANG Định
VKS believes Defendant System’s defense claims that the contract between Cuu Long Corporation and Yen Khanh Company is a contract in accordance with regulations, has been paid, profit and loss are a misconception. without foundation.
Yen Khanh Company does not have sufficient financial capacity, is not eligible to participate in the tender, has falsified the dossier to participate in the tender.
“Defendant System committed fraud from the beginning, in order to seize the property. After winning the auction, the system together with its accomplices used high technology to reduce real income” – stated VKS.
Consequently, in the fare transfer contract, Yen Khanh Company cannot interfere in the toll collection management system and must report the operation to the Ministry of Transportation, but the system and its accomplices used soft parts to usurp the property.
Through the events of the trial, VKS confirmed that there were sufficient grounds to determine that the Yen Khanh Company belonged to the defendant Dinh Ngoc System. The defendant has ordered subordinates to commit criminal acts, for which they must assume the main responsibility in the group of fraudulent appropriation of assets.
What role does Mr. Dinh La Thang play in the case?
In this regard, VKS said that in the file, there are many documents that prove that Mr. Dinh La Thang was well aware of the implementation process of the project of buying and selling the rights to collect fees, there was a relationship between the intentional illicit act of his group. Dinh La Thang, Nguyen Hong Truong and indicted at the Ministry of Transport with the seizure of property by Dinh Ngoc System. Thanks to the actions of Mr. Thang and these defendants, Dinh Ngoc System was able to seize state property.
Dinh La Thang in court – Photo: QUANG DINH
VKS cited a series of brochures and testimonies from the defendants and related persons to prove the relationship between Mr. Thang and Mr. He.
Specifically, Mr. Thang had testimonies attended by lawyers, acknowledging this relationship, as Mr. Thang met Mr. 2012 – 2013. Mr. He came to the Ministry of Transportation to meet Mr. Thang. Mr. Thang knew that Mr. System was an officer in the Ministry of Defense, so he often called and spoke.
VKS also cited many other testimonies, including two testimonies from Mr. Thang’s secretary, Mr. Nguyen Tan Binh, Ms. Bui Thanh Nga, who often met Mr. System at Mr. Dinh La Thang’s office. submitted that Mr. System was a close acquaintance of Mr. Đ.Q (in the Ministry of Defense).
Mr. Nguyen Hong Truong (Deputy Minister of Transportation) also testified about this relationship. Mr. Duong Tuan Minh (Managing Director of Cuu Long Corporation) had 7 testimonies, 3 reports about Mr. Thang introducing Mr. System to Mr. Minh to work on the HCMC – Trung Luong highway project.
In court, Mr. Thang only signed 1 document to present to the Prime Minister, 1 document to establish the Auction Council, 1 pen to criticize Vice Minister Nguyen Van The’s report. However, there are documents on file that prove that Mr. Thang is well aware of the project implementation process.
Specifically, in the development phase of the project, many documents about the project were sent to the minister for his report. During the transfer of the right to charge fees, there are 11 documents that the recipient is Minister Dinh La Thang.
In the period when Yen Khanh Company breached the contract, Mr. Thang received documents signed by Mr. Duong Tuan Minh, Nguyen Hong Truong, Nguyen Van The, including a report to Mr. The for his opinion on Terminate the contract before of maturity with Yen Khanh Company.
Therefore, VKS confirmed to prosecute and conclude Mr. Dinh La Thang for the crime of violating the regulations on the handling and use of State property, causing wasteful losses and should be held responsible.
