[ad_1]
Among the 14 suspects proposed for prosecution for violating regulations on the management and use of state assets that cause loss and waste were Mr. Mai Van Tinh, former chairman of the board of directors of Vietnam Steel Corporation (VNS); Dau Van Hung, former CEO of VNS; Tran Trong Mung, former CEO of TISCO; Tran Van Kham, former Chairman of the Board of Directors, CEO of TISCO; Ngo Sy Han, Former Deputy Director General, Head of the Project Management Unit of the Production Expansion Phase 2 – TISCO …
It was proposed to prosecute the remaining 5 defendants for irresponsibility, leading to serious consequences.
The case that occurred in TISCO is one of the great economic crimes of corruption, classified by the Central Steering Committee as an anti-corruption class to be monitored and directed.
By August 2008, after more than 11 months of start of construction, MCC voluntarily suspended the contract, withdrew all the people returning home without completing the detailed design of the elements, not selected and signed the contract with the subcontractor . However, there are many documents sent to TISCO to extend the contract performance period. Not only that, MCC also has a written request to adjust the price of the EPC contract with the total additional cost of over $ 138 million without basis.
With their assigned duties and tasks, the defendant Tran Trong Mung (Managing Director of TISCO), Mai Van Tinh (Chairman of the Board of Directors of VNS), Dau Van Hung (Managing Director of VNS) and the related defendants have not only Directing, applying in accordance with the terms of the contract, reporting to the person authorized to consider and decide to terminate the contract with MMC but determined by all measures to continue the execution of the contract.
Consequently, the defendant Tran Trong Mung signed a document for the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and the VNS proposing “an exceptional arrangement” of the range of equipment prices and other costs of the project. The defendant Nguyen Trong Khoi (Deputy Director General of VNS) signed a document to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, which contains the content: “To share the difficulties with MCC, the investor will propose to the competent authorities. consider and settle adjustments for the construction part (part C) of the contract… ”.
Since 2012, based on the TISCO proposal, VNS sent a document to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and requested the Prime Minister to adjust the total investment of the project from VND 3.8 billion to VND 8.1 billion, an increase of VND 4.261 billion. compared to the original level. and is expected to be completed in 2014. In 2013, the project with a capital increase of 110.8% was approved by related parties, but the Chinese contractor continued to suspend construction until now.
According to the conclusion of the investigation, as of December 31, 2018, TISCO has invested in the project more than 4.4 billion VND, of which the loan from VDB Bac Kan – Thai Nguyen is 1.4 billion VND, taken from Vietinbank Hanoi is VND 1.6 billion. copper. So far, the project has passed 10 years of the approved deadline, but has not yet been completed. The Investigative Police Agency determined that the consequence of the damage in this case was VND 830 billion, which was the actual interest that TISCO had to pay to the banks due to the delay in the progress of the project under the contract.
According to the conclusion of the investigation, the defendants in this case are those who have positions, powers and are well aware, according to the law, that the EPC contract between MMC and TISCO cannot be adjusted during the execution of the contract. contract, but the defendants have directed and negotiated with the contractor and must bear the risks.
“The previous work changed the nature, broke the principles of EPC contract administration and created conditions for MCC to have a reason to deny responsibility for implementing EPC contract No. 01. This is the main reason that leads TISCO not to do so. . control the investment cost in the project, not compromise the responsibility of the subcontractor for the advance, make the project stop construction, causing loss of assets to the State, “said the conclusion of the investigation. .
[ad_2]
