[ad_1]
At the Thai Binh land auction trial trial on the morning of September 18, the director of the Thai Binh Property Auction Service Center had many contradictions with the indictment from the Civil Engineering Institute, as well as with the testimony of the accused. another fox.
At the trial, defendant Pham Van Hiep (born 1984, resident in Tran Lam neighborhood, Thai Binh city, is the director of the Thai Binh Justice Department Property Auction Services Center) said that some circumstances in the accusation of the Thai Binh Province People’s Protection Institute is not true to the nature of the incident.
Specifically, on the morning of December 20, 2019, after going to breakfast near the auction service center, the defendant returned to the agency and saw that the auction had not ended, so he did not go to the room sale of the record to listen to the phone.
At that time, the defendant saw Nguyen Thi Duong (Director of Duong Duong Real Estate Company) go to his office and present about the land lot number 09 that Ms. Nguyen Thi Hanh should have won the auction but was misspelled, so he asked permission to correct errors.
“At this time, the defendant had no response, he saw that Mr. Vu Gia Thanh – the auctioneer told him to agree with Ms. Trinh Thi Minh Thuy – Head of the department. After a while, Mr. Thanh reported that he had agreed. with Thuy on the correction of errors in the auction of Duong “- accused Pham Van Hiep.
After that, the defendant together with Thanh, Thuy went to the auction room, Thuy, Thanh asked Mr. Vu Thanh Dat (the auction winner) if he agreed to give the land to Ms. Hanh, Dat replied that he agreed.
Seeing that Mr. Thanh and Ms. Thuy agree to change the outcome, the accused, out of fear of affecting her family, agrees and does not protest.
Because, the defendant said that before December 20, 2019, because once the defendant Duong filmed a clip on a social network with the defendant’s image, the defendant’s family was threatened, the defendant’s son was kidnapped. … “At that time, between work and family, accused of having to choose a family, so they agreed to change the auction result in lot 9” – said the defendant Hiep.
Defendant Hiep claimed that he did not borrow Ms. Hanh’s coupon to review or accept defendant Duong’s favor. The defendant also did not say that Hanh was his aunt because he did not know Ms. Hanh.
Defendant Hiep also said the task force had discussed with Duong about the change for Hanh to win the auction. After the auction, the defendant Duong handed over the defendant’s envelope, but the defendant refused, Mr. Thanh did not accept, Ms. Thuy, Mr. Dung and Ms. Ngan received envelopes.
Defendant Hiep claimed that the testimony at the trial was true. The defendant has no conflict with the previous defendants. It is the law that the KSND Institute concludes that the accused is abusing his office and powers while on duty. Because the accused is the director, the cell secretary, the boss, but he knows that employee misconduct is not avoided.
However, defendant Hiep said that the incident on December 20, 2019 had an impact on the Thai Binh Property Auction Service Center, but not to a bad degree.
Before that, at trial, the defendant Vu Gia Thanh and Trinh Thi Minh Thuy confessed that the defendant Hiep asked to help Ms. Hanh because Hanh is a close family of the defendant Hiep.
Defendant Cheng, Defendant Hiep persuaded the defendant to change the auction result, saying that Hiep, his wife and children were threatened. Out of respect for the defendant Hiep, Thanh agreed. Defendant Ha Van Dung said that during the time defendant Duong and Hiep asked to change the auction result, the defendant was not allowed to discuss anything.
The defendant Nguyen Thi Duong stated that he had no relationship with the other 4 defendants. Regarding the land auction for Ms. Nguyen Thi Hanh, defendant Duong stated that due to a long-term relationship with Ms. Lan, her sister Nguyen Thi Hanh (because they went to the pagoda together to do charity), she agreed to help.
The defendant received no material benefits from Ms. Hanh. The defendant admitted to splashing water on Mr. Vu Thanh Dat’s face, some of the defendant’s youths kicked him in Dat before Mr. Dat agreed to cede the land to Ms. Hanh.
Defendant Nguyen Thi Duong claimed that he did not threaten defendant Hiep, only because of defendant Hiep and did not promise material or other benefits to defendant Hiep.
[ad_2]
