[ad_1]
Representatives of the Ministry of Transport in the trial – Photo: QUANG DINH
The MOF does not have the authority to determine whether the toll sales price is high or low.
On December 17, continuing the trial of Mr. Dinh La Thang and 19 other defendants in the case at the Ho Chi Minh City – Trung Luong highway project, the lawyers continued to participate in the questioning of the defendants. harmed and those involved.
To clarify the damage in the case, lawyer Truong Trong Nghia (Defendant Dinh La Thang’s defender) asked the Ministry of Finance about the assessment of the right to collect a reasonable VND 2,004 billion fees. The representative of the Ministry of Finance stated that the ministry had a written regulation on the objectives and those documents were sent to the Ministry of Transportation. And the Ministry of Finance has no authority to judge whether the assessed amount is high or low.
The lawyer questioned whether in this case, the Ministry of Finance has any document to determine whether the amount of the sale of the right to collect fees of 2.004 billion is high or low, the representative of the Ministry of Finance also confirmed after the case occurred. . There was no discussion by the investigating authority and the Ministry of Finance did not have any document to confirm whether such valuation was high or low.
To clarify more about the liability and the amount to be compensated, the lawyer Truong Trong Nghia asked the representative of the Ministry of Transport (victim of the case) about the amount that the company Yen Khanh paid to buy the right to collect the fare in 2004. thousand million Dong Ministry of Transportation has yet received. The representative of the Ministry of Transport said that so far it has received enough, but the company Yen Khanh pays late, so it has default interest on this amount.
After many questions about whether in this case the Ministry of Transport has any damage, how much damage, in this court how much compensation will be required, who compensates …, said the representative of the Ministry of Transport so far. This department also does not know how to calculate the damage, so it awaits the court’s decision.
Yen Khanh company’s late payment interests are being resolved in another civil case.
Lawyer Truong Trong Nghia participated in the questioning at the trial – Photo: QUANG DINH
“I’m only responsible for the administration!”
Lawyer Truong Trong Nghia also asked about the responsibility of Mr. Dinh La Thang when he signed a document to present to the Prime Minister to receive back the right to collect the tolls of the HCMC – Trung Luong highway; in Vice Minister Nguyen Van The’s document on Yen Khanh’s slow payment …
Thang all claimed that Minh is not mistaken and strictly abides by legal authority and regulations when signing these documents. Mr. Thang went on to claim that he did not direct, pressure, or influence anyone to force the sale of rights to collect fees for Dinh Ngoc System’s Yen Khanh (ie “bald”) company.
Attorney Nghia asked defendant Thang how when the prosecution said it created a premise for the system to seize property, Mr. Thang said that he respected the VKS accusation because he was a representative of state agencies, but “not recognition of the accusation because completely non-objective rules.
“The claim that I create conditions for the Dinh Ngoc system is that I have no basis, I do not influence anything,” said defendant Dinh La Thang.
Regarding the chief’s responsibility when the agency happened, Mr. Thang said that he was only responsible for the administration, not criminal responsibility.
“This sale of toll collection rights has been assigned to 4 vice ministers in charge, I have no direction. The prosecution says that I assign tasks to Mr. Truong and Cuu Long Company is unfounded,” said Mr. Thang.
