Trinh Xuan Thanh confessed that he was forced to sign a contract on Ethanol Phu Tho | Law

Don’t say responsibility

On March 8, the Hanoi City People’s Court adjudicated the case of the loss of 543 billion dong in the Phu Tho (Ethanol) biofuel project. According to the indictment, in 2007, three units of Vietnam Oil and Gas Group (PVN) established Petrochemical and Petroleum Biofuel Joint Stock Company (PVB) to be the investor in the Phu Tho ethanol factory project. And for the tender for the construction of factories in the form of “turnkey”. Seeing that, PVC established a consortium to tender to build this project, but it was rejected because it could not pay for it. After the request to reduce the contractor’s bid was not approved many times, Trinh Xuan Thanh, President of PVC, requested that PVC be contracted in the designated manner.

Mr. Dinh La Thang, former president of PVN, also influenced the PVC association to be illegally appointed as a contractor.

Then the PVC consortium was built, but in 2013, it had to be stopped due to insufficient capacity, causing more than 543 billion VND in damage. In court, Mr. Thang denied his responsibility and said that PVB is not a unit of the PVN system, so he could not lead; PVB also has no obligation to implement PVN resolutions.

Mr. Thang said that he is the Head of the Steering Committee for the implementation of the Phu Tho Ethanol project and this Steering Committee is only responsible for accelerating the progress, setting a schedule for the investor, PVB, to strive to complete it. Regarding the construction price of 59 million dollars, Mr. Dinh La Thang said that this is the price offered by PVB, he and the Steering Committee cannot decide this because the principle is not to do the investor’s job. The defendant added, not forcing PVC to participate in the bidding and execution of the project, so each request of the PVC Board of Directors to meet, agrees to participate in the project at the investor’s price. “I don’t press PVC, the principle is to make a profit,” said Dinh La Thang.

When Mr. Thang was quarantined, the defendant Trinh Xuan Thanh stated that he did not want to sign a contract to build the Phu Tho ethanol project. The defendant presented, the members of the PVC Board of Directors once said that 59 million dollars could not do the project, it was more than 85 million dollars. “I informed the PVN group, but the group asked me to review … Without PVN’s leadership, we would not do that project,” said Mr. Thanh. According to Trinh Xuan Thanh, at the time of being appointed contractor, PVC did not meet some of the criteria given by the PVB investor, but said: “With all those criteria, there is no unit in Vietnam that meets the proper requirements.” .

Regarding the PVC joint venture that later stopped construction in 2013, Trinh Xuan Thanh denied that it was his responsibility or that of the other PVC-owned defendants. Mr. Thanh said: “The people here are only hired labor, the units that bring capital to PVB are the banks, PVOil … They see that the project will not be effective, so for the reason we ask for an increase. , they stop.

Defendant Trinh Xuan Thanh in report report

Don’t you dare disagree higher

In informing the court, the defendant Vu Thanh Ha, former CEO of PVB, said that the Phu Tho Ethanol project has a total investment of 1.317 billion VND, of which 30% of the registered capital and 70% have to borrow. During this period, PVB received a written request from the CEO of PVC (as a member of PVN) to reduce the bidding criteria and be appointed as a contractor. After that, PVB also received many documents from PVN instructing to assign the contract to the PVC consortium. “Mr. Dinh La Thang directed the delivery to PVC and the consortium. The defendant approached PVN’s resolution, prioritizing the transfer of PVC and at that time, the defendant thought that appointing the PVC contractor was the responsibility ”- stated Vu Thanh Ha.

Defendant Le Thanh Thai, former director of PVB’s Sales Department, said that at the time, PVB appointed a contractor for the PVC joint venture because it believed that PVC would build ancillary works, water supply and drainage; Important items will be handled by the foreign contractor in the partnership. The Thai defendant confirmed that until 2013 he knew that the PVC-led contractor consortium was unqualified.

Explaining the failure in the evaluation of the PVC offer, defendant Thai said: “We cannot oppose the policy of PVN Group, if during the evaluation process I submit an additional request, it means resigning.”

Minh Duc – Xuan An