On the morning of April 15, the Hanoi People’s Court continued to administer the first-instance criminal court argument to judge 19 defendants in the case ” Violation of the regulations on the management and use of State property causes loss and waste. Fee ‘and’ Lack of responsibility cause serious consequences’ happened at Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel Joint Stock Company (TISCO), causing damage of VND 830 billion.
Opening the argument, lawyer Dinh Anh Tuan, defending defendant Tran Trong Mung (former General Director of TISCO) said that in this case, the procedural agency should consider the responsibility of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. Vietnam Industrial Construction Corporation (VINAINCON) to defendants who are leaders of TISCO and leaders of Vietnam Steel Corporation (VNS) so that they choose VINAINCON as a subcontractor.
The defendants at the trial.
According to the defense lawyer, one of the reasons why the leaders of TISCO and leaders of VNS accepted VINAINCON because there is a document signed by the Ministry of Industry and Trade signed by a leader of the ministry. Documents of the Ministry of Industry and Trade show that VINAINCON is an enterprise of the ministry with good capacity. According to lawyer Tuan, in this incident, the main responsibility belongs to the Ministry of Industry and Trade. TISCO and VNS only have to bear joint responsibility.
During the impeachment process, the representative of the Procuracy determined that the defendant Tran Trong Mung was responsible for the case when he did not terminate the contract with China Metallurgical Science, Technology and Trade Corporation (MCC), although the This industry has violated. Specifically, in 2007, TISCO and MCC signed a package EPC contract, costing 160 million USD to build a metallurgical line. MCC then violated the contract, did not build and demanded a price increase.
The Procuracy said that, at that time, defendant Mung must terminate the contract with MCC, withdraw the advance, report to the authorized person to cancel the bid and re-bid in accordance with the law. . However, the defendant Mung instructed to negotiate at the request of MCC, and at the same time signed a written request to increase the price of part C (construction and installation) in the EPC Contract.
In addition, the defendant Mung also introduced and accepted VINAINCON as a subcontractor. Because VINAINCON is not capable enough, in 2011 the project had to stop construction, so far the project has not been completed.
The defense lawyers at the trial.
Debating about TISCO not stopping the contract with MCC, lawyer Tuan cited many legal documents, the defendant Mung signed many documents urging MCC to implement the project. Defendant Mung also signed a document to the Ministry of Industry and Trade and VNS with the content “Request the Ministry of Industry and Trade to report to the Government for permission to terminate the EPC contract with the MCC contractor. Require MCC to return the deposit and reimburse damages ”. But this is not accepted by the authorities.
Under the EPC Contract, if there is a dispute, TISCO and MCC will settle in an arbitration court in Singapore. Therefore, TISCO signed a contract with Kenvil Chia law firm of this island nation to advise and received a reply with the content “The termination of the contract cannot be taken lightly and should only consider the termination if there are no more options. choose another one ”.
Since then, the defendant Mung chose to continue the contract, change the price of construction and installation and change the price of the EPC contract according to the provisions of Circular 09/2008 of the Ministry of Construction.
Also according to lawyer Tuan, the change in the form of part C contract from package to unit price contract was not given by defendant Mung. Even the defendant Mung once opposed this because the change in unit price is that the next quarter’s price is higher than the previous quarter, causing the project to raise the price, the contractor is not actively working.
Lawyer Tuan said that his client, the defendant Mung has only part of the responsibility in introducing VINAINCON as a subcontractor, so he asked the Panel to transfer the charge to the defendant Mung from the crime of “Violation of regulations on management. and the use of State property causes loss and waste “to the crime of” Lack of responsibility, causing serious consequences “.
Lawyer Tran Van Tao, defending defendant Tran Van Kham (former Chairman of the Board of Directors cum General Director of TISCO) who is the successor to the defendant Tran Trong Mung said that the impeachment view of the representative of the Procuracy towards the body. His boss is too heavy. Lawyer Tao acknowledged that all the acts of defendant Kham were just for the purpose of expecting the project to be completed soon.
According to Tao, defendant Khâm received the project when the project had been implemented for 24 months with MCC general contractor not under construction. The project was also asked for permission by the defendant and the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Government allowed to separate part C assigned to VINAINCON for construction and increase the investment for part C. Therefore, the Procuracy said, the defendant Khâm’s actions to prolong the performance of the contract, increase the contract price, separate Part C from the contract, agree that VINAINCON is incapable of performing the contract is incorrect.
The representative of the Procuracy exercises prosecution rights at the trial.
During the impeachment process, the representative of the Procuracy determined that defendant Khâm has the role of organizing the offense. With his powers as Chairman of the Board of Directors cum General Director of TISCO, as the successor to the defendant Mung directing the project implementation, defendant Kham knows that the EPC contract is a package contract, without grounds for price adjustment, but still directs to advise, propose and sign the decision to adjust the total project investment structure, including the provision for part C of the Contract to increase by 15.57 million USD.
Defendant Kham also signed the fourth adjustment annex with MCC agreed to separate Part C from the contract, at the same time signed a three-party subcontract, agreed to assign incompetent VINAINCON and other real subcontractors. Part C is in the form of an adjustable unit price contract, TISCO organizes the implementation and assumes all risks without a legal basis, not in accordance with the provisions of the contract.
You must log in to post a comment.