The defendants consist of Vinashin former Chairman of the Members’ Council Nguyen Ngoc Su, former Chief Accountant and former head of the Financial Department Tran Duc Chinh, former General Director Truong Van Tuyen, and former Deputy General Director Pham Thanh Son.
At the appeal trial, the court accepted the request made by the Hanoi People’s Procuracy, which demanded the punishment on Nguyen Ngoc Su be increased. It decided to raise the prison sentence by 3 years to 16 years.
It also accepted the appeals lodged by Truong Van Tuyen and Tran Duc Chinh, reducing the respective prison terms for them to 6 years and 15 years, down 1 year and 2 years from the initial verdict.
Meanwhile, it rejected the appeal by Pham Thanh Son and upheld the six-year imprisonment for him.
All the four were declared guilty of abusing position and power while performing duties.
Judges said the conclusion issued at the first-instance trial in June was completely precise. Accordingly, the four defendants together agreed to transfer the money the Government provided for Vinashin’s restructuring from checking accounts to fix-termed deposit accounts at the Ocean Commercial Joint Stock Bank (OceanBank) to profit from higher interest and extra money that was not recorded in Vinashin’s papers to serve illegal spending and personal purposes.
At the time of their violation, Su, then Chairman of the Members’ Council of Vinashin, initiated the depositing and directly signed 12 deposit contracts. He also directed Truong Van Tuyen to authorise Tran Duc Chinh to sign other contracts, deposit money, receive the extra money that excluded interest from OceanBank, and not record it in the firm’s documents.
Su gained VND8 billion (overUS$ 344,500 at the current exchange rate) for himself and decided on the common spending among the four.
Investigators found that from 2010 to June 2014, Vinashin made more than 2,300 fixed-term deposit contracts involving nearly VND104 trillion and some $181 million with OceanBank.
Chinh appropriated VND10 billion , Tuyen pocketed VND3.5 billion , while Son bagged VND1.2 billion.
The appeal trial’s jury ruled that Su held the main role in the case and must bear the most responsibility for all the losses. Additionally, his inconsistent testimony during investigation also indicated that he showed no sign of repentance as he intended to ward off his responsibility and blame others for the wrongdoing although he was the business leader.
Therefore, Su must face a stricter punishment, according to the jury.
At the trial, the jury also declared the money the four defendants have to pay back.
