Mr. Nguyen Cao Tri was the Chairman of the District 1 Business Association and Vice Chairman of the Ho Chi Minh City Real Estate Association. The defendant was born and raised in Lam Dong, so he had information and was interested in the Dai Ninh project, invested in by SGDN Company of Ms. Phan Thi Hoa, Chairman of the Board of Directors and General Director, from around 2017 to 2018.

At that time, the Government Inspectorate (GIA) concluded that the project was subject to a proposal for revocation. Ms. Hoa showed Mr. Tri Inspection Conclusion No. 929 dated June 12, 2020 signed by Mr. Tran Van Minh, Deputy General Inspectorate General, regarding projects in Lam Dong, including a recommendation to revoke the Dai Ninh Project.

Mr. Tri and Mr. Tran Van Minh had a close relationship, studying and defending their doctorates in economics together. After knowing that Mr. Minh was the one who signed Inspection Conclusion No. 929, Mr. Tri met and called Mr. Minh many times to discuss the desire to buy back the Dai Ninh project and asked Mr. Minh to find a way to change the inspection conclusion, allowing SGDN Company to continue implementing the project.

With the advice and support of Mr. Minh, Mr. Tri finally achieved his goal of changing Inspection Conclusion No. 929 from terminating operations and reclaiming land of the project to not reclaiming, extending progress and continuing to implement the project in violation of the law. After that, Mr. Tri transferred the Dai Ninh project to Novaland Group, earning a profit of 2,700 billion VND.

462637991_1196721041425320_6565350018613561150_n.jpg
Dai Ninh Urban Area Project is involved in two cases. Photo: Hoang Giam

Statement of the person concerned

At the investigation agency, Mr. Bui Thanh Nhon, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Novaland Group; Bui Cao Nhat Quan, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and Le Thanh Phuong, Director of the Investment Department of Novaland Group gave statements about the Dai Ninh project transaction.

Accordingly, from 2019 to 2020, Mr. Bui Cao Nhat Quan and Le Thanh Phuong had several meetings and negotiations with Ms. Hoa about receiving the transfer of the Dai Ninh project. By July 2020, when the project was proposed to be revoked by the Central Government, Mr. Quan knew that Ms. Hoa was filing a petition to restore the project, so he waited to negotiate the purchase after the project was restored.

In December 2020, Ms. Hoa made an appointment to meet Mr. Cao Nhat Quan and Mr. Tri. At the meeting, Ms. Hoa informed Mr. Quan that she had transferred the Dai Ninh project to Mr. Tri, so that Mr. Tri could apply to restore and extend the project. If Novaland wanted to buy it back, they would work with Mr. Tri.

Because at that time the project was still being proposed for revocation, Mr. Quan discussed with Mr. Tri that they would wait for the project to be extended and restored before negotiating the transfer.

By March 2022, Mr. Quan learned that the Dai Ninh project had been restored, Novaland Group and Mr. Tri agreed to sign an information confidentiality agreement on May 30, 2022 (information confidentiality fee of VND 300 billion) and a principle agreement on share transfer on August 12, 2022 on agreeing to accept the transfer of 100% of SGDN Company's shares with a total transaction value of VND 27,600 billion, divided into many payment stages.

After that, Novaland transferred a total of VND 2,700 billion to Mr. Tri but did not pay according to the agreement's schedule, so Mr. Tri has not transferred ownership of shares or any rights in the Dai Ninh project.

According to the investigation conclusion, Novaland Group clearly knew that Ms. Hoa and Mr. Tri's signing of the project transfer contract was against regulations, because at this time the Dai Ninh project was being proposed to be revoked by the Government Inspectorate.

At the same time, Novaland Group knew that Mr. Tri would have to "run procedures" to adjust the inspection conclusion from land recovery and project termination to project extension and delay, but still signed the share transfer agreement without ensuring legal basis.

Originating from a series of illegal acts by Mr. Tri and the defendants in the case, including part of Novaland's fault and responsibility in the transaction and signing of the contract (violating the second payment deadline, knowing that the project had legal problems but still depositing and transferring money to Tri...), the amount of money for the project purchase and sale was determined to be illegal profits from illegal acts between Mr. Tri and related parties. Therefore, the Investigation Agency proposed to confiscate the above amount of money to the state budget.

The investigation agency determined that there were signs of violations by a number of related individuals, but because the investigation period had expired, the investigation agency separated information and documents related to the violations of these individuals to continue investigating and handling later.