WATCH THE CLIP:
On the afternoon of July 17, at the trial of the "rescue flight" case, defendant Tran Van Du (former Deputy Director of the Immigration Department) presented his own defense.
Accused of being responsible for receiving 7.6 billion VND in bribes, the representative of the Procuratorate proposed that defendant Tran Van Du be sentenced to 9-10 years in prison for the crime of accepting bribes.
Given the opportunity to defend himself, defendant Tran Van Du did not deny the charges but argued that receiving bribes was "unintentional" for him personally.
Defendant Tran Van Du stated: "I was authorized by the leaders of the Ministry of Public Security to sign documents containing opinions from the working group of 5 ministries. I could sign at any time, on par with Mr. To Anh Dung, but the documents prove that no business approached me to offer me favorable conditions or share profits."
According to the defendant, only two businesses offered him 50 million VND each to help him gather more information about organizing flights, including those carrying Vietnamese citizens residing abroad with residence permits using visa exemption certificates.
Defendant Tran Van Du also stated that his subordinate, defendant Vu Anh Tuan (a former officer of the Immigration Department), reported that the money received from businesses was always said to be gifts, "bonuses" sent by businesses after organizing the flight. "No one told me it was bribery," defendant Tran Van Du stated.
In his self-defense, Mr. Tran Van Du argued that he had requested the return of the money to the business, so as not to tarnish the reputation of the Immigration Department in general and the defendant in particular.
“Because I was about to retire at that time, I didn't want to be known as someone who was just grabbing whatever was available, but Vu Anh Tuan reported to me that some businesses had turned off their phones and couldn't be contacted, while others said the money sent to the Immigration Department wasn't much, so there was nothing to worry about. I was convinced that the total amount received from businesses was only around 7 billion VND, but when I read the indictment, I was shocked to find out that everything the subordinates reported was untrue. Furthermore, I lacked information, so the act of receiving the money was indeed bribery, but it was unintentional; I didn't know but still accepted it,” defendant Tran Van Du explained.
According to Mr. Dự's statement, the defendant accepts responsibility and does not evade it.
Mr. Dự further stated: "The defendant acknowledges that even though this money was received as a bribe unintentionally, it was just bad luck. If it was unfortunate, then returning it to the State is acceptable; it's no big deal."
"And when the defendant was taken into custody, the first thing he did was call his wife and tell her to prepare 3 billion VND to pay the State, saying, 'I'm going on a vacation for a while and then I'll be back,'" defendant Dự stated.
Recalling his more than 43 years of service in the police force, including 38 years working at the Immigration Department, defendant Tran Van Du expressed remorse for getting "tainted" during his last two years.
Defending his client, the lawyer for defendant Tran Van Du argued that granting permission for flights during the pandemic was unprecedented, therefore urgent, overlapping, and unclear in terms of authority.
The main objective reason for this incident was that the authorities did not set a price ceiling for charging customers for flights.
The practice of collecting fees was agreed upon between businesses and customers amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, when people were facing life-or-death situations. Many businesses charged high prices to collect money from Vietnamese citizens in other countries who wanted to return home.
By organizing each such flight, businesses reap huge profits. These businesses then use that money to bribe officials at various levels to ensure they can continue operating these flights.
The lawyer for defendant Tran Van Du presented mitigating circumstances for his client, such as committing the crime for the first time, having prevented or contributed to reducing the harm caused by the crime, etc., and requested the court to consider imposing a lower sentence than that proposed by the prosecutor.
Source
Comment (0)