On the afternoon of March 17, the trial of Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan (former Chairwoman of AIC Company) and 12 other defendants related to the case that occurred at the Vietnam Computer Emergency Response Center (VNCERT) continued with the questioning session.

Mr. Nguyen Van The (Head of Technical Department 7 of AIC Company) was accused of assisting Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan in committing crimes.

Specifically, Mr. The coordinated with VNCERT staff to build a list of equipment and software; collected information to help Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan inflate the bid package price, directed staff to check and complete the technical part of AIC Company's bid documents, conveyed the negotiation contents on the project estimate price from AIC Chairman to Mr. Nguyen Trong Duong (former Director of VNCERT), Ngo Quang Huy (former Deputy Director of VNCERT) to agree for VNCERT to request approval of the project and the Contractor Selection Plan, helping AIC Company win the bid for package No. 8 of the project.

Answering the interrogation in court, Mr. The stated that he was assigned by the Chairman of AIC to provide information about the cost and configuration of 20/82 devices in the bid package.

Screenshot at Mar 17 11 49 03.png
Defendants in court. Photo: MH

According to the defendant The's testimony, Ms. Nhan directed the defendant to contact the sales companies to ask for equipment prices according to VNCERT's list, add 40% to give an estimated price and agree with VNCERT to include it in the project's Feasibility Study Report.

Then, VNCERT used this list and estimate to submit to the Department of Financial Planning for appraisal and submitted to the superior for approval of the Feasibility Study Report and the contractor selection plan for the first phase of the project.

“Ms. Nhan said that those were the costs of implementation, installation, warranty, maintenance, and profit. The defendant only knew how to follow and report back to VNCERT,” Mr. The’s testimony.

According to Mr. The's testimony, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan gave the defendant a complete list of equipment, including 82 devices, but only provided the output price without the input price.

The defendant claimed that he only received a salary, did not receive any benefits, and only performed his duties under the direction of his superiors. At the time of the violation, the defendant simply thought he was doing the assigned work. Only when working with the Investigation Agency and researching the Law on Bidding did he realize that he had done wrong.

In this case, Mr. Nguyen Vu Cuong (Director of Khang Phat Company) was accused of directing defendant Mai Phuong Nam (Deputy Director of Khang Phat Company) to coordinate with VNCERT and AIC Company to develop a list and equipment prices to include in the Feasibility Study Report, total estimate, bidding documents and bid evaluation report so that AIC Company would win the bid at the correct price and software equipment agreed upon right from the project preparation stage.

In court, defendant Cuong admitted his mistakes that led to AIC Company winning the bid, but the cause stemmed from difficulties when some equipment in the bid package was highly specialized, the consulting unit could not survey the market price so it used the quotation provided by the Investor (VNCERT).

Ms. Mai Phuong Nam also stated that the price of specific equipment is not available on the market, leading to the company being unable to survey the price.

Before the defendants’ testimony, the panel of judges stated that according to the Law on Bidding, the defendants were hired as consultants and had to seek quotations to build estimates to ensure objectivity, transparency, and savings according to regulations. However, the defendants took the quotations provided by the investor, so how can they be called consultants?

Today, the trial of Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan in the 5th case

Today, the trial of Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan in the 5th case

Today (March 17), the Hanoi People's Court brought Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan (former Chairwoman of AIC Company) and 12 other defendants to trial for violating bidding regulations causing serious consequences.