On the morning of August 10, the People's Court of Hanoi held a trial for the case of "Deceiving customers" and "Lack of responsibility causing serious consequences" related to the CT6 apartment building in Kien Hung ward, Ha Dong district, (Hanoi).
Among the defendants is the "plow tycoon" Le Thanh Than, Chairman of Muong Thanh Group. Mr. Le Thanh Than is the Chairman of the Board of Directors and General Director of Bemes Company. This company implemented the CT6 Kien Hung project but committed many serious violations, leading to hundreds of customers who bought houses but were not granted red books (land use right certificates).
Mr. Le Thanh Than was prosecuted for the crime of “Deceiving customers”. In addition, 6 other defendants were prosecuted for the crime of “Lack of responsibility causing serious consequences”, including: Do Van Hung, former Chairman of Kien Hung Ward People’s Committee, Ha Dong District; Nguyen Duy Uyen and Bui Van Bang, former Vice Chairmen of Kien Hung Ward People’s Committee; Nguyen Van Nam, former Chief Inspector of Construction of Ha Dong District; Vuong Dang Quan, former Deputy Chief Inspector of Construction of Ha Dong District and Mai Quang Bai, former officer of the Construction Inspectorate of Ha Dong District.
According to the indictment, Mr. Le Thanh Than sold 488 apartments without land use rights recognition but still advertised falsely to customers and thereby illegally earned 481 billion VND. To date, only 934 out of 1,582 apartments at CT6 Kien Hung have been granted red books. 520 apartments have not been granted ownership certificates by the Hanoi Department of Natural Resources and Environment and 160 others have not completed the procedures for granting certificates.
With the high-rise block, defendant Than directed the increase of construction area, the height of the building, and the change of usage function. Bemes Company also increased the number of apartments and built an additional CT6C building which was not included in the approved planning. With the low-rise block, Bemes Company increased the land area for construction and the number of low-rise apartments, violating the red line...
Since March 2011, defendant Than has directed subordinates to advertise false information about the project's legality to sell illegally built apartments.
Defendant Than advertised that the project had been approved, the apartment design and construction complied with construction regulations, the apartment selling price included the value of land use rights... Many customers trusted him and signed house sale contracts with Bemes Company. In the project contracts, defendant Than, as General Director, directly signed with customers, committing to the terms with the purpose of making them trust and pay for the apartment according to the construction progress. Defendant Than decided on the business and price setting of the apartments in the project.
Accordingly, defendant Than sold 488 apartments without land use rights recognition and illegally profited 481 billion VND. The prosecution agency determined that the violations occurred due to the irresponsibility of a group of former Kien Hung ward officials and the Ha Dong district construction inspectors. During the construction of the CT6 Kien Hung project, the group of defendants in this case did not inspect or check to prevent the violations.
At the trial, after hearing the testimony of the defendant Than and some victims, the presiding judge announced a recess for deliberation. After deliberation, the Trial Panel stated that, considering that there were some contents that could not be clarified at the trial, the Trial Panel decided to return the case file for further investigation.
Immediately after that, the Court informed the victims, related persons... who have not yet given statements or reported to contact the Hanoi City Police Investigation Agency to submit petitions and documents and evidence to be included in the proceedings. During the additional investigation, the victims who have been included in the proceedings should contact the Investigation Agency, defendant Than and Bemes Company to resolve the matter.
Source link
Comment (0)