This morning (September 30), the People's Court of Di An City, Binh Duong Province brought the criminal case of "Failure to comply with judgment" and "Tax evasion" to trial after being postponed twice.
The defendants are Tran Quoc Tan (born in 1963, Director of Tan Tan Joint Stock Company) and Tran Quoc Tuan (born in 1968, member of the company's Board of Directors, Mr. Tan's younger brother).
Mr. Tan was prosecuted by the People's Procuracy of Di An City for the crimes of "Failure to comply with judgment" and "Tax evasion", while Mr. Tuan was prosecuted for the crime of "Failure to comply with judgment".
At this trial, the panel of judges as well as the representative of the People's Procuracy and the lawyer asked many questions related to the case to Mr. Tan and Mr. Tuan, however, these two defendants could only answer a few questions, most of them saying "don't know" or "don't remember" because it was so long ago.
Responding to the jury, Mr. Tan stated that Tan Tan Joint Stock Company was established in 2007 with 3 shareholders, of which Mr. Tan holds 80% of the shares, Mr. Tuan and Ms. Chau Thi Phung (Mr. Tuan's wife) each hold 10%. All activities of this enterprise are managed and directed by Mr. Tan.
On July 5, 2011, Mr. Tan signed a contract to transfer 3.6 million personal shares to Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh (62 years old, residing in Ho Chi Minh City) with a value of 36.6 billion VND. Tan Tan Company also issued a certificate of ownership of 45.83% of shares to Ms. Thanh but then did not provide information on business activities, financial reports, and assessment of the business's performance, leading to Ms. Thanh filing a lawsuit with the People's Court of Binh Duong province.
The verdict issued by the People's Court of Binh Duong province forced the members of the Board of Directors of Tan Tan Company to "convene an extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders to re-elect the company's Board of Directors in accordance with the law"; required the company to allow Ms. Thanh to review and extract the books, minutes, resolutions of the Board of Directors, mid-year and annual financial reports, but the defendants did not comply.
Responding to the question of the representative of the People's Procuracy about this matter, Mr. Tan said that the transfer contract to Ms. Thanh mentioned above was just a fake contract to resolve the loan issue, not a transfer of shares. Therefore, when Ms. Thanh filed a lawsuit, he was "angry" and did not provide the company's documents, nor did he convene the shareholders' meeting, and at the same time complained about the decisions of the authorities.
Testifying before the People's Court, Mr. Tan said that around 2013 or 2014 (he couldn't remember exactly), the company suffered losses and stopped production.
In 2015, Mr. Tan admitted to renting the factory to Tan Tan Trading - Production - Cultivation Company Limited (owned by Mr. Tan's son) for 100 million VND per month without issuing an invoice, only recording it on the company's receipt.
Although he stated that the company had stopped operating during the above mentioned period, the People's Court presented financial reports from 2014 to 2022, which Mr. Tan said he asked a service to do, but he did not remember exactly who he asked.
In addition, the panel of judges also proved that Tan Tan Company incurred more than 1.3 billion VND in electricity bills after the suspension of operations, but Mr. Tan could not explain it.
He also did not admit to the crime of "tax evasion" as charged in the indictment, because at that time, all his employees had quit so he had to rely on outside services, had many things to take care of so he paid less tax.
Meanwhile, Mr. Tuan agreed with the charge of “Failure to comply with the judgment” being prosecuted. He said he acted under the direction of his brother, and that he had already given his testimony to the investigation agency, so he would not discuss it further in court.
A notable detail at this trial was the appearance of a payment book of Tan Tan Joint Stock Company from 2014 to 2022 (at this time the company had ceased operations), in which many of the signatories were currently employees of Mr. Tan's son's company (Tan Tan Trading - Production - Cultivation Company Limited).
After deliberation, the panel of judges decided to return the case file, requesting additional investigation, clarifying the contents related to financial invoices, and investigating to clarify signs of accomplices in tax evasion at this company.
In addition, clarify the difference in the amount of money rented for warehouses and factories of Tan Tan Joint Stock Company. Clarify whether there are signs of abuse, appropriation of assets, and embezzlement of company assets.
In addition, the panel of judges also requested clarification on whether or not there was an act of forging the seal of an organization's document in the documents of Tan Tan Joint Stock Company; requested a judicial appraisal of accounting and auditing in the period from 2019-2022 at this company.
Trial of Tan Tan peanut owner postponed because defendant was just hospitalized
Trial of Tan Tan peanut owners' brothers set
Caught in a dispute, what is the status of the nearly 4.5-hectare Tan Tan peanut factory now?
Source: https://vietnamnet.vn/tra-ho-so-dieu-tra-bo-sung-vu-truy-to-anh-em-chu-dau-phong-tan-tan-2327383.html
Comment (0)