The Supreme People's Procuracy called on former AIC Chairwoman Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan and three other individuals to surrender to enjoy the State's leniency policy and exercise their right to defense.
The Supreme People's Procuracy has just issued an indictment in the case of "Violating bidding regulations, giving and receiving bribes and taking advantage of positions while performing official duties," which occurred at the Ho Chi Minh City Department of Planning and Investment, the International Progress Joint Stock Company (AIC Company) and the Ho Chi Minh City Biotechnology Center.
Accordingly, the Supreme People's Procuracy prosecuted Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan (former Chairwoman of AIC Company) and 13 others in the case.
Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan, Tran Manh Ha (Deputy General Director of AIC), Tran Dang Tan (Chief Representative of AIC Company in Ho Chi Minh City) were prosecuted for "Giving bribes," "Violating bidding regulations causing serious consequences" and "Abusing positions and powers while performing official duties."
Duong Hoa Xo (former Director of the Ho Chi Minh City Biotechnology Center) was prosecuted for "Accepting bribes." Tran Thi Binh Minh (former Deputy Director of the Ho Chi Minh City Department of Planning and Investment) and Phan Tat Thang (former Deputy Head of the Department) were prosecuted for "Abusing position and power while performing official duties."
Eight other defendants, who are officials of the Ho Chi Minh City Biotechnology Center, AISC Auditing Company, Ho Chi Minh City Institute of Construction and Business Administration, SEAAC Valuation Company, and Ho Chi Minh City Department of Planning and Investment, were also prosecuted.
According to the indictment, in 2014, the Ho Chi Minh City Biotechnology Center was approved for a plan to select a contractor to supply project equipment with phase 1 worth 149 billion VND, phase 2 worth about 200 billion VND and phase 3 worth more than 75 billion VND.
Knowing that the Ho Chi Minh City Biotechnology Center was implementing a project of 12 laboratories, former AIC President Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan approached, got acquainted with and suggested Duong Hoa Xo, Director of the Ho Chi Minh City Biotechnology Center, to let AIC Company participate, create conditions for this enterprise to win the bid and set a price so that AIC could benefit 40% of the bid package value.
Defendant Nhan's proposal was approved by defendant Xo. During the implementation process, the defendants colluded with Hong Ha Consulting Company and other companies designated by AIC to prepare bidding documents in a way that was favorable to AIC Company. As a result, AIC Company and Mopha Company (belonging to the AIC ecosystem) won 6 bid packages, while companies designated by AIC including Gene Viet Company, Viet A Company, and Vimedimex Company won 3 bid packages. As a result of the bidding, AIC Company and companies designated by AIC to stand in for AIC Company won 6 bid packages, with a total value of 305.4 billion VND; causing a loss of 83.1 billion VND.
According to the indictment, after being facilitated to win the bid, defendant Tran Thi Binh Minh received gifts worth 900 million VND from AIC Company. Meanwhile, Duong Hoa Xo received gifts worth more than 14 billion VND.
In order for AIC Company to win the bid, there was also the assistance in different roles of defendants of AIC Company and related companies; in addition, there was the act of facilitating by defendants of the Investor, and the violation of regulations on state management by defendants of state management agencies during the implementation of the Bidding Plan.
According to the indictment, the defendants Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan, Tran Manh Ha, Tran Dang Tan, and Do Van Truong fled, causing difficulties in solving the case.
The Investigation Police Agency of the Ministry of Public Security has decided to issue a wanted notice but without results; issued a letter calling for surrender to enjoy the leniency policy of the Party and State; at the same time, fully applied measures to ensure the exercise of the right to defense as prescribed; in case of failure to surrender, it is considered as giving up the right to defense and being prosecuted and tried./.
Comment (0)