Viet A participates in the fight against the epidemic, in essence to make illegal profits

The Hanoi People's Procuracy's response took place during the trial of the Viet A case on the afternoon of January 9, after the lawyers presented their defense arguments for their clients.

According to the representative of the prosecution agency, all those present at this trial clearly understood the general context of the case.

Previously, some lawyers questioned why Viet A's epidemic prevention achievements were not mentioned. In response, the prosecutor affirmed: "The essence is to fight the epidemic to make a profit."

According to the prosecution, Viet A participated in the fight against the epidemic but illegally profited, then used this money to bribe and pay commissions to other defendants. Therefore, the People's Procuracy emphasized that Viet A cannot be recognized for his contributions to the fight against the epidemic.

Việt Á tham gia chống dịch, bản chất là để thu lời bất chính - 1 — The representative of the People's Procuracy announced the indictment (Photo: Hung Hai).

Many lawyers previously said that the punishment proposed by the People's Procuracy was too harsh, but when responding, the prosecution agency affirmed that it had considered many factors, applied all mitigating circumstances to the maximum extent possible, and proposed a sentence much lower than the prosecution framework.

"The case caused particularly large damage to the state budget, this money is the people's tax money," said the representative of the People's Procuracy.

Some lawyers believe that the actual price of the test kit needs to be consulted, but according to the representative of the People's Procuracy, during the investigation, the prosecution agencies used "6 sources" to come to a conclusion about the price of a Viet A test kit.

"The prosecution agencies have conducted an experimental investigation, directly conducted the production of a test kit at the headquarters of Viet A Company; requested an appraisal of the quality of the test kit; identified the raw materials and materials used to produce the test; and collected data from the software that stores Viet A employee records for 2 years," the representative of the prosecution agency stated.

According to this person, these are the bases for determining the price of a Viet A test kit to be more than 143,000 VND, including fees and taxes.

Responding to the opinion of the defense attorney for defendant Trinh Thanh Hung (former Director of the Ministry of Science and Technology) that Mr. Hung had no motive for personal gain, the People's Procuracy said that the content of the text messages between Mr. Hung and the owner of Viet A Phan Quoc Viet proved the opposite.

Citing some records, the prosecutor said that in the text messages between Mr. Trinh Thanh Hung and Phan Quoc Viet, Viet called the test kit: "Mr. Hung's kit", intending to emphasize Mr. Hung's great contribution in bringing Viet A to participate in research and production of the test.

Another text message between the two defendants quoted by the prosecutor's office had the sentence "making an early ID card does not blur fingerprints". The representative of the prosecution agency said that they had taken the defendants' statements and determined that "blurred fingerprints" here refers to "counting a lot of money".

Continuing with defendant Pham Cong Tac (former Deputy Minister of Science and Technology), the People's Procuracy quoted the opinion of this defendant's lawyer that "Viet could not have brought 200,000 USD by plane from Da Nang to Hanoi".

The representative of the prosecution agency affirmed that this is completely possible, and that the defendant Phan Quoc Viet himself had carried 1 million USD with him. The accusation that Mr. Tac received 50,000 USD from Phan Quoc Viet, the Procuracy affirmed, is objective and accurate.

Source