Procuracy: Not enough conditions to exempt criminal liability for 'boss' Xuyen Viet Oil

On the afternoon of November 26, the first instance trial of defendant Mai Thi Hong Hanh, Director of Xuyen Viet Oil Trading and Transport Company Limited (Xuyen Viet Oil Company) and 14 other defendants continued with the response from the representative of the People's Procuracy.

At the trial, the representative of the People's Procuracy acknowledged that the lawyers and the defendants provided additional documents, evidence and mitigating circumstances, and requested the panel of judges to consider when sentencing. However, the defendants in the group of defendants who committed the crime of Receiving bribes all stated that receiving money and gifts from defendant Mai Thi Hong Hanh was voluntary, without any request or coercion to serve the purpose of issuing documents or meeting Ms. Hanh's request.

In response, the representative of the People's Procuracy affirmed that the act of giving money by the defendant Hanh had a clear purpose. The defendants took advantage of their authority and position to receive money and material things from Ms. Hanh, thereby committing illegal acts and creating conditions to help this defendant.

" The defendants' actions constitute the crime of accepting bribes under Article 354 of the Penal Code," the representative of the People's Procuracy emphasized.

The defense attorney for the defendant Mai Thi Hong Hanh requested that criminal liability for the crime of Bribery be exempted. According to the attorney, after being prosecuted for violating regulations on management and use of state assets causing loss and waste, the defendant Hanh proactively reported the acts of accepting bribes from other defendants. Therefore, the attorney requested that the panel of judges consider exempting Ms. Hanh from criminal liability.

However, the People's Procuracy rejected this view. According to the People's Procuracy, the case was initiated based on a complaint from a number of employees of Xuyen Viet Oil Company. After verification, the Ministry of Public Security's Security Investigation Agency prosecuted the defendant Hanh. During the detention period, the defendant confessed to the actions of the other defendants.

“If she had not been arrested, Hanh would not have voluntarily confessed. During the search, the investigation agency collected many documents proving the defendant’s bribery,” the representative of the People’s Procuracy argued.

According to the case file, from 2016 to 2022, defendant Hanh repeatedly proactively approached and bribed individuals at the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Finance, the Ho Chi Minh City Tax Department, and the Nghi Son Oil Refinery branch, in order to serve the interests of the company and individuals. The total amount of bribes during this period was determined to be particularly large.

“ The defendant’s actions are the main cause of this case,” the representative of the People’s Procuracy said, affirming that there were not enough conditions to exempt defendant Hanh from criminal liability. However, the People’s Procuracy noted that the defendant’s proactive attitude in reporting was a mitigating circumstance.

Defendant Hanh’s lawyer argued that the defendant was not a trader according to the law, and that the violation related to the establishment and management of the price stabilization fund (BOG) should only be subject to administrative sanctions. In addition, the lawyer also considered the prosecution for causing a loss of VND219 billion to the BOG fund to be unconvincing because there was a clear financial report.

In response, the People's Procuracy argued that Xuyen Viet Oil Company was legally established and had been licensed to operate by the Ministry of Industry and Trade since 2016. As Chairman of the Board of Directors and Director, defendant Hanh was fully responsible for the company's operations.

" The determination that the defendant is a businessman and the prosecution of criminal liability against the defendant is well-founded," the People's Procuracy emphasized.

Regarding the handling of the behavior related to the BOG fund, the People's Procuracy affirmed that Xuyen Viet Oil Company was unable to repay the amount of the violation, thus there was sufficient basis for criminal prosecution. The People's Procuracy rejected the lawyer's opinion that only administrative handling should be applied.

Regarding the loss of 219 billion VND, the People's Procuracy affirmed that this was the number that had been determined to cause loss to the BOG fund, and defendant Hanh did not request a re-audit of the loss. Therefore, the People's Procuracy maintained its view that this number was accurate and was the basis for charging defendant Hanh.

Right person right crime

The People's Procuracy believes that, according to the law, all the money and gifts that defendant Mai Thi Hong Hanh gave to defendant Le Duc Tho (former Secretary of Ben Tre Provincial Party Committee) should be confiscated and added to the state budget.

Defense attorneys argued that defendant Le Duc Tho did not have personal authority to approve the credit limit and did not illegally influence the decision to extend the limit at Vietinbank.

The People's Procuracy determined that, as Chairman of the Board of Directors (BOD) of Vietinbank, defendant Le Duc Tho had the authority to convene and chair meetings of the BOD to decide on granting or extending credit limits based on the proposal of the Senior Credit Council. During the meetings, the defendant had the right to vote to agree or disagree with extending the credit limit for the enterprise.

The defense attorney argued that the defendant Tho did not directly approve or extend the credit limit for Xuyen Viet Oil. However, the prosecutor argued that the violation here was the defendant receiving money and agreeing to extend the credit limit at the request of the defendant Mai Thi Hong Hanh.

In fact, defendant Le Duc Tho voted in agreement and signed the decision on behalf of the Board of Directors to approve the credit limit and adjust the credit maintenance period for Xuyen Viet Oil.

" The act of receiving money and voting to agree to extend the credit period for Xuyen Viet Oil as requested by defendant Mai Thi Hong Hanh constitutes the crime of Receiving bribes. The prosecution does not depend on whether or not the defendant has personal authority in granting credit limits or voting," the People's Procuracy affirmed.

Regarding the content, the defendant's defense attorney argued that several times the defendant Hanh gave gifts to the defendant Le Duc Tho with unclear purposes, making it difficult to distinguish between gifts of an emotional nature and gifts intended to commit a crime.

However, the People's Procuracy cited the testimony in the interrogation record of defendant Hanh, in which the defendant admitted that the purpose of giving money and gifts to Mr. Le Duc Tho included: requesting and extending credit limits, sharing credit interest rates... Therefore, the People's Procuracy maintained its prosecution opinion, affirming that the actions of defendant Le Duc Tho had sufficient legal basis to constitute a crime.

Regarding the lawyer's opinion that the prosecution of the two crimes against the defendant Le Duc Tho, although in accordance with the law, is disadvantageous to the defendant. The People's Procuracy affirmed that the prosecution of the two crimes against the defendant Le Duc Tho is the right person, the right crime, in accordance with current legal regulations and evidence in the case file.

Hoang Tho

Source: https://vtcnews.vn/vks-khong-du-dieu-kien-mien-trach-nhiem-hinh-su-cho-ba-trum-xuyen-viet-oil-ar909773.html