Businesses say they are forced to pay bribes

On July 20, the trial panel of the rescue flight case continued to listen to the defendants and their lawyers for the crime of giving bribes to present their defense views.

The staff suggested that the thank-you mechanism should be followed

In this case, defendant Tran Thi Mai Xa (Masterlife Company) was brought to trial for the charge of 19 times of giving bribes of more than 8 billion VND to eight authorized individuals to get permission for 18 flights. Defendant was sentenced to 4-5 years in prison.

Defending Xa, LS Ha Van San said that defendant Xa was in a situation where he was forced to pay bribes. When organizing flights, businesses (DN) have to prepare a lot of conditions such as renting and depositing planes, hotels, etc. before being licensed.

When the flight was not approved, defendant Xa had to pay 1.5 billion VND in damages and had to sell his house. On the next flight, when it was close to the flight date without a license, defendant Xa as well as many defendants from the DN group had to spend money. On subsequent flights, giving money became the norm.

“The group of defendants in the business sector that had to pay bribes was a forced situation, it couldn’t be any other way,” said LS San.

With the above defense point of view, LS proposed the jury to allow defendant Xa to enjoy the circumstances of the crime in the case of coercion or involuntary. In addition, LS also suggested that the jury consider giving the defendant other mitigating circumstances.

Defending himself, defendant Xa presented the circumstances of being forced to pay bribes. In June 2021, the defendant submitted an application for a license, but close to the scheduled flight date, he was still not approved to fly, the defendant was very impatient.

Defendant Xa made a phone call to the Citizens Protection Department (Consular Department) and was told that he had a bit of a problem with the Immigration Department (Ministry of Public Security) and told the defendant to go there to see how.

When defendant Xa contacted the Immigration Department, defendant Vu Sy Cuong (an official of the Immigration Department) said that “the boss doesn’t know who my company is. Well, to solve it quickly, you should follow the thank you mechanism, otherwise it will be difficult.”

“Because the defendant is dependent on the agency, the defendant has to find a way to turn around the money”, “The first time he was forced to give it, the next time he just had to give it, as usual” – Defendant Xa said.

Defendant Xa said that he felt very sorry. On flights, with about 250 seats, 10 jars of ashes were brought back.

“The defendant asked Mr. Cuong and Mr. Tuan (defendants Vu Sy Cuong, Vu Anh Tuan, both officers of the Immigration Department) why they did not grant the permit, and was answered “there is no urgency” – Defendant Xa recounted in a choked voice and said very upset: “If each such flight is up to a few dozen jars of ashes, is it urgent?”, “The defendant feels very upset. Even though you admit your mistake, the defendant still feels very guilty in his heart.”

Husband drags his wife into the path of crime

Also at the court, exercising the right to defend himself, defendant Nguyen Tien Manh (director of Hoang Long Luxury Company) asked defendant Nguyen Thuy Duong to be allowed to stay out of society to do the parents’ obligations to the children and the children’s obligations to their parents…

“It can be said that the defendant ordered Duong to follow the defendant’s instructions. Defendant Duong is completely dependent on his work, finances and emotions. During the epidemic, defendant Duong was raising a one-year-old child, and it was the defendant who pushed his wife, even if unintentionally, into the path of crime,” – defendant Manh admitted responsibility.

The indictment shows that two defendants Nguyen Tien Manh and Vu Thuy Duong both have marital status as divorced. These two defendants live together, are not married, but have a common child. In court, the defendants call each other spouses, while the defense also calls the defendants spouses.

Both defendants were tried for bribery. Defendant Manh established Viet Travel Travel Joint Stock Company (Vietnam Travel Company), assigned Duong to act as director and legal representative.

During the epidemic period, Viet Travel Company prepared documents to send to the Government Office and dispatches to airlines asking to continue organizing flights, but it was not approved.

Around January 2021, Manh discussed to Hoang Anh Kiem (freelance worker) to help apply for a flight license and share the profits. Manh directed Duong to give money to Jian to bribe authorized individuals.

Seeing that Kiem spent too much money, at a later stage, Manh himself applied for a license and directed Duong to transfer money for bribes. The Procuracy determined that Manh paid a bribe of VND 27.8 billion, and was recommended a sentence of 7-8 years in prison; Duong paid a bribe of 24 billion dong, was recommended 2-3 years in prison.

This morning, the Procuracy will meet with lawyers and defendants

After eight working days, the trial of the rescue flight case went through the process of starting the trial and questioning. The trial is currently in the debate stage.

During this period, the representative of the Procuracy made an impeachment opinion and proposed a sentence to the defendants. After that, the jury heard the lawyers and the defendants presented the defense contents.

Representative of the Procuracy in court. Photo: CTV

Basically, the LS and the defendants all admitted the behavior. The content of the debate focused on clarifying the causes and circumstances of the crime and suggested the trial panel and the procuracy consider mitigating circumstances and ask for leniency for the defendants.

There are two defendants who do not admit to committing the crime, including Tran Minh Tuan, director of Thai Hoa Company (criminal of giving bribes) and Hoang Van Hung, former head of Division 5 of the Security Investigation Agency of the Ministry of Public Security (crime of appropriating property).

This morning (July 21), the trial panel will listen to the procuratorate’s response to the lawyers and defendants.

BUI TRANG BOI