Phu Tho Ethanol Plant Project: Why is ex-Politburo member Dinh La Thang going to court?

Mr. Dinh La Thang used to be the chairman of the Board of Members of Vietnam National Oil and Gas Group in the 2008-2011 period

The case of “Violation of the regulations on construction investment which leads to serious consequences” occurred at the Phu Tho Ethanol Plant Construction Project, for which jailed former Politburo member Dinh La Thang has to go to court again.

This case, probed for the first time in June 2018, made a series of oil and gas industry leaders – of PVN, PVB, and PVC to be caught up in the legal cycle, including Mr. Dinh La Thang as chairman of PVN’s Board of Directors cum the head of the Steering Committee for implementation of biofuel projects of Vietnam Oil and Gas Group (PVN).

In July, the Central Steering Committee on Anti-Corruption, chaired by General Secretary cum State President Nguyen Phu Trong, said it was focusing on directing the completion of the first-instance hearings of 9 cases key projects according to plan.

Among them is the case of “Violation of regulations on construction investment which caused serious consequences” occurred at the Phu Tho Ethanol Plant project.

Before being indicted in the Phu Tho Ethanol case, Mr. Dinh La Thang was sentenced to a total of 31 years in prison for his wrongdoings at PVN and PVC.

In February 2020, Mr. Dinh La Thang continued to be prosecuted for his wrongdoing related to a project of Petrochemical and Biofuel Joint Stock Company (PVB).

The consequences of the unfinished implementation of the Phu Tho Ethanol project (stopped from 2013) are determined to cause great damage to the State, with the loss of VND540 billion in interest alone.

Former Ho Chi Minh City Secretary Dinh La Thang went to the court of PVN to contribute 800 billion to Ocean Bank. Recently, Mr. Dinh La Thang continued to be prosecuted related to the Phu Tho Ethanol project that lost thousands of billion VND

What does the police investigation say?

The conclusion of the investigation by the Vietnamese police, completed in February 2020, said that on October 29, 2007, Mr. Dinh La Thang, then chairman of the Board of Directors of PVN, approved the investment policy of the Ethanol factory in the North area.

At the end of that year, PVB was established as project investor, founding shareholders are subsidiaries of PVN, accounting for 49% of charter capital.

On September 12, 2008, PVB decided to approve the bidding for prequalification of package TK05 to build a factory in Tam Nong district, Phu Tho province to pre-select contractors.

The police concluded that Mr. Dinh La Thang “knew” that the Vietnam Oil and Gas Construction Corporation (PVC) had never worked on Ethanol, and had difficulties in finance, but Mr. Thang had “directed the contract to PVC for the implementation this project.

For example, when chairing the meeting with PVC on July 30, 2008, Mr. Thang concluded: “to permit from now to 2010, for projects with special specialties and projects with special requirements in the oil industry gas is given priority to the contract for PVC.”

Following the direction of PVN, PVB did not organize the bidding, but switched to preparing a request for the PVC / Alfa Laval / Delta-T contractor partnership under the contractor appointment process.

The investigation said that although PVB and PVC knew that the consortium of contractors was “not qualified and experienced,” since the meeting on May 7, 2009, these two companies only negotiated on the price and content of the EPC contract not overcome the shortcomings in capacity and experience of the contractor partnership.

The police concluded that the contractor consortium “fails to meet the capability and experience conditions required by the dossier” and “is not qualified to perform the TK05 project for Phu Tho Ethanol Project.”

On March 27, 2013, this project construction was stopped.

The 12th Party Congress took place in January 2016

Offense

The Vietnamese police concluded that Mr. Dinh La Thang, knowing that the consortium of contractors was not qualified enough, still “directed drastically and made a decision” to assign them to implement the TK05 package.

During the investigation, Mr. Thang was said to have “sincerely declared, actively cooperated.” Because the defendant used to have “excellent performance in the work,” the police also requested the Procuracy to apply extenuating circumstances when prosecuting.

In the Phu Tho Ethanol case, many other defendants were prosecuted.

For example, accused Vu Thanh Ha, the general director of PVB, was found to have helped the bidding evaluation to establish a dossier requesting the removal of some evaluation criteria.

In February 2020, the investigating agency proposed to prosecute the following subjects:

Vu Thanh Ha, former General Director of Petrochemical and Biofuel Joint Stock Company;

Nguyen Xuan Thuy, former Deputy Head of Project Investment Department, Petrochemical and Biofuel Joint Stock Company;

Pham Xuan Dieu, former General Director of PetroVietnam Construction Joint Stock Corporation;

Nguyen Ngoc Dung, former Deputy General Director of Petrovietnam Construction Joint Stock Corporation (PVC);

Do Van Quang, former Head of Economic Planning Department (later Department of Bidding Economy), PetroVietnam Construction Joint Stock Corporation;

Tran Thi Binh, former Deputy General Director of Vietnam Oil and Gas Group;

Khuong Anh Tuan, former Deputy Head of the Chamber of Commerce; Le Thanh Thai, former Head of Sales Department

Hoang Dinh Tam, former Chief Accountant of Petrochemical and Biofuel Joint Stock Company (PVB).

9 key cases

As mentioned above, in July in Hanoi, the Central Steering Committee on Anti-Corruption held the 18th session chaired by General Secretary cum State President Nguyen Phu Trong, Head of Steering Committee.

At that time, this agency said that by the end of 2020, it focused on directing the completion of the first-instance hearings of 9 key cases according to the plan of the Steering Committee:

(1) The case of “Violation of the regulations on land management” occurred at the Beer – Alcohol – Beverage Corporation (Sabeco), District 1, Ho Chi Minh City;

(2) The case of “Violation of regulations on the management and use of State property causing wasteful losses” related to project 8-12 Le Duan, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City;

(3) The case of “abuse of credit to appropriate property; Violation of banking regulations” occurred at BIDV and related units;

(4) The case of “Violation of regulations on construction investment causing serious consequences” occurred at the construction project of Phu Tho Ethanol Plant;

(5) The case “Violation of accounting regulations causes serious consequences; Violation of regulations on management and use of State assets causes loss and waste” occurred at Yen Group Joint Stock Company Khanh and related units;

(6) The case “Violation of regulations on construction investment causes serious consequences; Violation of regulations on management and use of State assets causing loss and waste” occurred at the project. creating and expanding production phase 2 – Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel Company;

(7) The case of “Violation of regulations on management and use of State property causes loss and waste” occurred at Saigon Agricultural Corporation;

(8) The case of “Violation of banking regulations” occurred at Southern Bank (Sacombank);

(9) The case of “Violation of regulations on construction investment causing serious consequences” occurred at the Danang – Quang Ngai Expressway Project.

Thoibao.de (Translated)

Source: https://www.bbc.com/vietnamese/vietnam-54569723

Bình luận