Former Minister of Health Nguyen Thanh Long and his students received a total of 27 years in prison.

After 10 days of trial and deliberation, on the afternoon of January 12, the Hanoi People's Court announced the verdict against Mr. Nguyen Thanh Long (former Minister of Health ) and 37 other defendants in the case involving Viet A Company and several related entities.

Accordingly, the court sentenced Mr. Nguyen Thanh Long to 18 years in prison for "receiving bribes". Mr. Nguyen Huynh (Mr. Long's former secretary), also accused of receiving bribes, received a 9-year prison sentence.

Two former heads of departments at the Ministry of Health , Nguyen Minh Tuan (former Head of the Equipment and Construction Department) and Nguyen Nam Lien (former Head of the Planning and Finance Department), were sentenced to 8 years in prison, respectively.

According to the verdict, defendant Phan Quoc Viet (Chairman of the Board of Directors and General Director of Viet A Company), with the aim of producing and selling test kits for illicit profit, colluded with Nguyen Thanh Long, Nguyen Huynh, and defendant Nguyen Van Trinh (former assistant to the former Deputy Prime Minister ) to commit numerous violations.

In order to receive intervention and assistance from former leaders at various ministries, departments, and localities, the General Director of Viet A Company agreed to share the profits and repeatedly gave bribes and thank-you money totaling 3.45 million USD and 4 billion VND.

Phan Quoc Viet's actions are alleged to have caused losses exceeding 1.2 trillion VND, including over 431 billion VND to the state budget. The total amount of money Phan Quoc Viet bribed former officials in this case exceeded 106 billion VND.

Of those involved, Mr. Nguyen Thanh Long received the largest amount of bribes, totaling $2.25 million.

During the trial, the court assessed that Mr. Nguyen Thanh Long had made a sincere confession, shown remorse, and influenced his family to return all the bribe money. Mr. Long was noted for his good cooperation with the investigating agency to clarify the nature of the case, and his work history included many commendations, which were considered mitigating circumstances.

Earlier, in the indictment, the prosecution argued that Nguyen Thanh Long's misconduct led to a series of violations by the other defendants.

DO TRUNG

Source