On the morning of August 10, the People's Court of Hanoi brought to trial the case "Deceiving customers" and "lack of responsibility causing serious consequences" related to CT8 apartment building, Kien Hung ward, Ha Dong district. (Hanoi).
Among the defendants, there is a "big plow" Le Thanh Than, Chairman of Muong Thanh Group. Mr. Le Thanh Than is the Chairman of the Board of Directors cum General Director of Bemes Company. This company implemented the CT6 Kien Hung project, but there were many serious violations, leading to hundreds of customers who bought houses but were not granted red books (land use right certificates).
Mr. Le Thanh Than was prosecuted for the crime of "deceiving customers". In addition, 6 other defendants were prosecuted for the crime of "lack of responsibility causing serious consequences" including: Do Van Hung, former Chairman of the People's Committee of Kien Hung ward, Ha Dong district; Nguyen Duy Uyen and Bui Van Bang, former Vice Chairman of the People's Committee of Kien Hung Ward; Nguyen Van Nam, former Chief Inspector of Construction of Ha Dong district; Vuong Dang Quan, former Deputy Chief Inspector of Construction of Ha Dong District and Mai Quang Bai, former Officer of Construction Inspector of Ha Dong District.
Overview of the trial.
According to the indictment, Mr. Le Thanh Than sold 488 apartments when his land use rights were not recognized, but he still falsely advertised to customers and obtained an illegal profit of 481 billion VND. Up to now, only 934 out of 1.582 apartments at CT6 Kien Hung have been granted red books. 520 apartments have not been granted ownership certificates by Hanoi Department of Natural Resources and Environment and another 160 apartments have not yet undergone procedures for issuance of books.
With the high-rise building block, defendant Than directed to increase the construction area, increase the height of the work, change the use. Bemes Company also built more apartments and built a CT6C building that is not in the approved plan. With low-rise buildings, Bemes Company increased the area of land to be built and the number of low-rise apartments, violating the red line...
From March 3, defendant Than directed his subordinates to advertise false information about the legality of the project to sell illegally built apartments.
Defendant Than advertised the approved project, designed the apartment and the project in compliance with the regulations on construction, the selling price of the apartment included the value of land use rights… Many customers believed it and signed it. house sale contract with Bemes Company. At the project's contracts, defendant Than, in the role of General Director, directly signed with the customers, committing the terms with the purpose of letting them trust and pay for the apartment according to the construction progress. The business, fixing the selling price of apartments in the project are decided by defendant Than.
Accordingly, defendant Than sold 488 apartments when the land use rights were not recognized and hereby obtained an illegal profit of 481 billion VND. The prosecution agency determined that, in order to make mistakes, there was also the lack of responsibility of the group of former officers of Kien Hung ward and the construction inspector of Ha Dong district. During the construction of the CT6 Kien Hung project, the group of defendants in this case did not inspect and check to prevent.
At the court session, after listening to the testimony of the defendant Than and some of the victims, the presiding judge announced a break for consultation. After consulting, the Trial Panel said that, considering that there are a number of issues that cannot be clarified at the trial, the Trial Panel decided to return the additional investigation file.
Immediately after that, the Court notifies the victims and related people... who have not yet testified, have not reported, then contact the Hanoi City Police Investigation Agency to submit an application and submit documents and evidence to be included in the report. participate in the proceedings. During the additional investigation period, the victims were brought in to participate in the proceedings to contact the Investigation Agency, defendant Than and Bemes Company to settle.
