Dung mute on mole who tipped him off on arrest

>> Tycoon, ex minister indicted in high-profile 
>> Two ex-leaders of Vinalines face death penalty
>> $19 mln corruption case at Vinalines on trial

Dung and nine other defendants, including six former leading officials of the state-owned Vietnam National Shipping Lines (Vinalines), are being tried at Hanoi People’s Court on charges of “intentionally violating state regulations on economic management, causing serious consequences,” and “embezzlement.”

The Hanoi People’s Procuracy on December 13 proposed that Dung and Mai Van Phuc, the former CEO of the state-owned corporation, be sentenced to death for their offenses.

By buying a very old floating dock in Russia through a Singaporean broking firm, Dung and his accomplice caused a loss of VND366 billion (now US$17.26 million) to the State budget. They also embezzled US$1.666 million through the deal.

Who is the caller?

Dung, 55, who was also former director of the Vietnam Maritime Administration, was arrested on September 4, 2012 under an international wanted notice.

An indictment and arrest warrant was issued on Dung on May 17, 2012, but police could not find him at his house or office.

He had fled from his residence that day after he received the mysterious phone tip-off informing that police were preparing to seize him.

Dung admitted this at court but refused to reveal the name.

“At 6 pm on May 17, 2012, I received a call from one of my acquaintances reporting secretly that I was about to be arrested. Overwhelmed with fear, I immediately went away from Hanoi, as far as possible…”

Dung later fled from Vietnam in May 2012 with the support of several police officers, including his younger brother, former colonel Duong Tu Trong, who at that time was deputy director of Hai Phong City Police.

After being arrested in Cambodia four months later, Dung was extradited to Vietnam on October 5, 2012.

When asked who had informed him, Dung said he had reported this to investigators and that this was related to another case to be tried, so he did not want to reveal this in court.

Informant must be disclosed

Nguyen Sy Cuong, standing member of the National Assembly’s Law Committee, told Tuoi Tre that he and many people were very eager to know who informed Dung.

Only insiders could know such confidential information, Cuong said.

Vu Quoc Hung, deputy chairman of the Party Central Committee’s Commission for Inspection, also demanded that this issue be clarified.

“The role of Duong Tu Trong [his police brother] in Dung’s escape must be reviewed. Is there anyone else?”

Lawyer Truong Xuan Tam, a member of the National Lawyers Council, deputy chairman of the Ba Ria-Vung Tau Province Bar Association, requested that the court continue questioning Dung on this important detail.

The issue of who is the informant must be clarified during the trial, since it is a detail related closely to the case, the lawyer said.

A separate case

Nguyen Thanh Ha, a juror at the ongoing trial, told Tuoi Tre that this hearing was opened only to try the ten defendants on charges of “intentionally violating state regulations on economic management, causing serious consequences,” and “embezzlement.

Therefore, whether Dung lets people in on the mole’s identity is not important, Ha said.

The issue in question will be clarified at another hearing that will be opened for those who have helped Dung escape capture and flee to Cambodia. 

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, defendants have the right to make declarations in court or not, said Prosecutor Nguyen Van Chung, head of the District 3 People’s Procuracy, HCMC.

On the other hand, the fact that Dung refused to name the informant before court did not affect the nature of his charges, Chung explained.

Everything may be made clear in another trial for those who help Dung escape, he added.