On May 13, representatives of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Procuracy prosecuted and proposed sentences for six former leaders of the Southern Food Corporation (Vinafood II) in connection with irregularities in the transfer of land at 132 Ben Van Don, Ho Chi Minh City, causing a loss of over VND 86.7 billion to the state budget.
The Procuracy proposed a sentence of 5-6 years in prison for defendant Truong Thanh Phong, former General Director and Member of the Board of Directors of Vinafood II. Tran Van Ven, former Chairman of the Board of Directors, was facing a proposed sentence of 4-5 years in prison. The other defendants, Tran Bay, Vu Ba Vinh, Truong Van Hua, and Truong Van Anh, all former Members of the Board of Directors, were facing proposed sentences of 3-4 years in prison.
In terms of civil liability, the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Procuracy requested that the Nguyen Kim Investment and Development Joint Stock Company (Nguyen Kim Company) be held responsible for compensating over VND 68.7 billion for the damage caused by their actions. The defendants were also requested to pay this amount in compensation jointly.
Vinafood II’s “gang” in court |
According to the indictment, Vinafood II is a state-owned enterprise that was entrusted with managing and utilizing the land at 132 Ben Van Don. In 2001, Vinafood II received approval to change the land use purpose to invest in the construction of high-rise apartments, combined with a commercial center, services, and office buildings.
However, after being granted the land use certificate in 2010, the leaders of Vinafood II failed to account for the asset, establish a fixed asset dossier, or revalue the asset when contributing capital. Instead, they used the land price from 2007 and 2009 for the transfer, which was contrary to regulations.
This led to a loss of more than VND 113.7 billion when contributing land use rights to the Vinh Hoi Investment and Development Joint Stock Company (established in 2011). After deducting the VND 45 billion recovered from capital withdrawal, the actual loss incurred by the state was over VND 68.7 billion.
Nguyen Kim Company, one of the largest shareholders of Vinh Hoi Company, holding 30% of the shares (VND 45 billion out of a total charter capital of VND 150 billion), second only to Vinafood II. Despite the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment’s twice requesting compliance with the land use transfer procedure, Vinafood II colluded with private partners, including Nguyen Kim, to establish a new legal entity and implement the project.
Nguyen Kim Company also played a key financial role by joining other partners in repaying a loan of nearly VND 128 billion on behalf of Vinafood II.
Tran Thai
– 11:48, May 13, 2025
“Former Vinafood CEO Faces Prison Sentence of 5-6 Years”
The prosecution has requested that the court sentence defendant Truong Thanh Phong, the former CEO of Vinafood II, to a prison term of five to six years for violations related to the transfer of prime real estate located at 132 Ben Van Don in District 4.
Today, Vinafood II’s Former Executives Face Legal Consequences Over the 132 Ben Van Don Land Issue
The defendants are charged with “Violation of regulations on the management and use of state assets, resulting in waste and loss.”
The Trial of Vinafood II’s Former Executives: A Case of Devastating Losses Exceeding VND 113 Billion
The Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court tried six former leaders of Vinafood II in a first-instance court for their involvement in the transfer of a prime land lot at 132 Ben Van Don, District 4, Ho Chi Minh City, which resulted in a loss of over VND 113 billion.
The Appeal of the Nha Trang “Golden Land” Embezzlement Case
Two Former Chairmen of the Khanh Hoa Provincial People’s Committee Attend the Appeal Trial in the Case of State Asset Loss and Waste in the Nha Trang Golden Gate Project
The Real Estate Trial: Phase 2 – An Unrealistic Solution
Recognizing the defendant Truong My Lan’s desire to remedy the consequences of the case. However, the People’s Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City deemed this option as impractical.
