On 23/3, the Hue City People's Court sentenced five individuals for their roles in illegal logging activities following forest fires, which caused over 5,5 billion VND in damages to the state. Le Hong Khanh, 34, Director of Lam Phat Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery Consulting and Services One-Member Company Limited, received three years and six months in prison. Truong Ngoc Duc, 40, a staff member at the Center for Agriculture and Forestry Planning and Design, was sentenced to three years and three months in prison. Both were convicted of irresponsibility causing serious consequences.

The defendants at the trial. Photo: Van An.

Three other defendants received three-year suspended sentences with a five-year probationary period: Le Ha, 62, Director of the Center for Agriculture and Forestry Planning and Design; Hoang Phuoc Toan, 51, Director of Huong Thuy Protection Forest Management Board; and Nguyen Dang Phong, 61, Head of the Technical Planning Department at Huong Thuy Protection Forest Management Board.

The case originated in late June 2021, when two fires ravaged sub-areas 151, 152, and 159 within the plantation forest managed by the Huong Thuy Protection Forest Management Board. Following these incidents, Mr. Toan authorized Le Hong Khanh to develop a plan and cost estimate for salvaging 157,87 hectares of the damaged forest.

Authorities accused the defendants of significant procedural failures during the design and appraisal process for the salvage operation. Key violations included the absence of boundary markers, estimating tree heights instead of accurate measurements, incorrectly determining forestry indicators, and miscalculating excluded areas, tree quantities, and sizes. Crucially, many still-green trees were wrongly identified as burnt, inflating the scope of the salvage.

These violations led to an inaccurate assessment of the pine wood volume, resulting in damage to the state of over 11,454 cubic meters of wood. This volume is equivalent to over 5,5 billion VND in financial losses.

Previously, the case file was returned for additional investigation because some initial expert conclusions were inaccurate. This affected the precise determination of wood output and the individual responsibilities of those involved.

Vo Thanh