OceanBank's big case: Ha Van Tham asked to plead guilty on behalf of his subordinates

On September 19, the debate continued at the trial.Ha Van Thamand accomplices.

In addition to the defense of the lawyer, the defendants also directly exercised their right to defend themselves in court. Among them, defendant Ha Van Tham requested an aggravating circumstance for himself, because he believed that his actions had pushed his former subordinates to the dock.

Defendant Ha Van Tham asked to take all the blame on himself to reduce their sentences.

Defendant Ha Van Tham in court. (Photo: Nguyen Cuc/Vietnam+)

Ha Van Tham: "The defendant sees himself as the only one who benefits"

Presenting his self-defense in court, defendant Ha Van Tham said that this was a democratic trial, the Trial Panel and the Procuracy had fully listened to the opinions of the defendant and the lawyers.

Regarding the crime of "Violating regulations on lending in the operations of credit institutions," Ha Van Tham admitted his guilt, but asked for consideration that he was not the mastermind. Defendant Tham presented 4 contents to request a reduction in his violation. Specifically, according to defendant Tham, the reason OceanBank lost capital was because customers did not use the capital for the right purpose.

On the other hand, the parties did not comply with the credit records, Dai Tin Bank did not freeze the account according to the 3-party commitment contract, this is the main reason for the loss of 500 billion VND of OceanBank.

Defendant Tham also analyzed that he had no motive or purpose to mastermind the acts that caused damage to his own bank.

Regarding the 500 billion VND loan of Trung Dung Company, defendant Tham said that he did not have the ability or courage to threaten and coerce defendant Hua Thi Phan, because Ms. Phan is a long-time businesswoman, and besides Ms. Phan, there are many good lawyers so they can completely control the situation.

When signing the loan contract, Hua Thi Phan called defendant Tham only once when the Credit Council decided to approve this loan. The defendant claimed that she was not the mastermind in the act of violating lending regulations.

Regarding the act of Intentional Violation, Tham admitted to the crime, but asked to see it from the perspective that the defendant brought benefits to his bank, not caused damage to the bank. The defendant asked to be judged fairly.

Ha Van Tham asked the Trial Panel to take note of some mitigating circumstances. That was the defendant's situation when he decided to stop implementing the customer care policy throughout the OceanBank system.

At the same time, the State Bank also took action against a number of banks that violated the provisions of Circular 02 on interest rate ceilings. This action was mostly administrative, with the most serious being the dismissal of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Bank for 3 years.

However, when OceanBank did not pay extra interest, customers rushed to withdraw their money and deposit it in other banks. OceanBank was at risk of collapse due to lack of liquidity. Considering that the handling of banks that had paid extra interest only stopped at the level of administrative penalties, Ha Van Tham decided to continue implementing the policy of paying extra interest to save the bank. Therefore, Tham hoped that the Trial Council would consider the circumstances when committing this violation fairly.

After presenting 4 mitigating circumstances, Ha Van Tham asked for one aggravating circumstance for himself. That is, during the entire trial, regarding the act of Intentional Violation, the defendant felt that he was the only one who benefited. The other defendants, who were subordinates, did not benefit at all and were also prosecuted for criminal liability.

Therefore, defendant Tham asked to plead guilty on behalf of the defendants and emphasized: "If this plea of ​​guilty will prevent my colleague from being charged, then I would like to plead guilty on behalf of the other defendants and accept the highest penalty for the crime of Intentional Violation."

Lawyers recommend considering mitigating circumstances for the defendant.

According to the indictment of the Procuracy, defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong (former Director of the Accounting and Domestic Transactions Division of OceanBank) and Directors of divisions under the Head Office actively assisted Ha Van Tham in paying interest outside of capital mobilization; implementing, directing subordinates to implement and directly implementing the payment of interest outside.

From the direction of defendant Le Thi Thu Thuy, defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong directed the Accounting Department staff to base on the customer list prepared and signed by the Capital Department, Large Customers and Strategic Partners Department, and Individual Customers Department to account for money transfers to branches, transaction offices, and pay extra interest to customers with an amount of more than 307 billion VND.

Defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong also directed the Accounting Department to directly pay money from account 801, more than 172 billion VND to Ha Van Tham, Nguyen Minh Thu, Nguyen Xuan Thang and Nguyen Thi Minh Phuong. From these actions, the Procuracy proposed that defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong be sentenced to 9-10 years in prison and be jointly responsible for the above amounts, totaling more than 479 billion VND.

Defending defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong, lawyer Trinh Cam Binh said that the above accusation of the Procuracy was not really objective, did not evaluate the evidence comprehensively, so the assessment of the behavior and proposed a punishment that was too severe, unfair in relation to other defendants in the Head Office and branches.

Defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong is also just a salaried employee, under the Labor Contract regime, not entitled to any benefits other than the monthly salary received, as well as branch and transaction office directors.

In addition, the Accounting Department only reflects accounting transactions fully and honestly. The Accounting Department is only a Head Office Department but is not the superior of the branches, directing or operating the branches and transaction offices. The Accounting Department is also not a business department, does not work directly with customers but only accounts based on the List sent by the departments. Therefore, the Accounting Department cannot know which customers the money is spent on to find ways to recover and fix it like the branches and transaction offices.

From the above arguments, lawyer Trinh Cam Binh requested the Trial Panel to consider mitigating circumstances when sentencing defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong.

Defending defendant Tran Van Binh, former General Director of Trung Dung Trading and Service Company Limited, lawyer Tran Van Hung said that the prosecution of Tran Van Binh for the act of "Violating regulations on lending in the activities of credit institutions" was forced, inconsistent with the objective reality of the case as well as the provisions of the law.

Lawyer Tran Van Hung stated that defendant Tran Van Binh only finished 6th grade, his main occupation was driving, he had no other expertise, he did not know where Trung Dung Company was, who the executive board consisted of, and he did not directly manage the Company's operations. When he needed to sign documents, the employees brought them to Binh for signature and Binh did not know what those documents were used for, whether they violated the law or not.

Citing Pham Cong Danh's testimony, the lawyer affirmed that defendant Tran Van Binh did not meet directly with and was not instructed by Pham Cong Danh to prepare files and documents as requested by OceanBank.

On the other hand, Tran Van Binh also has limited legal knowledge, no professional knowledge of finance and accounting, the defendant's awareness is simply limited to thinking that what he does and signs is to support the development of the group, bringing common benefits to the collective. Therefore, the lawyer requested the Trial Panel to declare the defendant Tran Van Binh not guilty.

On September 20, the defendants continued to defend themselves in court./.

According to Vietnamplus