OceanBank mega-case: Ha Van Tham asks to plead guilty on behalf of his subordinates.

On September 19th, the court proceedings continued.Ha Van Thamand their accomplices.

Besides the defense presented by their lawyers, the defendants also directly exercised their right to defend themselves in court. Among them, defendant Ha Van Tham requested an aggravating circumstance against himself, arguing that his actions had led to his former subordinates being brought before the court.

Defendant Ha Van Tham requested to take full responsibility for the crime in order to reduce their sentences.

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

Ha Van Tham: "The defendant believes he is the only one who benefited."

In his self-defense statement before the court, defendant Ha Van Tham argued that this was a democratic trial, and that the panel of judges and the prosecution had fully listened to the opinions of the defendant and his lawyers.

Regarding the charge of "Violating regulations on lending in the operations of credit institutions," Ha Van Tham pleaded guilty but requested that the court consider that he was not the mastermind. The defendant Tham presented four points to request leniency for his violation. Specifically, according to defendant Tham, the reason OceanBank lost capital was because customers did not use the capital for its intended purpose.

On the other hand, the parties did not comply with the credit agreement; Dai Tin Bank did not freeze the account as per the three-party contract, which was the main reason for OceanBank's loss of 500 billion VND.

Defendant Tham also argued that she had no motive or intention to mastermind the actions that caused damage to her own bank.

Regarding the 500 billion VND loan from Trung Dung Company, defendant Tham stated that she lacked the ability and courage to threaten and coerce defendant Hua Thi Phan, because Ms. Phan was a long-time businesswoman, and she had many skilled lawyers by her side, so they could completely control the situation.

When signing the loan agreement, Hua Thi Phan only called the defendant Tham once, after the Credit Council had decided to approve the loan. The defendant argued that she was not the mastermind behind the violation of lending regulations.

Regarding the charge of intentionally violating the law, Tham admitted to the crime, but requested that it be viewed from the perspective that she benefited her bank, not harmed it. She asked for a fair judgment.

Ha Van Tham asked the Trial Council to take note of several mitigating circumstances. These included the circumstances of the defendant when he decided to discontinue the customer care policy across the entire OceanBank system.

At that same time, the State Bank of Vietnam took action against several banks that violated the regulations of Circular 02 regarding interest rate ceilings. These actions were mostly administrative, with more severe penalties including the dismissal of the bank's Chairman of the Board of Directors for three years.

However, when OceanBank stopped paying extra interest, its customers withdrew their money en masse and deposited it in other banks. OceanBank faced the risk of collapse due to a lack of liquidity. Seeing that other banks that had previously paid extra interest only received administrative penalties, Ha Van Tham decided to continue implementing the policy of paying extra interest in order to save the bank. Therefore, Tham hopes the court will consider the circumstances of this violation fairly.

After presenting four mitigating circumstances, Ha Van Tham requested one aggravating circumstance. He stated that throughout the trial, regarding the act of intentionally acting against the law, he felt he was the only one who benefited. The other defendants, his subordinates, did not benefit at all and were even prosecuted.

Therefore, defendant Tham requested to plead guilty on behalf of the other defendants and emphasized: "If pleading guilty will spare my colleagues from punishment, then I would like to plead guilty on behalf of the other defendants and accept the maximum penalty for the crime of Deliberately Acting Against Regulations."

The lawyer requested that mitigating circumstances be considered for the defendant.

According to the indictment by the Prosecutor's Office, defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong (former Director of the Accounting and Domestic Transactions Division of OceanBank) and the Directors of various divisions at the Head Office actively assisted Ha Van Tham in paying extra interest on mobilized capital; they implemented, directed subordinates to carry out, and directly implemented the payment of extra interest.

Following instructions from defendant Le Thi Thu Thuy, defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong directed accounting staff to use the customer lists compiled and approved by the Capital Resources Division, the Large Clients and Strategic Partners Division, and the Individual Clients Division to record and transfer funds to branches and transaction offices, and pay extra interest to customers totaling over 307 billion VND.

Defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong also directed the Accounting Department to directly disburse over 172 billion VND from account 801 to Ha Van Tham, Nguyen Minh Thu, Nguyen Xuan Thang, and Nguyen Thi Minh Phuong. For these actions, the Procuratorate proposed a sentence of 9-10 years imprisonment for defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong, who is jointly responsible for the aforementioned amounts totaling over 479 billion VND.

Defending defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong, lawyer Trinh Cam Binh argued that the prosecution's accusation was not truly objective, had not comprehensively assessed the evidence, and therefore had evaluated the conduct and proposed a punishment that was too harsh and unfair in comparison to other defendants at the head office and branches.

Defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong was merely an employee working under a labor contract, and did not receive any benefits other than her monthly salary, unlike the branch and transaction office managers.

Furthermore, the Accounting Department only records accounting transactions fully and truthfully as they occur. The Accounting Department is also a head office department but is not a superior to the branches, nor does it direct or manage them. The Accounting Department is not a business department; it does not directly work with customers but only records transactions based on lists provided by other departments. Therefore, the Accounting Department cannot know which customers received payments in order to recover or rectify the situation, unlike the branches and transaction offices.

Based on the above arguments, lawyer Trinh Cam Binh requested the Trial Panel to consider mitigating circumstances when determining the sentence for defendant Vu Thi Thuy Duong.

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

Lawyer Tran Van Hung stated that the defendant, Tran Van Binh, only completed the 6th grade, his main occupation was driving, he had no other professional skills, he had no idea where Trung Dung Company was located, who the members of the management board were, and he did not directly manage the company's operations. When documents needed to be signed, the employees would bring them to Binh, and Binh did not know what those documents were for or whether they violated the law.

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

On the other hand, Tran Van Binh also had limited legal knowledge and lacked professional expertise in finance and accounting. The defendant's understanding was simply limited to believing that his actions and signatures were supporting the development of the corporation and bringing common benefits to the collective. Therefore, the lawyer requested the Trial Panel to declare defendant Tran Van Binh not guilty.

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

According to Vietnamplus