Huyen Nhu admitted to paying interest outside of the contract to Navibank out of her own pocket.

In court, Huyen Nhu admitted that the interest was not in the contract. Nhu asked defendant Tran Thi To Quyen to deliver it to the former Head of Navibank's Capital Department.

On the morning of December 23, the Court of Appeal, Supreme People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City continued the trial of the case of "super fraudster" Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu and her accomplices.

According to the announcement of the presiding judge Quang Duc Tuyen, the court will consider the appeals of the parties involved in this case.

At the beginning of the trial this morning, the court considered the appeal of Ms. Vu Thi Kim Thinh (born in 1982, residing in Ho Chi Minh City). According to the appeal, Ms. Thinh requested the appellate court to consider returning the house in the Orient Apartment complex (District 4, Ho Chi Minh City).

Defendant Huyen Nhu at the Court of Appeal

In court, Ms. Thinh said that Nhu bought this house for 2.6 billion VND, and after adding the additional expenses, Nhu sold it back to Ms. Thinh for 2.7 billion VND.

Ms. Nga also said that this property is under the name of Huynh My Hanh – Huyen Nhu’s sister. Ms. Thinh bought it from Huyen Nhu in September 2010, but until now has no legal ownership.

During the interrogation of Ms. Thinh, the prosecutor asked whether there was any documentation to prove the purchase and sale of this real estate. Ms. Thinh said that there was no documentation to prove the purchase and sale, however, the money transfer to buy this house was made via bank transfer.

However, the opinion of the People's Procuracy is that the money transfer has no content and does not reflect the incident. According to the People's Procuracy, in addition to the relationship in buying and selling the house, Ms. Thinh and Huyen Nhu also have other relationships.

After questioning Ms. Thinh, the court continued to consider the appeal to claim money from defendant Le Thi Ngoc Nga and her husband Nguyen Thi Lanh - who were convicted by the court of first instance of loan sharking.

Mr. Quang – defendant Lanh’s husband, demanded the return of 5.9 billion VND from the savings account under his name that was frozen. Mr. Quang said that it was his working money. In court, Mr. Quang also said: “I did not know my wife was involved in loan sharking.”

Nguyen Thi Kim Binh (born in 1983, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City) appealed the amount of more than 19 billion VND. This is the amount of assets seized from defendant Nguyen Thien Ly - who was convicted by the court of first instance for the crime of loan sharking.

Huyen Nhu's mother was absent when the court considered the appeal to claim a villa worth 43 billion VND.

After considering the appeal for property of those with rights and obligations related to the case, the court began to consider the appeal for the villa of Ms. Nguyen Thi Lang - mother of "super fraudster" Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu. However, at the hearing this morning, Ms. Lang was not present.

Previously, in the first days of the appeal trial, Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu also requested the court to consider an appeal to get back the villa Villa H2 The Nam Hai (Dien Ban district, Quang Nam province) - This is a villa valued at 43 billion VND.

Reiterating her request this morning in court, Nhu continued: The defendant does not appeal but only asks for the house back for her mother. According to Huyen Nhu, that is the property of Ms. Nguyen Thi Lang.

To clarify the appeal to claim the villa, the judge asked Huyen Nhu why the defendant sold her mother's house. In response to the judge, Nhu said that the defendant did not sell it but only mortgaged it. "If it was mortgaged, why are you asking for it back?", the judge asked. In response to the judge's question, Huyen Nhu remained silent.

Due to Ms. Nguyen Thi Lang's absence from the trial, the presiding judge said that he would consider the appeal to reclaim the villa based on the appeal.

At court, the wife of defendant Pham Anh Tuan (born in 1977, from Hai Phong) - Former General Director of Pacific Petroleum Materials Joint Stock Company also submitted a petition to review the house shared by the couple. The representative of defendant Tuan's wife recounted the situation, that if the law enforcement agency sealed and seized this house to execute the judgment, Pham Anh Tuan's family, wife and children would no longer know where to live.

After considering the appeals of the litigants in the case, the panel of judges decided to return to interrogate the defendants related to the crime of Usury.

Still complaining like yesterday's interrogation, defendant Dao Thi Tuyet Dung (born in 1969, residing in Ho Chi Minh City) - Former Director of Dung Van Company Limited said that the court of first instance's determination that the defendant illegally profited 174 billion VND was incorrect. Responding to the presiding judge's question, Dung said she did not remember how much illegal profit she had made from lending to Huyen Nhu at high interest rates.

“So what is incorrect?”, the judge asked. Responding to the judge, Dung said: “Because the defendant does not have a reconciliation book. These numbers were recorded and reported by the defendant Huyen Nhu.”

“If the defendant has books, the panel of judges is ready to cross-examine. The defendant admitted to lending money to Huyen Nhu. The court of first instance relied on that to consider. If the defendant does not have books, the panel of judges will base it on documents and records.”

Regarding the amount of 150 billion VND lent to Huyen Nhu by mortgaging 7 properties, defendant Dung said that there was a debt note. However, the presiding judge affirmed: Those are still defendant Huyen Nhu's assets. Currently, these assets have been seized and frozen to serve the execution of the judgment.

In addition, the panel of judges also questioned defendants related to the crime of Usury but did not appeal at the appeal hearing, including: Nguyen Thi Lanh, Hung My Phuong, and Pham Van Chi.

In court, answering the panel of judges about the amount of money that had to be handed over from illegal profits of 150 billion VND that the court of first instance forced Lanh to hand over.

Regarding the lack of an appeal to be considered at the appeal hearing, Lanh said: "The defendant thinks that whether the amount is large or small, the defendant cannot overcome it, so he will leave it alone."

"Is there something shady here?" the judge asked Nguyen Thi Lanh.

According to the documents that the Procuracy announced in court, the amount of money Nguyen Thi Lanh lent Huyen Nhu was more than 7,800 billion VND. Huyen Nhu paid the defendant both principal and interest of more than 9,000 billion VND. The illegal profit was more than 1,186 billion VND.

"Of course, the defendant accepts the first instance judgment because the amount of illegal profits that the defendant must forfeit to the state budget is too small compared to reality," the prosecutor affirmed.

According to Nguyen Thi Lanh, Lanh borrowed some money from others at low interest rates, then lent it to Huyen Nhu at high interest rates.

Navibank has not provided contract evidence for loan employees

After the break, the panel returned to questioning issues related to Huyen Nhu's fraudulent appropriation of assets at Nam Viet Commercial Joint Stock Bank (Navibank).

Responding to the jury, Mr. Doan Dang Luat - former Head of Navibank's Capital Department said that the interest rate for capital mobilization through 14 Navibank employees was agreed to be 14%/year. Regarding the contract of Navibank employees sent to Vietinbank Nha Be branch to collect interest, Mr. Luat said that it was the decision of Navibank's leadership.

Regarding the extra-contractual interest of VND 9.4 billion, Mr. Luat denied receiving money from Huyen Nhu and said that Vo Anh Tuan paid the extra-contractual interest to Navibank from the capital mobilization contract.

When confronted with the testimony, defendant Vo Anh Tuan denied it and said: Mr. Luat's testimony in court was not accurate. "The defendant did not know about the interest rate outside the contract."

To clarify this issue, the court turned to interrogate Huyen Nhu. According to Huyen Nhu's testimony in court, Nhu agreed on the contract through Mr. Luat. Nhu asked defendant Tran Thi To Quyen to give Luat the interest outside the contract. Huyen Nhu continued to affirm in court that the interest outside the contract was from Huyen Nhu's own pocket.

At court, To Quyen also stated that the defendant gave money to Luat under Huyen Nhu's direction. "The defendant does not remember the amount of money, but he gave it many times. This money was taken from Hoang Khai Company - Huyen Nhu's company. The person who gave the money to To Quyen was Huynh My Hanh - Huyen Nhu's sister. As for the money given to the defendant, Hanh kept it in the books," To Quyen said.

Only then did Mr. Doan Dang Luat confirm that he had received money from Vietinbank employees. However, Mr. Luat said: "The employee who gave the interest outside the contract was sent by Vo Anh Tuan."

At the end of the working session this morning, Chairman Quang Duc Tuyen "demanded debt" from the representative of Navibank for evidence of the contract for lending money to employees and then depositing the money at Vietinbank to earn interest. However, the representative of Navibank said that he is asking the bank to provide it, because the incident has been going on for a long time, it is difficult to find.

To clarify the case soon, the judge also announced the credit contract that Navibank signed with the employees at the court. According to this document: The credit contract that Navibank signed with the employee, with an interest rate of 16%/year. The employee contract signed with Vietinbank, the interest rate is 14%/year.

Mr. Quang Duc Tuyen continued to return to the question about the purpose of Navibank lending money to employees to deposit. The representative of Navibank affirmed that it was to deposit money elsewhere to earn interest.

"So what is the purpose of depositing in Vietinbank?" The chairman's question was not answered directly by the representative of Navibank.

This morning, the panel of judges announced the end of the questioning session. Tomorrow (December 24), the court will begin the debate session.

According to VOV