Mr. Dinh La Thang choked up and said his last words in court.

Mr. Dinh La Thang was then allowed by the panel of judges to present further evidence before the court.

"Oceanbank's charter capital is not lost" (?)

“This morning the defendant said he did not want to say anything more, but the lawyers still encouraged him to continue. When he finished speaking, the prosecutor accused him of being arbitrary and authoritarian,” Mr. Thang began his statement.

Regarding divestment, according to the presentation of the former Chairman of PVN, the document said that the suspension of divestment was not due to negative capital but was to be handled by the State Bank. This was the direct cause, causing PVN to lose the opportunity to divest. "Now, if you send your children to school, they will study well for the first few years, then they will study poorly and be expelled. Is this the reason that the parents sent them to school?" - Mr. Thang compared.

In signing the agreement with the former Chairman of Oceanbank, Mr. Thang said that everyone in the Board of Directors knew that the minutes contained the content that the two parties would coordinate to submit to the competent authority before approval. However, the prosecution agency did not quote this content. The defendant then signed the agreement in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Directors, while in the charter, the Chairman had the right to sign such an agreement.

Regarding the purchase of the Zero-Dong Bank, the former Chairman of PVN said that OceanBank was transferred to a one-member LLC and still kept the charter capital of 4,000 billion VND and was not lost. At the previous court, former Chairman of Oceanbank Ha Van Tham said that if he was assigned to calculate the bad debt, he could present a solution and return 800 billion VND to PVN. Defendant Thang expressed his belief that the former Chairman of Oceanbank would be able to do it.

“The defendant would like to present the objective truth, so that when the defendant serves the court's sentence and goes to prison, he will feel at peace... He is indeed imprisoned, but imprisoned in such a context, not because he intentionally did this or that, embezzled or corrupted” - Mr. Thang said and earnestly hoped that the panel of judges and the representative of the People's Procuracy would continue to respond and clarify.

"The defendant certainly does not have enough time to serve all the sentences."

The panel then announced that it had heard the debate for three days, through three rounds of cross-examination. The panel declared the debate over and turned to the defendants for their final statements.

With permission, Mr. Thang sent his thanks to the People's Procuracy, the investigation agency, and his defense attorney for their dedication in sharing the events of his life. He also felt remorse when mentioning his deceased father because he believed that "if it weren't for the defendant's story, his father wouldn't have died so early in such a sad state of mind."

“I became an unfilial son because when my father passed away, I was not able to take care of his funeral. This is something that will haunt me for the rest of my life,” he told the court.

Faced with the fact that the prosecutor still maintained his conviction, while the lawyers had defended him, and faced with the extremely heavy sentence, Mr. Thang choked up when presenting.

I ask the jury to be fair and consider my fate as a human being, defendant Dinh La Thang said.

“The trials and sentences imposed on the defendant are not just years of imprisonment ahead. Surely the defendant does not have enough time to serve all the sentences,” referring to the opening day of the trial, which was the 49th day of his father’s death, but he could not light a stick of incense for his father, Mr. Thang choked up and could not say anything more in court.

At court, the Procuracy maintained its stance of refuting the issues that the lawyers and defendants defended themselves in the recent trials. Regarding the Government's approval of PVN's divestment and then stopping the approval of the divestment, the representative of the Procuracy affirmed that the inspection conclusion on March 21, 2014 showed that Oceanbank's post-inspection profit was negative equity. Oceanbank's entire financial resources were 2.5 times negative, so there was no capital to transfer shares to other partners. This was the reason why the Government stopped the divestment to await instructions. This was well-founded.

According to the representative of the People's Procuracy, the decision of the State Bank to buy Oceanbank at 0 VND is still legally valid. There are opinions that the State Bank's compulsory purchase of Oceanbank is unreasonable, but there is no basis to deny the State Bank's purchase at 0 VND.

The Procuracy responded to the defendants' self-defense and defense, and the lawyers argued that they did not intentionally violate the law and had no subjective awareness of this. According to the representative of the Procuracy, when the defendants were placed in the position of members of the Board of Directors at PVN, they must be people who understand the law and consciously comply with the provisions of the law. It cannot be said that they violated the law because they did not understand the law.

The representative of the People's Procuracy also sympathized with the defendants because they had to follow the instructions of the former Chairman of PVN. However, the People's Procuracy cited the example of Mr. Hoang Xuan Hung - a member of the Board of Directors who, because he saw his mistake, did not vote to contribute capital and requested clarification, so he was not prosecuted.