Mr. Ha Van Tham complained that he was "severely reprimanded" by the first-instance court.

On May 2nd, during his self-defense statement, former chairman of Oceanbank, Ha Van Tham, presented six mitigating circumstances to request a reduction in his sentence. The defendant argued that this information had not been presented at the first-instance trial or had not been considered by the court.

Firstly, the defendant asserted that he came from a family with a history of service to the revolution; that he himself had received numerous commendations and made significant contributions to society. During the investigation, Mr. Tham realized that he had"I made a sincere confession and cooperated well with the prosecution. This was recorded in the investigation report and the indictment, but it was not recorded in the first-instance court," the defendant said.

For paying interest outside of the contract to the Vietnam Oil and Gas Group (PVN), he was found guilty of three crimes, including embezzlement and abuse of power to appropriate assets. These actions were committed under duress and with no other choice, therefore, the appellate court is requested to consider this.

Claiming to have been "severely deterred,"Mr. Tham requested the panel of judges to accept his appeal and change the two charges to the charge of Deliberately Acting Against the Law.

Another mitigating circumstance mentioned by Mr. Tham is:The defendant proactively declared his assets during the investigation to help mitigate the consequences if he is ordered to pay civil compensation. The defendant requests the appellate court to consider this voluntary act.

Ha Van Tham: The first-instance verdict treated the defendant unfairly.

Mr. Tham argued that the Hanoi People's Court convicted him based on his sole "motive and purpose" of attracting deposits from PVN into Oceanbank, and therefore he paid interest outside the contract to PVN through Nguyen Xuan Son.

According to him, the Hanoi People's CourtIt is unfair whenOnly PVN shareholders were granted compensation of 49 billion VND, while more than 1,000 other Oceanbank shareholders were not.Similarly, former Oceanbank's head of large customer services, Nguyen Xuan Thang, and former deputy general director, Le Thi Thu Thuy, assisted in transferring money to Nguyen Xuan Son but were unaware that he was misappropriating it, only knowing that the money was being spent on PVN. Therefore, they were convicted of intentionally violating state regulations on economic management causing serious consequences, under Article 165 of the Penal Code.

Mr. Tham realized that he had committed "identical" acts, yet he was convicted of two crimes: Abuse of power to appropriate property and Embezzlement, with a combined sentence of life imprisonment.

Mr. Tham argued that the first-instance verdict failed to achieve its goals of deterrence and upholding the rule of law. He pointed out that the deliberate violation of regulations regarding interest rate caps involved millions of people across multiple banks, resulting in illicit gains for customers.However, the trial court did not order the beneficiaries to reimburse the funds, but rather the defendants. This could lead to the misunderstanding that people could benefit illegally without having to pay. "In reality, if the customers hadn't demanded it, the defendants wouldn't have spent the money and wouldn't have violated the law," Mr. Tham said calmly, holding his defense brief at the podium.

Concluding his self-defense statement, Mr. Ha Van Tham requested the Prosecutor's Office to respond to seven issues. Among them, he wanted clarification regarding the trial court's conviction that "for personal gain and group interests, Ha Van Tham paid money to Nguyen Xuan Son, thus constituting the act of assisting Nguyen Xuan Son in embezzlement and misappropriation of assets."The prosecutor needs to clarify why he is not entitled to any mitigating circumstances…

"In the event that the Prosecutor's Representative does not ask for further explanation from the defendant, please allow me to understand that the Prosecutor's Representative has accepted the defendant's points in this self-defense statement," the former chairman of Oceanbank concluded his self-defense statement.