Pham Cong Danh was sentenced to 20 years in prison, Tram Be received 4 years in prison.

On August 6, the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court continued the trial of defendants Pham Cong Danh (born in 1965, former Chairman of the Board of Directors of VNCB Bank, Thien Thanh Group), Tram Be (former Chairman of the Credit Council of Saigon Thuong Tin Commercial Joint Stock Bank - Sacombank) and 44 others for intentionally violating State regulations on economic management, causing serious consequences.

Based on the case file and the trial process in court, there is sufficient evidence to determine that after taking over Dai Tin Bank, Pham Cong Danh changed its name to Construction Bank (VNCB) and operated it ineffectively, causing the bank to incur heavy losses, forcing the State Bank to place VNCB under special management, and all transactions over 5 billion VND must be reported to the monitoring team.

At the trial, it was clarified that Pham Cong Danh's role was to directly meet with bank leaders and through Nguyen Viet Ha, connect with leaders of TPBank, BIDV, and Sacombank to borrow money.

Phan Thanh Mai, as the General Director of VNCB, was assigned by Danh to balance VNCB's cash resources. Mai used deposits from market 1 and used this money to deposit at banks as collateral for 29 loans.

Tram Be received 4 years in prison and received his property back.

Mai Huu Khuong and Hoang Dinh Quyet were the ones who followed the instructions of Pham Cong Danh and Phan Thanh Mai to complete loan procedures at banks to withdraw money from VNCB.

Nguyen Viet Ha is the Director of Loc Viet Fund. Ha has been to Ho Chi Minh City many times to meet Danh and Mai to discuss and agree on a plan to create fake documents to issue bonds of Thien Thanh Group to withdraw money from the bank. Ha's testimony is consistent with the testimony of Nguyen Kim Cam Van, Vu Viet Minh Quan, Nguyen Hoai Thanh... There is enough basis to determine that Nguyen Viet Ha assisted Pham Cong Danh in causing a loss of 903 billion VND.

With his functions and authority, Tram Be directed Phan Huy Khang to lend Pham Cong Danh 1,800 billion VND, when the borrowing companies had no collateral, had not determined the loan plan, had not reviewed the loan application and did not monitor the customers' misuse of the loan.

Phan Huy Khang, under the direction of Tram Be, lent Danh 1,800 billion VND. There were many mistakes in the process of borrowing money, but Khang still lent Danh money, helped Danh withdraw money from the bank and used this money illegally.

Regarding the group of defendants who helped Pham Cong Danh borrow money from 3 banks, causing a loss of more than 6,000 billion VND to VNCB Bank, when sentencing, the People's Court considered that the defendants confessed honestly, were only salaried workers, and did not benefit from anything, many defendants' families had contributed to the revolution. Therefore, it is necessary to consider reducing the sentence for the defendants.

Regarding the amount of 4,500 billion VND, the panel of judges determined that this was Pham Cong Danh's property and should be recovered to remedy the consequences of the case. However, the investigation agency recovered 2,371 billion VND. From there, the panel of judges decided to force Pham Cong Danh to return to CB (formerly VNCB) the amount of 2,121 billion VND.

The panel of judges determined that the amount of 4,500 billion VND belonged to Pham Cong Danh.

Regarding the Procuracy's request to recover VND6,126 billion from Sacombank, BIDV, TPBank to return to CB Bank to remedy the consequences, the Panel of Judges determined that these 3 banks had collected the debt in accordance with the law and in accordance with the State Bank's appraisal results, so there was no need to repay. The Court believed that it was necessary to recover the amount of money that Mr. Danh used after borrowing from the 3 banks, not the amount that the 3 banks used VNCB's deposits to deduct the debt.

From there, the People's Court declared to recover thousands of billions of VND from many different sources identified as evidence of the case, including more than 1,600 billion VND of BIDV, more than 200 billion VND of Sacombank, 502 billion VND of TPBank, more than 194 billion VND of Mr. Tran Quy Thanh, 600 billion VND of Ms. Hua Thi Phan...

Regarding the relationship between Pham Cong Danh, BIDV, Sacombank and related parties, the panel of judges decided to separate them into other civil cases and will resolve them when requested by the parties.

In addition, the panel of judges decided to release the seizure of house number 591 An Duong Vuong, An Lac A ward, Binh Tan district and return it to Ms. Vien Tu Anh (defendant Tram Be's sister-in-law) because it is not related to this case. Regarding the house number 601 Hong Bang, ward 6, district 6 owned by Tram Be, the representative of the Ho Chi Minh City People's Procuracy also requested the panel of judges to consider releasing the seizure for Tram Be.

Phan Thanh Mai received 30 years in prison.

From the above findings, the panel sentenced defendant Pham Cong Danh to 20 years in prison, with a total sentence of 30 years in prison for the first phase, then defendant Danh must serve a sentence of 30 years in prison (because the prison term does not exceed 30 years in prison); Phan Thanh Mai to 12 years in prison, with a total sentence of 22 years in prison for the first phase, then defendant Mai must serve a sentence of 30 years in prison; Tram Be to 4 years in prison; Phan Huy Khang to 3 years in prison. The remaining defendants were sentenced to sentences ranging from 3 years suspended to 30 years in prison.