VietinBank does not agree to compensate more than 1,000 billion on behalf of Huyen Nhu

On the afternoon of December 25, the appeal hearing of the case of Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu and accomplices embezzling 4,000 billion VND continued with the debate with many dramatic contents.

The five companies were re-identified by the Procuracy as persons with related rights and obligations, not civil plaintiffs, because Nhu had taken advantage of his position and power to embezzle Vietinbank's assets, forcing VietinBank to compensate them, expressing opinions in agreement with the prosecution.

Huyen Nhu and the defendants at the trial.

Victims: Some demand immediate payment, others demand the judgment be overturned

Accordingly, lawyers of the two companies An Loc (170 billion VND was appropriated) and Phuong Dong (380 billion VND) both said that the first instance verdict related to the two companies was incorrect, so they requested that this part be annulled for re-investigation and re-trial.

Meanwhile, the representative of SBBS Company, although agreeing with the conclusion of the prosecution at the trial that SBBS Company was not Huyen Nhu's victim, requested to amend the judgment to force VietinBank to immediately pay the principal and interest in the appeal judgment, not to annul the judgment. Because according to this representative, the amount of money misappropriated "eats up" more than half of their capital, if prolonged, the company's damage will be immeasurable.

The lawyer defending the rights of Ms. Gia Thi Mai Hien (whose 274 billion was appropriated by Nhu) disagreed with the prosecutor's rejection of Ms. Hien's appeal. This lawyer said that the investigation into Huyen Nhu's property appropriation had procedural errors related to the appraisal. The lawyer requested the panel of judges to annul part of the first instance judgment related to Ms. Hien to reinvestigate and retry.

Previously, the prosecutor stated that he rejected the appeal because he believed that Huyen Nhu's act of appropriating Ms. Hien's property had been clearly investigated by the prosecution agency, and there was no need to re-examine the contracts because Nhu determined that she had forged them.

VietinBank's lawyers disagree with the prosecution on forcing VietinBank to pay compensation (more than 1,000 billion VND) to five companies that lost money in their accounts at this bank. According to them, these companies were not honest when depositing money here, similar to the cases of ACB and Navibank. And Nhu could not have embezzled money from VietinBank because he was not a person with a position or authority at this bank. The lawyers said that "these companies had their money stolen because of greed, so they "fell into Nhu's trap" of fraud".

Loan shark: Tin Nhu just went on a scam together?!

Defending defendant Dao Thi Tuyet Dung (Director of Dung Van Company Limited) who was convicted of two crimes of fraud and loan sharking, the lawyer asked for a reduced sentence because the defendant helped to commit the fraud because she trusted Nhu.

Defendant Dung, the female tycoon who lent Huyen Nhu "exorbitant" loans, was proposed to have her sentence increased for helping Huyen Nhu commit fraud.

This defendant filed a petition for a reduced sentence, but the People's Procuracy appealed to increase the sentence for this defendant. At the appeal hearing, the People's Procuracy rejected the appeal and accepted the appeal, requesting a sentence of 13-14 years in prison for Dung for fraud. Previously, the defendant Dung was sentenced by the court of first instance to 12 years in prison for two crimes.

Defendant Dung's lawyer argued that the prosecutor's proposal was not equal to the criminal acts of the group of defendants who committed fraud and property appropriation in their role as accomplices to Huyen Nhu. In addition, the prosecutor's statement that Dung, for personal gain, helped Nhu to appropriate money from VIB Bank so that Nhu could have money to pay him was also incorrect. This person said that "Dung's act of assisting was only because he trusted Nhu too much, so he violated the law."

This lawyer also emphasized that Dung's criminal behavior was not discussed, everything was prepared by Huyen Nhu. Dung did not benefit from the money Nhu embezzled from VIB Bank. From that, he requested the panel of judges to maintain the original verdict of the first instance judgment and partially accept the appeal of defendant Dung....

According to POL