Escape from prison for not listening to Mr. Dinh La Thang's instructions?

The trial of defendant Dinh La Thang and his accomplices continued this morning with the cross-examination of the representative of the People's Procuracy.

The representative of the People's Procuracy said that according to the regulations, the agreement signed between the defendant Thang and Ha Van Tham must be approved by the collective. It cannot be said that the members of the Board of Directors knew about it.

In fact, when being inspected by the Central Inspection Committee, defendant Thang asked the members of the Board of Directors to sign a paper confirming that they knew about this agreement, but the truth was not so. Defendant Thang wanted to hide the truth, making it difficult for the investigation agency.

According to the representative of the People's Procuracy, this was clearly shown in the indictment: "Defendant Dinh La Thang stated: Before signing agreement No. 6934 with Ha Van Tham as Chairman of the Board of Directors of PVN, he did not consult the Board of Directors and did not organize a meeting to ask for opinions of the Board of Directors members in writing. The confirmation paper with the signatures of Mr. Canh, Mr. Hung, and Ms. Hoa, former members of the Board of Directors in 2008, dated March 28, 2017, submitted to the Investigation Agency, stating that the Board of Directors of PVN discussed and agreed on the policy of PVN contributing capital to Oceanbank, is not true."

Lawyer Phan Trung Hoai expressed his opinion that: From March 25, 2009, capital investment of State-owned enterprises in the financial and banking sectors must be carried out according to the financial management regulations of State-owned enterprises issued together with Decree 09, replacing Official Dispatch 3780 dated June 6, 2008 of the Government Office mentioned above.

In response, the representative of the People's Procuracy said that the above assessment was based on the lawyer's personal opinion. In fact, Official Dispatch 3780 is still applied and has not been replaced by Decree 09 as stated by the lawyer. Therefore, the investment of economic groups must still be carried out in accordance with the Government's direction and must be reported before implementation.

According to the representative of the People's Procuracy, the Law on Credit Institutions was born and took effect before the time PVN contributed capital for the third time to Oceanbank, but the defendant still signed and issued a resolution to contribute capital of 20%, exceeding the 5% allowed by the regulations. The representative of the People's Procuracy said that the defendants said - when doing this, no State management agency warned them so they did it and thought it was right, this is the defendants' awareness of not complying with the law. There is no legal document that stipulates - there must be a reminder for that behavior to be illegal. This further shows that the defendants do not have the awareness of complying with the law.

The lawyer's opinion is that: The loss of 800 billion VND has no dialectical causal relationship with Oceanbank's loss and the State Bank's acquisition of Oceanbank at 0 VND. Regarding this, the representative of the People's Procuracy sympathizes with the defendants about the difficulties in doing business at that time. However, the defendants' responsibility is not excluded. According to the representative of the People's Procuracy, the defendants' duty is to preserve capital, and if damage occurs, the defendants must be held responsible.

According to the representative of the People's Procuracy, since Nguyen Xuan Son was introduced to Oceanbank to take the position of General Director, Oceanbank began to have a policy of paying extra interest. Accepting that policy, Oceanbank collected fake service contracts, causing a loss of 69 billion to customers.

After defendant Son returned to PVN to take the position of Deputy General Director, the acts of paying extra interest continued. And the extra interest payment caused a loss of more than 1,000 billion VND to Oceanbank, and a loss of 49 billion VND to PVN...

The damage was such, but Oceanbank's annual financial report did not reflect the accounting truthfully, so PVN did not detect the violations of Oceanbank's management board and board of directors. Poor operations caused Oceanbank to lose capital, leading to negative capital, and the State Bank had to buy it back for 0 VND.

PVN sent many officials to Oceanbank, holding many important positions, and during the time defendant Son was General Director until defendant Son returned to PVN as Deputy General Director, violations still occurred. Thus, PVN's investment in Oceanbank and the bank's losses have a close causal relationship.

Not in trouble because of having opinions?

The defendants' defense attorneys argued that the defendants did not intentionally violate the law. However, according to the representative of the People's Procuracy, this was clearly stated in the indictment and in the indictment.

In their self-defense, the defendants stated that they did not intentionally commit the illegal act and had no subjective awareness of this. According to the representative of the People's Procuracy, when the defendants were placed in the position of members of the Board of Directors at PVN, they must have been people who understood the law and were conscious of complying 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 defendant Thang. This shows Mr. Thang's authoritarianism and arbitrariness.

But there were also other members of the Board of Directors who, because they saw that they were wrong, did not follow Mr. Thang's instructions and thus did not get into trouble with the law. Specifically, that was the case of Mr. Hoang Xuan Hung (member of the Board of Directors). After seeing that the capital contribution policy was incorrect, Mr. Hung did not vote and asked for clarification. Thus, the same apparatus, the same responsibilities, but the sense of law enforcement is not the same.

According to the representative of the People's Procuracy, the decision of the State Bank to buy back 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.

Regarding the Government's approval of PVN's divestment and then its suspension of the divestment, the representative of the People's 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 suspended the divestment pending further instructions. This is well-founded.