Why was Huyen Nhu not prosecuted for embezzlement?

Huyen Nhu was re-investigated for signs of embezzlement, but the Supreme People's Procuracy believes that she had the intention and behavior of defrauding 5 companies from the beginning.

Former Head of Dien Bien Phu Transaction Office, Vietinbank (HCMC branch)Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu(40 years old) and Vo Anh Tuan (former deputy director of Vietinbank Nha Be)will be tried by the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh Cityfor fraud and appropriation of property on January 2.

5 companies had 1,085 billion VND appropriated because of 'mistakes'

In 2010, due to losses in investing in stocks and real estate, in order to have money to pay off debts with high interest rates, Nhu, in the name of the Head of Dien Bien Phu Transaction Office, met with many organizations and individuals to mobilize deposits for Vietinbank. She took advantage of individuals and depositors who wanted to receive high interest rates, made illegal agreements, used personal money to pay the difference outside the contract, and brokerage fees to lure them to deposit money.

When the units transferred money into their accounts opened at Vietinbank, Nhu created documents, forged the account owner's signature, and used the system's authority to directly transfer money from the customer's account to pay off personal debts.

In 2015, the Supreme People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City, at the appeal hearing, partially overturned the verdict of the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court, stating that further investigation was needed to clarify Nhu's act of embezzlement (not fraud) and Tuan's role in appropriating VND1,085 billion from 5 companies.

Huyen Nhu continues to be prosecuted for fraud and property appropriation. Photo: Hai Duyen.

However, after more than two years of reinvestigation with many file returns, the Supreme People's Procuracy still maintains its view of prosecuting Nhu and his accomplices.

According to the investigation agency, Nhu had the intention of appropriating money from 5 companies even before they deposited money into Vietinbank. When these companies deposited money based on Nhu's deception, she appropriated it as soon as she received the money.

Based on the assessment of the motive, purpose and method of committing Nhu's crime; the fault of these companies in making illegal agreements with Nhu when depositing money to receive interest rates exceeding the prescribed ceiling; the fault of not fully performing the account owner's responsibility in managing, supervising and promptly detecting Nhu's illegal acts... the investigation agency determined that Nhu had formed the intention of appropriation until the crime was completed.

From there, the investigation agency determined that there was no basis to change Nhu's charge from Fraud to Embezzlement of property as set forth in the appellate judgment.

The company accepted to let Huyen Nhu embezzle 200 billion VND?

The investigation results determined that, among the 5 companies that Nhu had appropriated, Hung Yen Company was defrauded of more than 200 billion VND. Around May 2011, through the introduction of Nguyen Thi Nga (an employee of another bank, a collaborator of Hung Yen Company), Nhu learned that some companies in Hanoi wanted to deposit money and needed to meet in person to negotiate. Nhu discussed with Tuan and invited him to Hanoi to meet them.

For Hung Yen Company, Huyen Nhu introduced herself as Quyen, an employee of Vo Anh Tuan, who was in need of raising capital for Vietinbank, Nha Be Branch. Nhu proactively contacted Nga to negotiate the deposit amount, interest rate of 18-22% per year, depending on the amount and time of deposit.

Nhu asked Nga to draft the contract and send it to her in advance so that Hung Yen Company could trust her to transfer the money as requested. After receiving the contract, Nhu showed it to Tuan but did not comment. She then edited it herself to make it suitable and convenient for embezzling the money, then sent it back to Nga. When Nga agreed, Nhu forged Vo Anh Tuan's signature and stamped Vietinbank, Nha Be Branch, then faxed it to Nga so that Hung Yen Company could sign and transfer the money as per the contract.

From May 2011 to September 2011, Nhu forged 8 deposit contracts and contract appendices with Hung Yen Company. She forged the signatures of Ha Tuan Anh (Director) and Vo Anh Tuan (Deputy Director of Vietinbank Nha Be Branch) to mobilize 537 billion VND from this company.

After Hung Yen Company transferred money to the account opened at Vietinbank, Huyen Nhu forged 14 payment orders, forged the signature of Mr. Ta Duy Hung (Director of Hung Yen Company) on those payment orders to transfer 537 billion VND to the account Nhu created or borrowed. To date, Nhu has paid Hung Yen Company more than 336 billion VND, with more than 200 billion remaining.

On the role ofVo Anh Tuan, the investigation agency determined that when he went to Hanoi with Nhu to meet the representative of this company, Tuan knew that she used a fake name and impersonated an officer of Vietinbank Nha Be branch. Tuan also knew about Nhu's fraudulent behavior when he received the "deposit contract" form sent by Nga but let his "subordinate" use the name of Vietinbank Nha Be branch to raise money.

Hung Yen Company mistakenly thought that this bank was mobilizing deposits, so it transferred money according to Nhu's request. In the process of defrauding organizations and individuals, Nhu gave Tuan 10 billion VND to build the An Giang rice polishing factory.

Using similar methods, Nhu appropriated more than 170 billion VND from An Loc Company; 380 billion VND from Phuong Dong Company; nearly 125 billion VND from Global Insurance Company and nearly 210 billion VND from Saigonbank – Berjaya Securities Joint Stock Company (SBBS).

In early 2014, the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court held a first-instance trial and ordered Huyen Nhu to pay these five companies VND1,085 billion. Hung Yen Company as well as the other four companies appealed, requesting a review of their legal status and forcing Vietinbank to be responsible for compensation, not Huyen Nhu.

The Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Ho Chi Minh City later accepted the appeals, stating that the first instance court "incorrectly determined the status of participants in the proceedings" of Hung Yen Company and Vietinbank, leading to the incorrect decision to force defendant Nhu to compensate for damages. This affected the legitimate rights and interests of Hung Yen Company and the remaining four companies.

During the re-investigation of the case, Huyen Nhu was still accused of Fraudulent Appropriation of Property, meaning Vietinbank is not responsible for paying the debt to these companies.

According to the Supreme People's Procuracy, on March 16, 2016, Hung Yen Company sent a document to the Ministry of Public Security's Investigation Agency requesting to withdraw the appeal, accepting that Huyen Nhu had defrauded them of more than 200 billion VND.

According to VNE