The People's Procuracy requested Vietinbank to pay 1,000 billion VND that Huyen Nhu appropriated.

On December 24, the trial of Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu and her accomplices for appropriating VND4,000 billion from individuals, companies and banks entered the debate phase.

Expressing his opinion on the case, Senior Prosecutor Nguyen The Thanh - Deputy of the 3rd Court of Appeal - assessed the chain of actions of defendant Nhu. Accordingly, Nhu took advantage of the task assigned by the leadership of Vietinbank to the Head of Dien Bien Phu Transaction Office to commit fraudulent acts, forged signatures and seals to make fake payment orders to appropriate customers' money.

The People's Procuracy proposed that the People's Court partially annul the investigation verdict and retry Nhu and her accomplices for the crime of embezzlement.

5 units were identified as having opened legal accounts, following the correct procedures and approved by Vietinbank leaders, Ms. Nguyen Thi Minh Huong and Mr. Truong Minh Hoang (Deputy Director of Vietinbank Ho Chi Minh City branch), including: Phuong Dong Securities Joint Stock Company, Hung Yen Company, SaigonBank Berjara Securities Joint Stock Company (SBBS), Global Insurance Company, An Loc Company.

The People's Procuracy requested the Appellate Court to partially annul the first instance judgment to re-investigate and re-try Nhu and related people for the crime of embezzlement of assets; and to review the legal participation status of the above units. Accordingly, these companies are legal customers of Vietinbank, but the bank did not manage the customers' assets but let its employees embezzle them, so it must be responsible.

"These units are only the ones with rights and obligations related to the case, while Vietinbank is the victim. Therefore, Vietinbank must be responsible for returning the money that Nhu appropriated and has the right to request Nhu to return it," the prosecutor said.

According to the People's Procuracy, the amount of more than 718 billion VND that Nhu appropriated from ACB Bank originated from the defendant's collusion with Huynh Bao Ngoc (former deputy head of ACB's risk management department) to mobilize money from this bank. The fact that 19 ACB employees deposited the money was based on the policy of ACB's leaders and this was against regulations. On the other hand, Bao Ngoc - the person assigned by ACB to manage the deposit - was "bribed" by Nhu with a huge amount of money.

“For personal gain, Ngoc forgot his responsibility to manage assets, entrusting Nhu to arbitrarily falsify documents and payment orders, leading to the appropriation. ACB itself is a commercial bank, clearly understands the provisions of the law, but only for local interests, it deposited money at Vietinbank to earn interest, causing disruption to the financial market. ACB put itself in this situation and committed illegal acts, so it will not be protected by the law,” the People's Procuracy stated its opinion.

The Institute said there was no basis to accept the appeal of ACB and 19 employees of this bank to force Vietinbank to pay the amount of money that Nhu had appropriated, because it believed that "in this case, Vietinbank was not at fault". In addition, the Procuracy also recommended that the investigation agency prosecute Bao Ngoc for assisting Nhu in appropriating ACB's money as the content that the Supreme People's Court in Hanoi recommended in the trial of Bau Kien.

Similarly, the appeal of Navibank was also recommended by the Procuracy to be "not accepted". According to the Institute, defendant Nhu had the intention of appropriating the bank's money beforehand, so he colluded with Doan Dang Luat (former Head of Navibank's Capital Department) to mobilize more than 1,000 billion VND through deposit contracts signed by 14 employees of this bank. After the settlement, Nhu also appropriated 200 billion VND through deposit contracts with 4 Navibank employees.

The prosecution agency said that after receiving the difference in money outside the contract, Doan Dang Luat let Nhu commit fraudulent acts and appropriate money from this bank. The illegal act of Navibank's leaders in taking money from their own bank to deposit at Vietinbank to earn interest was the fault of this bank.

Regarding Ms. Gia Thi Mai Hien - who lent Huyen Nhu thousands of billions of VND - appealing to re-evaluate the investment trust contract that she signed with Nhu in the name of an officer of Vietinbank, the People's Procuracy said that, in court, Nhu declared that the investment trust contract signed with Ms. Hien was forged by Nhu. All her transactions with Nhu were not carried out at the bank's headquarters and were not conducted through Vietinbank's leaders. "Therefore, there is no basis to re-evaluate the trust contract that Ms. Hien signed with Nhu. The first instance judgment determined that Nhu had appropriated 274 billion VND from her, this responsibility belongs to Nhu personally, not Vietinbank", the People's Procuracy representative stated.

Regarding the appeals for reduced sentences and claims of injustice by the group of defendants who are officials of Vietinbank and VIB, most of them were rejected by the Procuracy because they were considered baseless. Only defendants Tong Nguyen Dung, Le Thi Ngoc Loi, and Huynh Trung Chi were recommended by the Procuracy to have their sentences reduced from 6 months to 12 months in prison because their families had contributed to the revolution.

Because the amount of damage related to the act of accomplices assisting Nhu in appropriating was re-determined, the People's Procuracy withdrew the appeal to increase the penalty, and at the same time rejected the appeal to reduce the sentence for Vo Anh Tuan (former deputy director of Vietinbank Nha Be branch). The defendant Dao Thi Tuyet Dung was proposed to be increased to 13-14 years in prison for the crime of Fraudulent appropriation of property instead of 10 years as applied by the first instance court.

Because she was found guilty of a crime while pregnant, Huynh My Hanh (Nhu’s older sister) was recommended by the Procuracy to have her sentence reduced by one year. Pham Anh Tuan (former General Director of Thai Binh Duong Company) was also recommended to have his sentence reduced by one year for the crime of “Abusing power and position while performing official duties”.

Regarding the group of defendants who committed the crime of loan sharking, including Nguyen Thi Lanh, Nguyen Thien Ly, and Pham Van Chi, the People's Procuracy proposed to review and reinvestigate the amount of illegal profits of both the defendants who appealed and the defendants who did not appeal.

According to the Institute, the investigation agency's determination of the defendants' illegal income assets is well-founded. Of which, defendant Lanh illegally earned more than 1,200 billion VND, Ly 735 billion VND, and Chi 5.9 billion VND. However, the court of first instance based on the defendants' statements declared the illegal income amount much lower or ignored it. "It is unclear why the court of first instance declared conflicting figures regarding the defendants' illegal income. This is a major shortcoming of the court of first instance that needs to be reconsidered and these assets must be confiscated for the state budget," the representative of the People's Procuracy stated.

Most of the appeals of the people with related rights and obligations were rejected. According to the court, the assets of these people must continue to be seized to ensure the execution of the judgment.

Regarding the villa worth 43 billion VND belonging to The Nam Hai project in Quang Nam that Huyen Nhu and her mother Nguyen Thi Lang requested back, the People's Procuracy said that at the investigation agency, Ms. Lang stated that this house was bought by Nhu and registered in her name. The source of the money to buy this villa was borrowed by Nhu from the bank and other individuals, so it needs to be further seized to ensure the execution of the judgment.

In addition, the Court of Appeal also upheld the recommendations of the court of first instance that the investigation agency needs to investigate and handle the responsibilities of Mr. Truong Minh Hoang and Ms. Nguyen Thi Minh Huong (former Deputy Director of Vietinbank Ho Chi Minh City branch); clarify the responsibilities of Mr. Nguyen Van Se (former Director of Vietinbank Ho Chi Minh City branch) for being an accomplice with Nhu.

According to VnExpress