The Kien case: Defendants waver between claiming innocence and asking for reduced sentences

This morning, December 4, some defendants in the case of Nguyen Duc Kien (Bau Kien) and his accomplices such as Huynh Quang Tuan, Trinh Kim Quang and Pham Trung Cang changed from claiming innocence to asking for a reduced sentence.

Defendant Trinh Kim Quang in court. Photo captured via screen

In addition to the defendants' actions of investing in ACB Bank's own stocks, causing a loss of 687 billion VND to the bank, on the morning of December 4, the People's Court focused on the act of ACB Bank entrusting deposits to Vietinbank, which was then appropriated by "super fraudster" Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu for more than 718 billion VND.

According to the prosecution, on March 22, 2010, ACB Bank held a regular meeting of the Board of Directors with the participation of the Founding Council Tran Mong Hung (Chairman) and Nguyen Duc Kien (Vice Chairman, also known as Mr. Kien) and a number of related officials, to discuss plans for using uninvested capital.

At the meeting, ACB General Director Ly Xuan Hai proposed a plan to authorize employees to deposit the bank's money in other banks to receive interest on deposits and receive additional "commissions" and promotions according to the regulations of each bank receiving deposits. This proposal was approved by Mr. Kien.

Immediately afterwards, the standing members of the Board of Directors (Tran Xuan Gia, Pham Trung Cang, Trinh Kim Quang, Le Vu Ky, Ly Xuan Hai) agreed and signed the minutes, with the following content: “Agree to entrust individuals to deposit VND and USD at credit institutions. Assign the General Director to supervise the deposit limit at credit institutions… Authorize the Chief Accountant to organize the implementation and sign the entrustment contract”.

To implement the above policy, from June 27, 2011 to September 5, 2011, Ly Xuan Hai directed and authorized Nguyen Van Hoa (Chief Accountant of ACB Bank) to entrust more than VND 718 billion to 19 ACB Bank employees to deposit savings at Vietinbank Nha Be branch and Ho Chi Minh City branch, deposit term from 3-6 months with interest rate stated in the contract of 14%/year; interest rate agreed outside the contract from 3.7 to 13%/year.

After receiving the entrusted money, 17 ACB Bank employees signed a deposit contract at Vietinbank Ho Chi Minh City Branch for VND 668.9 billion; 2 employees signed a deposit contract at Vietinbank Nha Be Branch for VND 50 billion, but the entire deposit amount was appropriated by Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu (Acting Head of Dien Bien Phu Transaction Office of Vietinbank Ho Chi Minh City Branch) using fraudulent tricks, causing damage to ACB Bank.

According to the accusation, this entrustment was carried out without instructions on entrustment operations from the State Bank, thus violating Article 106 of the 2010 Law on Credit Institutions and causing damage to ACB Bank of more than VND 718 billion.

At the trial this morning, December 4, defendant Pham Trung Cang (former Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of ACB) stated the reason for switching from appealing his innocence to reducing his sentence, regarding the matter of letting employees entrust deposits, there were many different opinions. “I work part-time at ACB Bank, there is a lot of information I do not know. At that time, the legal department affirmed that there was nothing wrong; Tran Xuan Gia agreed, saying that the law allows it, anything that the law does not prohibit, we can do. The other members did not have any opinions, so I agreed to sign” - defendant Cang stated the reason.

This defendant said that after the time in detention, he was very regretful because he saw that this solution was not right. "As for my alibi, I went to the US from May 9, 2011 and returned from September 20, 2011. When I deposited money into Vietinbank, I was not in Vietnam. The first instance court did not wrong me, but it was a bit harsh because when the consequences happened, I was no longer at the bank. Please reduce the sentence" - defendant Pham Trung Cang said.

Defendant Trinh Kim Quang (former Vice Chairman of ACB Board of Directors) was uncertain in court whether to plead innocence or ask for a lighter sentence. “I don’t think it’s an injustice, because in the highest position of the Bank, when such an incident happened, I must have some responsibility. I think I might be guilty, but let me continue to explain what I am,” said defendant Quang.

At the time of the resolution, Article 106 of the Law on Credit Institutions did not exist. “I would like the court to distinguish between two different periods. In 2010, I only signed one document. Retrospective action in 2010 is not very appropriate. The minutes in 2010, according to the perception at that time, the entrustment was not illegal,” said defendant Trinh Kim Quang.

"In 2011, I was aware of the entrustment, but until now I still cannot determine whether it is illegal or not. Because the State Bank has not issued any document prohibiting the entrustment of money deposits, which has existed for many years before that" - defendant Quang continued.

“Mr. Gia (former Chairman of the Board of Directors of ACB Tran Xuan Gia - PV) always reminded us that: The spirit of the new Enterprise Law is that enterprises are allowed to do anything that is not prohibited by law. Whether the amount of 718 billion has been damaged or not is not clear, it needs to be clarified” - defendant Trinh Kim Quang said.

Similarly, defendant Huynh Quang Tuan (former member of ACB's Board of Directors) began his presentation: "The appeal is not necessarily a petition for redress, and the request for review is not necessarily a plea of ​​guilty. I only ask for an objective assessment to avoid making unfavorable inferences to me. In case of conviction, I ask the panel of judges to consider personal factors."

“I would like the panel of judges to evaluate my actions objectively. I have not done anything to show that I agree with that policy because this is not the area I am in charge of. I pay very little attention to this area... I hope the panel of judges will understand that I am not a legal expert and am not capable of making my own assessment,” the defendant confessed.

In response to the defendants’ opinions, the panel of judges suggested that consideration be given to whether the defendants should be released immediately if they claim to be innocent and have a real basis for their innocence; if they ask for a lighter sentence, that would be different. “The defendants need to think calmly, listen to the entire proceedings of the trial, and improve their awareness of the law,” the presiding judge said.

According to Laborer