Trial of Huyen Nhu: Former ACB leaders not summoned

On the afternoon of December 15, the Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Ho Chi Minh City continued to try the fraud case of nearly VND 4,000 billion committed by defendant Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu (former Head of Dien Bien Phu Transaction Office of Vietnam Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Industry and Trade - Vietinbank, Ho Chi Minh City branch) and 22 accomplices.

Defendant Huyen Nhu in the courtroom

Will summon Director of Vietinbank Ho Chi Minh City branch if necessary

After reviewing the lawyers' recommendations in the morning proceedings, the Trial Panel partially accepted the recommendations of lawyer Phan Trung Hoai. Specifically, in order to ensure the solemnity of the trial, during the performance of their duties, lawyers can bring printed documents into the courtroom, but other electronic devices (computers, recorders, video recorders, etc.) are not allowed in the room.

Regarding the request of lawyer Luu Van Tam (protecting the legitimate rights and interests of Asia Commercial Joint Stock Bank (ACB) to summon former members of the Board of Directors and former leaders of ACB who are being tried in another case in Hanoi such as Nguyen Duc Kien (aka Bau Kien), Tran Xuan Gia, Ly Xuan Hai, Pham Trung Cang... to clarify some issues to be objective in the case, the panel of judges considered that this was a case of fraud and appropriation of property by Huyen Nhu and her accomplices, not a trial for the crime of intentionally violating the State's regulations on economic management causing serious consequences, so it was not necessary to summon former leaders of ACB. In court, ACB bank also had an authorized representative.

"Regarding the request to summon the leaders of Vietinbank, this bank also has an authorized representative, so this person will answer all questions related to Vietinbank during the interrogation process," said the representative of the People's Court.

In the case of Ms. Nguyen Thi Minh Huong and Mr. Truong Minh Hoang (former Deputy Director of Vietinbank, Ho Chi Minh City branch), the court summoned them as people with related rights and obligations like the first instance court, but they submitted a request for trial in absentia. Because of the status of Ms. Huong and Mr. Hoang as people with related rights and obligations, the measure of escort cannot be applied.

Lawyer Luu Van Tam also requested to summon Mr. Nguyen Van Se (Director of Vietinbank, Ho Chi Minh City branch). The panel of judges found that there was a basis to accept it, so during the trial, he will be summoned if necessary.

The court rejected the request to consider the procedural status of Viettinbank's representative.

Regarding lawyer Tam's request to consider the procedural status of one of the three representatives of Vietinbank, lawyer Nguyen Tan Hung (Hanoi Bar Association), the court rejected it. Lawyer Tam said that in the first instance, lawyer Hung defended defendant Huyen Nhu, now in the appeal hearing, he represents Vietinbank. "Lawyer Hung has received legal services for two clients with opposing interests in this criminal case, which is not allowed according to the Law on Lawyers," said lawyer Tam.

However, the panel of judges determined that lawyer Hung did not participate in the trial as a lawyer - a person protecting the rights of Vietinbank but as an authorized representative, so he is not subject to the Law on Lawyers.

Regarding the petition of lawyer Nguyen Huy Thiep (to protect the legal rights and interests of Ms. Do Thi Ngoc Diep), the court accepted and allowed lawyer Thiep to contact defendant Pham Anh Tuan in court.

The panel of judges also said that if during the trial it is necessary to summon relevant people with obligations to clarify and ensure objectivity in the case, the panel of judges will summon them.

Also this afternoon, the panel of judges read a summary of the 176-page first instance verdict.

The verdict stated that from March 2010 to September 2011, defendant Nhu forged 8 seals in the names of many agencies and units to create many documents, certificates, contracts... to defraud 9 companies, 3 banks and 3 individuals of more than 4,900 billion VND. By the time the case was discovered and prosecuted, Nhu had also appropriated nearly 4,000 billion VND. Most of the money Nhu appropriated was used to pay loan sharks.

The trial will continue tomorrow, December 16.

According to TNO