Appeal trial of "super fraud" Huyen Nhu case: Many defendants claim innocence

On December 16, the Court of Appeal, Ho Chi Minh City People's Court continued to bring Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu and her accomplices to trial. This is the second day the Court of Appeal considers the appeals of the defendants in this case.

On the first working day, the Court completed the court attendance procedures for the participants in the proceedings. The representative of the Supreme People's Procuracy exercising the right to prosecute in court is announcing the first instance judgment announcing the wrongdoings and crimes of the defendants.

Today, in addition to the Procuracy announcing the remaining part of the verdict, the trial will move on to questioning the defendants in the case of Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu and her accomplices defrauding and appropriating 4,000 billion VND.

At exactly 8:10 a.m., the panel of judges began their work. At the beginning of the morning session, the Procuracy continued to announce the rest of the verdict against Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu and her accomplices.

According to the verdict announced by the People's Procuracy: Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu and her accomplices must compensate companies, organizations and individuals for damages in the amount of nearly 4,000 billion VND.

The court of first instance also ordered the defendants charged with loan sharking in this case to return the illegally obtained profits.

The first instance judgment also continued to maintain the asset seizure, temporary detention and account freezing order for the assets to ensure enforcement of the judgment.

At court, the People's Procuracy also announced the appeals and protests of the parties involved in this case, including the protest of the People's Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City regarding the increase in the charges against the two defendants: Vo Anh Tuan (Former Deputy Director of Vietinbank - Nha Be Branch) and Dao Thi Tuyet Dung (Former Director of Dung Van Company Limited).

Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu appealed for civil review of Villa H2 The Nam Hai Resort (in Hoi An, Quang Nam).

Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu (face covered) at the trial this morning, December 16

Huyen Nhu said that this villa worth 43 billion VND belongs to Ms. Nguyen Thi Lang - the defendant's mother. This villa is currently being seized to serve the execution of the judgment.

Defendant Huynh My Hanh – Huyen Nhu’s sister appealed for a lighter sentence. Other defendants in the case appealed for a review of their charges, for a lighter sentence, and claimed innocence…

Organizations and companies involved in this case also have a series of appeals against the first instance verdict.

The People's Procuracy concluded the summary of the first instance judgment, appeals and protests in this case.

Expressing the opinion on the appeal of the Ho Chi Minh City People's Procuracy, regarding the increase in the penalty for the two defendants: Vo Anh Tuan (Former Deputy Director of Vietinbank - Nha Be Branch) and Dao Thi Tuyet Dung (Former Director of Dung Van Company Limited), the representative of the Supreme People's Procuracy holding the right to prosecute at the court maintained the appeal opinion.

At court, defendant Luong Thi Viet Yen (born 1973, from Nghe An), former Head of Vo Van Tan Transaction Office, Vietinbank Nha Be branch, requested to change her appeal to request a reduction in her sentence.

In court, Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu asked to maintain her appeal on the civil issue. “I ask the panel of judges to consider the defendant’s circumstances,” Huyen Nhu said.

8:50 am: The panel of judges begins the questioning session. The presiding judge announces: In the next two sessions, the panel of judges will focus on questioning the crime of Fraudulent appropriation of property.

Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu was the first person questioned by the People's Court for the crime of Fraudulent Appropriation of Property.

Huynh Nhu admitted that he had defrauded and appropriated nearly 4,000 billion VND from individuals, organizations and companies. Huynh Nhu also admitted that the first instance verdict correctly charged the defendant with the crime.

In court, Nhu stated: Working at Vietinbank Ho Chi Minh City branch since 2001. During her time working here, in 2011, Nhu was appointed as deputy head of risk management department.

With expertise in the field of credit and currency, Nhu said that working in this position is in line with her training. The chairman continued: "Not only is it correct, but it also develops very well, right?"

Responding to the jury, Nhu said that in the banking industry, there is no regulation for banks to deposit money into other banks through other individuals or organizations to gain benefits. Regarding the mobilization of money by banks, Huyen Nhu also affirmed that it is completely wrong.

Responding to the panel of judges' technical questions, Nhu explained the difference between a savings account and a deposit account. These two accounts are different. In a payment account, customers use the account to make payments, while in a savings account, customers deposit money to earn interest.

As stated, customers with deposits have the right to open savings accounts, while organizations and individuals do not have the right to open savings accounts. As stated, these two types of accounts have two different regulations, 1284 and 1160.

Regarding organizations and individuals who are not allowed to deposit savings accounts, Nhu said she did not remember all the regulations, but Nhu said: "The defendant understands that, for this organization, money must always circulate."

Pausing the questioning of Huyen Nhu, the chairman invited representatives of the banks: ACB, Vietinbank, Navibank to answer two questions about the difference between deposit accounts and savings accounts and whether credit institutions have the right to entrust deposits to each other or not?

Regarding these two accounts, ACB representative said: There are differences between payment deposits and savings deposits in terms of subjects and interest rates.

Regarding deposit entrustment, ACB said: The Law on Credit Institutions 2011 stipulates that credit institutions can deposit money to each other through the interbank system.

Regarding the difference between the two accounts, Vietinbank representative, Mr. Nguyen Tien Hung confirmed as answered by Huyen Nhu and ACB representative that these two types of accounts are different.

Mr. Hung also said that at the time Huynh Nhu committed the crime, there were no regulations allowing two banks to send money to each other through intermediaries.

Navibank representative also confirmed: Credit institutions are allowed to deposit money through the interbank system. This bank representative also said: "The law does not prohibit entrustment through individual bankers."

The difference between these two types of accounts, Navibank representative also confirmed there is a difference.

To clarify the issue, the chairman asked the representative of the State Bank to act as arbitrator: Regarding the two types of savings and deposit accounts, the State Bank said: according to the State Bank's regulations: savings accounts are only for individuals, while deposit accounts include both organizations and individuals.

Regarding the entrustment of deposits of credit institutions, representatives of the State Bank issued a series of specific documents on this issue.

After temporarily stopping the questioning of the representatives of the three banks, the panel of judges continued to question Huyen Nhu about the processes and procedures for the two types of deposit accounts and savings accounts.

According to Huyen Nhu, to have a deposit account, one must have a business registration, signature, legal seal, etc. As for a savings account, individuals only need an ID card and a sample signature.

Also according to Vietinbank representative, at this bank: The procedure for opening two accounts follows two different sequences. In Vietinbank's regulations, there are also two forms for opening these types of accounts.

Approvals only require the teller and the inspector, however in some special cases, if requested by the customer, it will be submitted to higher management.

The panel clarified the use of these two types of accounts.

Huynh Nhu said that the account owner has the right to use his/her account. According to the principle, the customer has the right to use the customer's money. The customer has the right to request the Bank to check the account balance; the right to notify the Bank of any errors in the account. The Bank must carry out the account owner's orders.

When the Bank receives the payment order from the account holder, the teller checks the seal and signature registered according to the account records. When the teller accepts, the controller signs and approves, then the order becomes effective.

As for the payment order using fake signatures, Nhu said that it is very difficult to detect with the naked eye.

The jury questioned Huyen Nhu about the accounting of money in the bank's books.

According to Huyen Nhu, the right to manage and use money is still the customer's right, and the bank only acts as an intermediary. Regarding the issue of putting money into accounting books, Huyen Nhu hesitantly said: "It's been a long time so the defendant doesn't remember clearly."

To clarify this issue, the panel invited the representative of the State Bank. However, the representative of the State Bank "asked for a delay" until the afternoon to clarify this issue with the panel.

When asked to answer about interbank electronic payment orders, a representative of Vietinbank said: Interbank money transfer orders are issued by banks through the State Bank's system. "If company A withdraws money from bank A and transfers money to Vietinbank, this order will arise," the chairman gave an example to clarify the issue.

For this amount to be included in the accounting, it must arise after the transaction. When the money is transferred to the account, the receiving bank must immediately incur the obligation to provide services to the customer.

Regarding the accounting without signature, Vietinbank representative said it is completely valid according to regulations.

Responding to the panel of judges about the order to transfer money from the account holder's account to another place, the representative of Vietinbank continued: After the bank opens the account, the signature and seal are saved in the computer system. The teller receives the documents and compares them on the computer with the signatures and seals saved in the system. In addition to comparing the identification code, the system only rejects when the amount in the account is not enough to cover the payment order.

According to VOV