30-year prison sentence for Nguyen Duc Kien

At the sentencing, the panel of judges once again determined that the first instance verdict against Nguyen Duc Kien and the defendants was correct, with no injustice.

After a lengthy deliberation, on the afternoon of December 15, the Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Hanoi announced the verdict against defendant Nguyen Duc Kien and his accomplices.

The panel of judges at the appeal hearing

At the appeal hearing, the representative of Thien Nam Company withdrew all appeals, so the panel of judges suspended Thien Nam Company's appeal. Also at the appeal hearing, the defendants Pham Trung Cang, Trinh Kim Quang, and Huynh Quang Tuan withdrew their appeals, asked for a reduced sentence, and asked for a suspended sentence.

During the interrogation, defendant Kien claimed that he was wronged when the court of first instance sentenced him to 30 years in prison for four crimes: Illegal business, Tax evasion, Fraudulent appropriation of property, and Intentionally violating State regulations on economic management causing serious consequences.

The panel of judges stated that the State always encourages business, however, the law requires that business must be registered in the correct industry. During the production process, if you want to do business in a new industry, you must register. Any case of not registering is considered illegal business.

According to the People's Court, through appraisal, defendant Kien's companies were legally established, but were not registered according to the prescribed industry codes.

On behalf of the panel of judges, the presiding judge affirmed that the People's Procuracy believes that the conviction of defendant Nguyen Duc Kien for using tricks to appropriate 264 billion VND from Hoa Phat Steel Company Limited is not unjust. The first instance judgment determined that the former leaders of ACB had intentionally violated the law. Therefore, there is no basis for considering a reduction in the sentence. The People's Procuracy believes that the first instance court has fully considered the personal background and determined the appropriate sentence. At the appeal hearing, the defendants did not have any new details. Regarding defendant Huynh Quang Tuan, the People's Procuracy believes that his participation was limited, so it requests that the People's Procuracy consider a reduction but does not accept a suspended sentence.

Regarding the act of “Tax evasion”, the panel of judges determined that the defendant Kien’s B&B Company had committed the act of tax evasion of more than 25 billion VND in signing the contract with ACB. Because B&B evaded taxes, it was not entitled to tax exemption or reduction according to the regulations of the Ministry of Finance.

The panel of judges believes that the sentencing of Nguyen Duc Kien to 6 years and 6 months in prison for tax evasion is correct. However, the panel of judges accepts the appeal of B&B and defendant Kien regarding the amount of money the company must pay, so it deducts 104 million VND.

Nguyen Duc Kien and his accomplices listen to the verdict.

Regarding the crime of “Fraudulent appropriation of property”, according to the People’s Court, ACBI Company mortgaged nearly 30 million shares of Hoa Phat Steel to ACB to secure the obligation to issue 800 billion VND in bonds and handed them over to ACBS Securities Company for management. After that, defendant Kien agreed with Hoa Phat Steel to transfer 20 million shares for 264 billion VND, and assigned ACBI chief accountant Nguyen Thi Hai Yen to carry out the task.

However, ACB did not agree to release these shares because there was not enough collateral. On May 15, 2012, defendant Kien directed Yen to draft the meeting minutes and resolution agreeing to transfer the shares to Hoa Phat Steel. After receiving the initials of defendant Kien, Mr. Tran Ngoc Thanh (Director of ACBI) signed the contract with Hoa Phat Steel Company Limited. Having received 264 billion VND from the sale of shares, defendant Kien directed Yen to spend it on interest payments, capital contributions, etc.

According to the panel of judges, ACBI had committed that 20 million legal shares were not mortgaged or guaranteed to a third party. Therefore, this action was fraudulent, regardless of whether or not people knew that these shares were collateral. The entire agreement and signing process was directed by Kien to his subordinates. Therefore, the accusation that Kien, Thanh, and Yen committed a crime was not unjust. The panel of judges also rejected the lawyer's defense that these shares were shares recorded in the accounting books. The appellate panel considered this act to be particularly serious, and that defendant Kien played a major role in the case.

Regarding the act of "Intentionally violating state regulations on economic management causing serious consequences" of the defendants Nguyen Duc Kien, Ly Xuan Hai, Trinh Kim Quang, Le Vu Ky, Pham Trung Cang, Huynh Quang Tuan, the Appellate Court determined that the Standing Resolution of the Board of Directors of ACB dated March 22, 2010 authorized employees to deposit money in other credit institutions and caused a loss of nearly 719 billion VND to ACB.

The Court found that, according to the law, commercial banks do not deposit money in other credit institutions. Therefore, ACB, whether directly or through an intermediary, is considered to have violated the law. Any transaction arising from Resolution 22/3/2010 is a violation.

According to the People's Court, the embezzlement of more than VND 718 billion by Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu (former Head of Dien Bien Phu Transaction Office, VietinBank, Ho Chi Minh City Branch) is a common loss of ACB shareholders.

Regarding the stock investment that caused a loss of nearly VND688 billion, according to documents and statements of former ACB members, at that time, realizing that the stocks on the market were profitable, ACB invested to buy. According to the Appellate Court, ACB invested in a roundabout way through KienLongbank and Vietbank to lend to ACBS and ACI, ACI-HN companies to buy ACB's own shares. According to regulations, ACBS is not allowed to invest in companies owned by ACB. Although ACB did not directly provide credit, it indirectly transferred money through other banks.

The panel of judges determined that entrusting 19 employees to deposit more than 718 billion VND and investing in stocks causing a loss of 688 billion VND was the right person, the right crime.

The panel of judges rejected defendant Kien's opinion about not directing the purchase of ACB shares; rejected defendant Hai's testimony about not directing subordinates to purchase and invest in ACB shares.

The panel of judges believes that defendant Hai is the General Director and should know all the activities of ACB.

The trial agency determined that the defendants' actions had caused damage as alleged by the Court of First Instance. This was an especially serious act, occurring over a long period of time. The transfer of shares and bonds through KienLongbank and Vietbank was especially serious, not only causing damage to thousands of shareholders but also affecting the operation of the national economy.

The panel of judges said that during the appeal trial, it was found that defendant Ly Xuan Hai had no mitigating circumstances to consider.

Defendant Le Vu Ky was recorded as confessing honestly and repenting, so his sentence may be considered for leniency.

Defendants Trinh Kim Quang, Huynh Quang Tuan, and Pham Trung Cang have had mitigating circumstances considered. The verdict of the Court of First Instance was correct. At the appeal hearing, there was no basis for mitigating the sentence.

Therefore, the People's Court decided to sentence Nguyen Duc Kien to: 20 months in prison for illegal business; 6 years and 6 months in prison for tax evasion, with an additional fine of more than 75 billion VND; 20 years in prison for fraud and appropriation of property, with a fine of 100 million VND; 18 years in prison for intentionally violating state regulations on economic management causing serious consequences. The total sentence is 30 years in prison.

Ly Xuan Hai (49 years old, former general director of ACB bank): 8 years in prison for intentional violation.

Le Vu Ky (58 years old, former vice chairman of the board of directors of ACB bank): 4 years in prison.

Trinh Kim Quang (60 years old, former vice chairman of the board of directors of ACB bank): 4 years in prison.

Pham Trung Cang (60 years old, former vice chairman of the board of directors of ACB bank): 3 years in prison

Huynh Quang Tuan (56 years old, former member of the board of directors of ACB bank): 2 years in prison.

All six defendants were banned from holding banking-related positions for five years after completing their prison terms.

According to Justice