HCM City (VNA)– The Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court on February 7 decided to return thedossier of the case “deliberately violating State regulations on economic managementcausing severe consequences” at the Vietnam Construction Bank (VNCB, nowConstruction Bank – CB), and requested further investigation.

According to the jury, during the over-one-monthtrial, defendant Tram Be, former Vice Chairman of the Saigon Thuong TinCommercial Joint Stock Bank (Sacombank), affirmed that he had met and discussedwith defendant Pham Cong Danh, former VNCB Chairman and former Chairman of theMember Council and General Director of Thien Thanh Group, and ordered Phan HuyKhang, former General Director of Sacombank, to make procedures for lendingmoney to Danh.

Tram Be said he had not known the real purposeof Danh’s borrowing and had not acted for his own interest. He added that hewas charged with intentionally violating State regulations is inappropriate andthat only he and Danh were brought to trial was unfair.

Meanwhile, defendants who are former employeesof the Bank for Investment and Development of Vietnam (BIDV) and the Tien PhongBank (TPBank) affirmed that they had not been acquainted with Danh and had notknown that the borrowing companies were related to Danh. The defendant admittedthey had only known that these companies were guaranteed by VNCB, and they hadnot gained personal benefits.

The jury requested further investigation toclarify whether the acts of these defendants were mistakes in their bankingoperations or intentional violations as they were prosecuted for.

During the trial, empowered by the SupremePeople’s Procuracy, the HCM City People’s Procuracy proposed revoking 6,126billion VND (nearly 270 million USD) from BIDV, TPBank and Sacombank to return itto VNCB as the money was evidence of the case. However, representatives of thethree banks opposed this proposal. The Vietnam Banks Association also suggestedthat the sum should not taken back to avoid affecting the banking system.

The jury requested that if the money was evidenceof the case, it is a must to clarify the money was evidence of whichintentional violation and this violation infringed which state regulation oneconomic management, so that there is basis for money recovery.

Another issue needed to be clarified is whetheror not the 4,500 billion VND that Danh borrowed from BIDV and TPBank to raiseVNCB’s chartered capital but was rejected by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) waspart of the total loss of 6,126 billion VND. The SBV confirmed that the 4,500billion VND had been transferred to VNCB.

The jury said this sum had been transferred byPham Cong Danh and used by VNCB. Therefore, it is necessary to make clear ifVNCB lost 6,126 billion VND or suffered from another level of loss.

Regarding Danh’s charge of “deliberatelyviolating State regulations on economic management causing severeconsequences”, during the trial, there is an opinion that Danh’s acts showedsigns of swindling to appropriate assets.

The jury said it is necessary to clarify whetherDanh used the borrowed money to pay for previous loans, use for personalpurposes, increase VNCB’s chartered capital, or pay salary for his employees.

This was the second phase of the case in whichPham Cong Danh and his accomplices caused losses worth trillions of VND to VNCB(the first phase involved 9 trillion VND).

According to the indictment, in 2013 and 2014,Pham Cong Danh needed money but was unable to directly borrow from VNCB. Heordered executives and staff of VNCB and the Thien Thanh Group to compile falsedocuments in the names of 29 companies which were established in Danh’s name orothers, in order to take loans from Sacombank, TPBank and BIDV. 

Danh used the borrowed money for personalpurposes and failed to pay off the debts.

He and his accomplices also used VNCB’s money todeposit at Sacombank, TPBank and BIDV as guarantees for his companies’ loans.The banks later kept the money as payment for the loans. Danh and his accomplices’acts caused losses of 6,126 billion VND to VNCB.-VNA