Presenting before the Trial Council, the defendants, who were the team leaders and inspection team leaders of the State Bank, expressed their remorse and desire to have their sentences reduced.
The defendant “felt ashamed”
On March 27, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City continued the first instance trial of the misconduct case at Van Thinh Phat Group and Saigon Commercial Joint Stock Bank (SCB) with the defense of lawyers for defendant Do Thi. Nhan, former Director of Department II, Inspection and Supervision Agency, State Bank (SBV).
Presenting before the jury, the lawyers said that the proposed life sentence for Ms. Nhan was too harsh and at the same time, they hoped the jury would reconsider the defendant’s crime of “receiving bribes”.
According to the indictment, defendant Do Thi Nhan is the head of the inspection team, directs the inspection team, and is mainly responsible for the inspection results under the direction of Mr. Nguyen Van Hung, Deputy Chief Inspector in charge of the Supervision Inspection Agency. Bank Supervisor (who makes the inspection decision).
During the inspection process, defendant Nhan received money from SCB Bank (through Mr. Vo Tan Hoang Van, General Director of SCB) with a particularly large amount of 5.2 million USD to direct his subordinates to report to the committee. issued a draft Inspection Conclusion that was not objective, not honest, and not true to SCB’s financial situation in order to cover up and cover up violations at SCB.
The lawyer asked the jury to thoroughly evaluate the objective details. Defendant Nhan did not proactively meet Ms. Truong My Lan (Chairman of the Board of Directors of Van Thinh Phat Group) but at the request of defendant Vo Tan Hoang Van. The content of the meeting is to exchange loans from companies in the Van Thinh Phat group.
The time of giving and receiving money takes place after the end of the inspection, it can be considered that the inspection responsibility has been completed at that time. Editing data in the draft inspection conclusion is under the direction of superiors and the person making the inspection decision.
Defending herself in court, defendant Do Thi Nhan said she “felt ashamed” about her behavior against public duty. During the investigation process, the defendant himself tried to overcome the problem, repented, and actively coordinated with the investigation agency.
“The case file shows that defendant Nhan did not agree or ask Ms. Lan to give money. The defendant’s consciousness when committing the crime was passive.
The defendant did not agree in advance and did not actively participate in the crime. The defendant called defendant Van to return the money, but defendant Van did not come to receive it” – the lawyer presented.
According to lawyers, defendant Nhan has four mitigating circumstances including: sincere confession, repentance, voluntary redress of consequences and good performance at work. Therefore, lawyers hope that the jury will make a comprehensive and objective assessment to reach a humane and humane verdict for their clients.
Defending herself in court, defendant Do Thi Nhan said she “felt ashamed” about her behavior against public duty. During the investigation process, the defendant himself tried to overcome the problem, repented, and actively coordinated with the investigation agency.
“The defendant hopes that the jury will consider allowing the defendant to enjoy the leniency of the Law. The defendant hopes for a humane and humane sentence, hitting those who run away, not those running back. I hope the jury will give the defendant a chance to return to his family soon” – defendant Nhan presented.
I hope the punishment will be reduced
Previously, at the trial on the afternoon of March 26, the jury allowed defendant Nguyen Van Hung (former Deputy Chief Inspector of the State Bank) and the defendant’s lawyer to defend. Defendant Hung’s lawyer proposed to reconsider the identification of this defendant as the leading mastermind and to properly determine defendant Hung’s role in the case.
According to the lawyer, defendant Hung made a mistake when he was the head and in charge of the inspection team, so he is responsible for the inspection team’s mistakes, but it must be clear what and how the defendant’s mistakes were.
Defendant Do Thi Nhan, former Director of Department II, Inspection and Supervision Agency, State Bank Photo: Duy Anh
According to the lawyer, defendant Hung admitted his mistakes and took responsibility as the leader, but needs to be considered when inspecting SCB Bank. Because defendant Hung is about to retire, he is subjective, negligent, and trusts his subordinates. The lawyer requested to consider additional mitigating circumstances because there are currently more than 100 people from the inspection and supervision agency asking to reduce the penalty for this defendant.
Meanwhile, defending defendant Tran Van Tuan (Head of Inspection Team No. 4 (phase 1), member of Team 1 (phase 2)), the lawyer requested to reconsider defendant Tuan’s role in the investigation. The supervising inspection agency, the defendant was not the one who directly inspected but only played a general role, so he only played a secondary role, extremely vague, the defendant’s conclusions during the inspection were not exactly correct. Partly due to objective factors.
