Defendant Truong My Lan denied holding more than 90% of SCB Bank’s shares and claimed that she only held 5%.
On March 11, the defendant’s trial was held Truong My Lan (former Chairman of Van Thinh Phat Group) and 85 other defendants at Van Thinh Phat Group, Saigon Commercial Joint Stock Bank (SCB) and related organizations continued with the questioning.
Defendants Truong My Lan and Nguyen Cao Tri were the last two defendants questioned by the jury.
“Only holds 5% of shares”
Responding before the jury, defendant Lan admitted part of the same behavior as the indictment. There are some inaccuracies, for example, the defendant does not hold more than 90% of the shares of SCB bank, but only holds less than 5% (specifically 4.9%), if calculating the total shares. The defendant’s family holds only about 15%. For the remainder, the defendant stood as a guarantee and mobilized friends abroad to hold about 30%, and friends in Vietnam held more than 30%.
The chairman asked: “Everyone who bought shares of SCB said they bought shares in their name to help Truong My Lan. How does the defendant explain this issue?”
Defendant Lan declared that these names were completely unknown to him and were not on behalf of the defendant because the defendant’s friends were all overseas Vietnamese, Canadians, Australians, etc. According to regulations, they were not allowed to buy shares in their names, so his friend The defendant must find a Vietnamese person to help him, not in his name to help the defendant.
Talking about the group of overseas shareholders accounting for 30% of SCB shares, defendant Lan said that after the merger of the three banks, the situation of SCB bank was very difficult. The defendant must mobilize friends abroad and sponsor them to invest in SCB, to revive SCB.
Defendant Lan also said that when the three banks merged, state agencies asked her to help because at that time, the shareholder groups of all three banks were in chaos, fighting for shares with each other. “Therefore, the defendant called on friends and relatives to join hands to buy more than 65% of the shares so that he could have the authority to issue a resolution to merge the three banks, not “take over” as the indictment stated. mentioned” – Truong My Lan said.
Denies charges of operating a bank
The presiding judge continued to question: “All other defendants, the general director and chairman of the Board of Directors of SCB bank… all determined to follow Truong My Lan’s instructions. How does the defendant explain this?” .
Defendant Lan declared: “From the beginning, the defendant was assigned the task of helping the three banks merge. After the merger, no one was a close relative of the defendant. Le Khanh Hien was the first person to be the general director, the defendants Thu Suong, Vo Tan Hoang Van… were not close relatives of the defendant, these people only worked for about a year and then quit. If they were close, then worked and worked with the defendant for a long time.
Besides, right from the beginning, the defendant’s mission was to help the three banks merge, and after the merger, the defendant did not direct or operate.”
Declaring about defendant Do Thi Nhan (head of the inspection team), defendant Lan declared that she did not know Do Thi Nhan, but that Vo Tan Hoang Van and Dinh Van Thanh asked the defendant to meet Ms. Nhan to tell her to end the inspection early and continue. Support SCB Bank to borrow assets and call for foreign investors to help SCB.
The presiding judge continued to question Dong Phuong Company’s loans: “Dong Phuong Company borrowed 1,700 billion but only used 400 billion, the remaining amount was given to the defendant to use. How does the defendant explain this issue?
Defendant Lan claimed this issue was incorrect because at that time, the state bank was tightening real estate lending and encouraging commercial lending. So when he met the leader of Dong Phuong Company, the defendant saw that this company was doing very well, so the defendant lent assets to guarantee the loan for Dong Phuong Company. Because the collateral belonged to the defendant, Tung (chairman of Dong Phuong Company) thought it was his property and had the right to use all 1,700 billion VND, which was incorrect.
The trial is still continuing to question defendant Truong My Lan
