The Procuracy determined that defendant Lan holds almost absolute ownership of shares, participates in the general meeting of shareholders, which is the highest decision-making body, and uses her power to elect the Board of Directors, the supervisory board, and appoint her own people. Lan entered management, turning SCB into a tool to mobilize and appropriate money.
In addition, according to Article 17 of the Penal Code, which regulates accomplices, Ms. Lan is determined to be the organizer, mastermind, and leader who acts to dominate and direct the defendants to help her appropriate property. Based on this, the Procuracy believes that there is enough evidence to determine that Ms. Truong My Lan committed the crime of property embezzlement.
The Procuracy representative also said that in reality, Truong My Lan does not have as many assets as she presented and does not have abundant financial resources.
Of the 1,169 properties related to Truong My Lan that were distrained, only about 60 properties were purchased by the defendant before 2012, with the remaining 1,109 properties purchased by the defendant after 2012 (accounting for 94.8%). This is the amount of assets thanks to using money appropriated from SCB to invest and buy assets.
“Truong My Lan is the first businesswoman to use sophisticated tricks to appropriate such a large amount of money.” the Procuracy representative said.
Before merging the three banks, Ms. Lan had many loans at SCB (old) and Tin Nghia Bank. While defendant Truong My Lan and other defendants at SCB presented bad debts and low value collateral.
“If the defendant has many assets, why does he not settle the above debts, but use SCB to mobilize deposits from the people? The Procuracy said that the money that defendant Lan appropriated was money mobilized from the people.
“The State Bank tried its best to lend SCB a huge amount of money to pay gradually and stabilize the financial situation, not knowing when it would be fully recovered. This huge amount of money should be used for many purposes for us, our children and grandchildren. What did the lawyer say that the defendant was appropriating property for? To buy a lot of real estate”, Procuracy analysis.
During the prosecution and trial process, defendant Lan submitted many applications and arguments. The Procuracy said that all of the defendant’s petitions and written statements were carefully studied by the prosecution agency, and the prosecutor’s response argued for each of the defendant’s points of view. There is no way for a defendant to present or submit a petition without any response.
Also at the trial, the lawyer protecting the rights and interests of SCB Bank said that the compensation liability of the defendants in this case is closely tied to the responsibilities of the defendants, so it must be resolved in the case. cannot be separated to resolve in another civil case such as the.
SCB calculated interest until the date of trial of the case, according to the lawyer, the damage in the case was determined to be 677,000 billion VND from 1,284 loans. Interest as of March 5, 2024 is 84,500 billion VND. This is the interest incurred. In fact, up to now SCB still has to pay interest and fees to the State Bank and other banks on the amount appropriated by SCB.
Hoang Tho