While Mr. Nguyen Van Hung declared that he did not instruct the inspection results to be falsified, Ms. Do Thi Nhan said that it was the former Deputy Chief Inspector of the State Bank who directed the correction and will present evidence to prove it. .
The trial of the case that occurred at Van Thinh Phat Group and Saigon Commercial Joint Stock Bank (SCB) will continue on March 19, with arguments and representatives of the prosecutor’s office will impeach the defendants. .
Who falsified SCB inspection results?
Two weeks into the trial, the defendants gave testimonies about the crimes listed in the indictment.
Among them, the most notable is the contradictory testimony of Mr. Nguyen Van Hung (66 years old, from Hanoi City, former Deputy Chief Inspector in charge of the State Bank’s Inspection and Supervision Agency) and Ms. Do Thi Nhan (58 years old, from Thai Binh, former Director of Banking Inspection and Supervision Department 2) about violations in SCB inspection.
At the trial on March 8, Ms. Nhan admitted that the inspection conclusion did not accurately reflect objective reality. Ms. Nhan did not edit but only added the conclusion and the loans were classified in groups 3 – 5 but were classified in group 1 following Mr. Hung’s direction.
Ms. Nhan also testified that she herself tried her best when the inspection and reports determined the conditions to put SCB under special control and transferred it to the investigation agency.
“According to Mr. Hung’s instructions, the defendant did wrong. The defendant realized that he had committed a violation…”, Ms. Nhan presented.
Meanwhile, Mr. Hung declared that the nature of the SCB inspection is a periodic inspection, not an unexpected inspection, and later when he worked with the investigation agency, he discovered there were data discrepancies. in the report.
Mr. Hung said, please take responsibility as the leader; There are shortcomings and lack of supervision during the inspection process, which leads to not reflecting reality and distorting SCB’s financial results.
Notably, Mr. Hung said that the direction to narrow the scope of inspection according to plan 92 to 99 was due to Ms. Nhan’s proposed change because there was not much time and the workload was too large.
“The defendant adjusted because he thought purely about adjusting in terms of time, not thinking deeper. The defendant admitted that this adjustment did not clarify the violations of 71 customers. I hope the jury will consider it because consciously the defendant was completely not proactive in doing it,” Mr. Hung presented and declared that because he was near retirement, he did not devote all his energy and attention to the inspection, leading to violations.
Questioned again on this matter at the trial on March 14, Mr. Hung declared that he was the person who signed the inspection decision, not the person in charge of inspection and supervision; Do not direct or falsify inspection results. Mr. Hung also said that he read the inspection team’s report and was the one who approved the inspection team’s report to report to the State Bank (SBV).
Mr. Nguyen Van Hung. Photo: Duy Anh.
Mr. Hung declared that he did not clearly remember participating in meetings where inspection team members reported the results and that during the inspection process, the results were not sent to members of the Board of Directors or the bank’s supervisory board…
Meanwhile, Ms. Nhan declared that the first inspection results report was correct, close to the actual inspection conclusions and presented it to Mr. Hung to report the content to the State Bank and prepare for the Government reporting meeting. government, but Mr. Hung directed it to be corrected.
After that, Ms. Nhan instructed her subordinates Nguyen Thi Phung, Nguyen Tuan Anh, and Vu Khanh Linh to correct it.
“The defendant said that defendant Hung did not dare to admit that he had directed the correction. The defendant will present evidence to prove that Mr. Hung directed. The defendant is only responsible for reporting to Mr. Hung’s desk and also reporting to the leaders of the State Bank and the government, Mr. Hung is responsible,” Ms. Nhan presented.
How did the two inspections take place?
Phase 1 inspection with a duration of 45 days, from August 16, 2017 with 5 working groups and headed by Ms. Nhan.
Inspection content includes: credit granting activities from June 30, 2014, interest and fees receivable, status of bad debt handling, implementation of the State Bank’s restructuring plan for the period 2015 – 2019 in terms of structure. In turn, handle SCB’s bad debts.
In particular, focusing on the main contents of debt restructuring, maintaining the same debt group for restructuring plans and projects; Evaluate SCB’s management and operations activities for inspection contents.
Ms. Nguyen Thi Phung. Photo: Duy Anh.
Based on the inspection results report of the members of the Delegation and the Inspection Teams, on December 18, 2017, the Inspection Team established and signed a working record with SCB with 7 violations. Among them, there were violations in classifying bad debts to a higher group.
The second inspection was conducted within 15 days, from April 12, 2018 with 3 working groups to clarify 3 contents, including: clarifying violations in credit granting and lending activities, service money transfer, if signs of violation of the Law are detected, it is recommended to transfer to the authorities for consideration and handling according to regulations; Determine the current status of credit granting, use of loan money, ownership relationship of Van Thinh Phat group and Ms. Truong My Lan for a group of 71 customers with addresses at 4 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai (District 1, Ho Chi Minh City ).
inspect SCB’s credit granting and debt collection activities for customers at 4 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai with outstanding debt as of March 31, 2018 and at the time of inspection; Inspect SCB’s compliance with regulations on credit limits in granting credit to customers with outstanding debt as of March 31, 2018…
According to the indictment, the Inspection Team covered up violations according to SCB’s suggestions and recommendations; reports suggesting dishonesty and incomplete inspection results; Adjusting the inspection plan against the Government’s direction in a direction that is beneficial to SCB. The draft inspection conclusion is not objective and violates the law; Receiving money, gifts and other material benefits from SCB to violate official duties during the inspection process.
During the inspection process at SCB, the defendants repeatedly received money and gifts from SCB to commit the above violations. Of which, Mr. Hung received 390,000 USD.
The defendants at the trial on March 15. Photo: Duy Anh.
The indictment also determined that Mr. Hung was the person who made the inspection decision, directly directed Ms. Nhan and was responsible for reporting the inspection results to the State Bank and the Government.
Ms. Nhan carried out Mr. Hung’s instructions and directly directed Ms. Phung and the synthesis team to prepare and edit reports of the Inspection Team and draft inspection conclusions.
The remaining members of the delegation had an implementation role, agreed to follow the instructions, reported incompletely, dishonestly, and covered up SCB’s violations to the leaders of the State Bank of Vietnam and the Government; concluded the inspection in the direction of not putting SCB under special control, allowing SCB to continue restructuring; Failure to transfer violation records to the investigation agency for handling according to regulations; Prioritize the application of economic solutions.
The above actions led to failure to promptly prevent and allow Ms. Truong My Lan and her accomplices to withdraw and use SCB’s money in violation of the Law, causing particularly serious consequences.