Hardship in Capital Mobilization
After hours of announcing the indictment, around noon on March 19, the jury isolated the defendant, Do Anh Dung (Chairman of Tan Hoang Minh Group), to question the remaining defendants.
In their first response, defendant Do Hoang Viet (Dung’s son) revealed that at Tan Hoang Minh, he held the position of Deputy General Director in charge of finance and accounting.
“Why did Tan Hoang Minh choose 3 companies in the indictment to issue bonds?” asked the presiding judge. Defendant Viet said that since 2021, due to the raging Covid-19 pandemic, it has been very difficult to obtain credit, so they issued bonds to raise capital from the public.
According to Viet, during this time, the group had many overdue debts but couldn’t borrow directly to repay them.
Viet further stated that Chairman Do Anh Dung was the one who proposed the bond issuance policy, and after the policy was established, Viet and his father met with the group’s leadership. At this meeting, Dung directed Viet and the key officials of Tan Hoang Minh to come up with a plan.
“Afterward, I held a separate meeting with the group’s key personnel to discuss the implementation method,” said defendant Viet.
Regarding the use of three companies, Ngôi Sao Việt, Cung Điện Mùa Đông, and Soleil, to issue bonds, Viet said that he had reported to Dung and instructed the staff to work with the auditing company to legitimize financial reports.
In addition, defendant Viet also instructed the staff to contact appraisal companies to issue appraisal reports as required by the consulting firm.
Regarding the “cash flow” plan to create “virtual” value, Viet admitted that specialized departments implemented it. However, when asked by the presiding judge, “Who was responsible if the conversion from 1 to 10 wasn’t implemented?” Viet initially tried to evade the question, but later had to admit that he himself had instructed the staff.
The defendants in court.
Implementing directives without benefiting
Regarding the allegation of “collusion” with the Appraisal Company and the Audit Company, Viet said that the specialized departments contacted each other for implementation based on the initial bond issuance policy approved by the Chairman and the CEO. When the bonds were sold on the market, all the proceeds were reported to the CEO.
“How much has Tan Hoang Minh compensated the victims?” asked the presiding judge. Defendant Viet said that he had paid more than 6,000 billion VND in addition to the amount claimed by the investigating agency, thus fully compensating the victims.
Next, defendants Hoang Quyet Chien (Deputy Director of the Financial and Accounting Center, and Director of the Finance and Accounting Department), Le Thi Mai (former Deputy Head of the Capital Source Department of Tan Hoang Minh), and Vu Le Van Anh (Deputy Director of the Capital Source Department) all confirmed the testimony of Deputy General Director Do Hoang Viet.
The defendants believed that creating “virtual” financial reports was wrong, but they only followed the bond issuance policy set forth at the meeting. The process did not result in material benefits but only salaries.
In the indictment, the Prosecutor’s Office accused the defendants of collaborating with the Appraisal Company and the Audit Company to legitimate the financial reports of the 3 issuing companies, giving full acceptance opinions to meet the conditions for bond issuance. They also signed “fake” contracts for bond transfer, created “fake” cash flows, and used assets from these “fake” investment cooperation contracts as collateral. From there, they created trust and used the Tan Hoang Minh corporation and brand to issue bonds, mobilizing over 14,000 billion VND. Defendant Do Anh Dung and his son were accused of misappropriating over 8,643 billion VND from 6,630 investors.
According to the Prosecutor’s Office, although the total value of the bonds was over 10,030 billion VND, at that time, Tan Hoang Minh’s account only had 40-200 billion VND.
