In the September 24 session, the trial of the defendants related to the Van Thinh Phat case, phase 2, the lawyer for defendant Ngo Thanh Nha, CEO of Van Thinh Phat Group, stated that Nha’s family had paid compensation of 3 billion VND.
In addition, defendant Nha also wanted to use her salary from nearly 30 years of working at Van Thinh Phat Group (about 7 billion VND) to rectify the situation.
According to Ngo Thanh Nha, through the media, she learned about the devastating storm and flooding in the northern provinces. During a family visit to the detention camp, Nha asked her family to try to collect 20 million VND to support the northern community.
The defendants in court.
As charged, defendant Nha, in her role as CEO of Van Thinh Phat Group and Chairman of An Dong Company, despite knowing that An Dong Company had no need for capital mobilization, carried out the instructions of Truong My Lan and signed all documents related to the issuance of bonds by this company, including: minutes and decisions of the general meeting of shareholders dated July 3, 2018.
The content of the minutes concerned cooperation with SPG Company to implement a contract for investment in the Mui Den Do Park project, with An Dong Company mobilizing capital in the form of loans from credit institutions, bond issuance, or other forms.
Defendant Nha also signed a contract for the purchase of corporate bonds dated December 18, 2018, regarding the purchase of 4,691,388 primary bonds with the code ADC-2018.09 by VIPD Company, so that Van Thinh Phat Investment Company could make five transfer transactions totaling 470 billion VND to An Dong Company as part of a series of fictitious transactions to establish two bond codes issued by An Dong Company in 2018.
These actions by defendant Nha aided Truong My Lan and accomplices in issuing bonds from An Dong Company, appropriating nearly VND 25,000 billion from more than 30,000 victims.
‘Many SCB staff have lost everything’
When asked by lawyer Nguyen Duc Binh, who was protecting the rights of the victims, about whether the bondholders knew that the package of bonds was unsecured, Mr. Vo Tan Hoang Van, former CEO of SCB, argued that information about the bond package had been made public.
He explained that these were privately issued bonds and were therefore not listed on the stock market.
The lawyer emphasized that many victims felt that SCB had intentionally deceived them, as bank staff did not provide clear advice about who the bonds were being purchased from. In response, Mr. Van expressed sympathy for the customers’ anger when the incident occurred. According to Mr. Van, the bond packages were structured from a five-year bond type into a form that allowed for annual interest payments.
Defendant Vo Tan Hoang Van.
From 2018 to 2020, no customers complained or expressed dissatisfaction with the bonds. Therefore, the accusation that SCB staff were dishonest in their consulting is baseless during the period when Mr. Van was the CEO.
Mr. Van also shared that SCB customers could take documents home to sign or sign them anywhere and then submit them. SCB only played a consulting role, while Tan Viet Securities Company was the ultimate beneficiary.
In addition, SCB was not the only distribution channel for Tan Viet; there were also other distribution channels.
Regarding the reason why SCB advised customers to buy bonds, Mr. Van said that the main purpose was to diversify the bank’s products and increase its revenue during the restructuring process. He also emphasized that, at certain times, SCB did not need to mobilize too much deposits from customers, so the bank introduced bond products to give customers the opportunity to invest in products with better returns in the market.
The lawyer pointed out that many victims believed that SCB staff should be jointly liable for compensating the bondholders. In response, defendant Van became emotional and asked the bondholders to allow more time for a satisfactory resolution.
“There are SCB staff who have lost everything and are in dire straits. I ask the Court and the law to consider their situation,” defendant Van said tearfully.
The Great Prosperity Scandal: Unveiling the ‘Magic’ Behind Turning Losses into Profits
Under the directive of Ms. Truong My Lan, her subordinates fabricated financial reports, turning losses into profits to meet the requirements for bond issuance. This deception enabled them to fraudulently obtain a substantial amount of money from unsuspecting victims.
The Alluring Enigma of Bond Money Management: Who Holds the Purse Strings?
“The enigmatic financial dealings of Ho Buu Phuong, a key figure in the sale of bonds, have come to light. While the funds generated from these sales remain shrouded in mystery, speculation points towards the high-ranking and influential Truong My Lan as the potential mastermind behind it all.”
“SCB Slashes Daily Instant Transfer Limit for Individual Customers to VND 10 Million”
In a surprising move, the bank has once again lowered the quick transfer limit for its 247 Napas service for the third time in less than a month. The limit, which was initially set at VND 200 million per day, has now been reduced to just VND 10 million per day for individual customers. This new limit applies across the board, whether transactions are made at the counter or through SCB eBanking channels.
