What Conditions Could Spare Truong My Lan from the Death Sentence?

On November 25th, the Ho Chi Minh City High-Level People’s Court continued the appellate trial of defendant Truong My Lan, former chairman of Van Thinh Phat Group, along with 47 other defendants in a major case involving the group, Saigon Commercial Bank (SCB), and related organizations.

The trial proceeded with the presentation of opinions by the representative of the Ho Chi Minh City High-Level People’s Procuracy regarding the defense arguments put forward by the lawyers representing the defendants.

The representative of the Ho Chi Minh City High-Level People’s Procuracy maintained their stance on defendant Truong My Lan, including a sentence of 16-18 years imprisonment for “Violating regulations on lending in the operation of credit institutions”; 20 years imprisonment for “Bribery” and the death penalty for “Embezzlement.” The cumulative sentence proposed is the death penalty.

According to the Procuracy, defendant Lan, as a major shareholder with 91.5% of the shares and the highest authority at SCB, instructed her accomplices to fabricate loan applications and withdraw funds from SCB for personal purposes, causing serious damage to the bank. Out of 1,284 loans, Lan’s group accounted for 93% of the total principal debt, classified as Group 5 debt (unable to be recovered).

Despite the lawyers’ argument that Lan’s actions only involved “debt swapping” and that the money did not leave the bank, the Procuracy affirmed that the borrowed funds were utilized for various personal purposes, such as purchasing projects and personal spending, and were no longer under the bank’s control. The investigation also determined that 84% of the 1,169 seized assets were acquired after 2012, coinciding with the period of Lan’s criminal offenses.

The Procuracy concluded that Lan’s criminal conduct was pervasive and caused significant harm to SCB and the financial system, hence the death penalty is commensurate with the nature and severity of the case.

Regarding the request made by defendant Truong My Lan and her lawyers, arguing that she has mitigating circumstances for the “Embezzlement” charge, the Procuracy representative emphasized: “This is a significant issue that needs to be carefully considered.”

According to the Procuracy, the provisions of Point c, Clause 3, Article 40 of the Criminal Code clearly state that a death sentence may not be carried out if the convicted person returns at least two-thirds of the embezzled property. Additionally, Resolution No. 03 of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court provides guidance that in cases where the offender or their family returns a minimum of three-quarters of the embezzled property, the competent authority shall consider reducing the sentence.

Based on these regulations, the Procuracy stated that for there to be a basis for considering a reduction in the death penalty, defendant Truong My Lan needs to return three-quarters of the embezzled assets. According to the first-instance verdict, Lan was convicted of embezzling VND 304,000 billion. Therefore, to meet the above-mentioned ratio, Lan must return approximately VND 220,000 billion to have a basis for requesting a reduction in the death sentence.

During the execution of the sentence, if the defendant actively cooperates with the authorities in remedying the consequences, she can submit a petition to the President of Vietnam requesting a reduction of the sentence.

The Procuracy also acknowledged the cooperative attitude and efforts made by defendant Truong My Lan to remedy the consequences. However, they emphasized that “the amount of damage in this case is enormous, unprecedented in the history of justice.”