The Prosecution Rejects the Proposal to Hand Over Truong My Lan’s Assets to SCB for Handling

During the appeal trial of the Van Thinh Phat case, phase 1, which took place on the afternoon of November 25, there was a rebuttal from the representative of the VKSND Higher People’s Court and a defense statement from the lawyers for the defendants, as well as opinions protecting the interests of the victims, individuals, and organizations with related rights and obligations.

Firstly, the representative of SCB stated that among the 1,121 asset codes that the first-instance court ruled to hand over to SCB for handling, there were some assets (out of the 1,121 asset codes) that the first-instance court ruled to return to other individuals, thus creating an overlap. The representative also stated that defendant Truong My Lan has two independent obligations: to compensate VND 673,000 billion and to hand over 1,121 asset codes to SCB for handling.

Regarding this issue, the VKS representative said that currently, only 1,120 asset codes are mortgaged at SCB to secure 1,243 loans.

The reason is that, previously, the first-instance verdict recognized 1,121 asset codes, but on November 15, 2024, the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court issued a notice of correction to the verdict, stating that the mortgage of house and land at 24 Le Loi and one car had been lifted.

Regarding SCB’s appeal to force defendant Truong My Lan to compensate for the interest generated from the outstanding balance of 1,243 loans up to the time of the trial instead of up to the date of the initiation of the case (October 17, 2022), the VKS stated that SCB’s loss was the outstanding balance of the loans due to defendant Lan and the other defendants at SCB performing illegal acts, withdrawing money from SCB for other purposes.

Therefore, there is no basis to consider SCB’s appeal to calculate the interest of 1,243 loans up to the date of the trial, but only up to October 17, 2022, amounting to more than VND 673,000 billion.

The VKS also disagreed with SCB’s request to hand over Project 6A in Trung Son, Binh Chanh to SCB for management. The VKS representative stated that Project 6A was not seized in this case and was not collateral for any loan at SCB.

The source of the money used to repay the loan related to this project was from SCB, but there is no documentary evidence, so the handover of Project 6A to SCB is baseless.

Previously, when answering the interrogation at the appeal trial, defendant Truong My Lan voluntarily handed over Project 6A to the enforcement agency to remedy the consequences of the case, and the SCB representative agreed with this. The representative of the prosecution stated that defendant Lan’s voluntary handover of Project 6A to the enforcement agency should be acknowledged.

Also, according to the VKS, during the appeal trial, defendant Truong My Lan requested that the seized assets should not be handed over to SCB for handling, as SCB lacks experience in handling assets and would cause damage to the state.

Regarding this request, the VKS considered that since this is a criminal case, the Law on Criminal Judgment Enforcement and the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement must be applied.

Therefore, the assets cannot be handed over to SCB for management and handling, but must be handled by a competent authority, under the strict supervision of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Procuracy and the Supreme People’s Procuracy, to ensure the fastest and most effective handling of assets, thoroughly remedying the consequences of the case.