Confessions of a bank officer for the fraud of VND 433 billion
HanoiQuan Trong Duc, former director of VietABank Hanoi branch, and his subordinates had contradictory statements, “blaming” each other, not admitting that they had done wrong in the process when aiding the “super trick” Ha Thanh.
On the afternoon of May 5, after two days of publishing 164 pages of indictments and questioning a number of defendants, the trial of 17 former bankers in the case scam 433 billion has been postponed. Chairman Phan Huy Cuong announced to return the file to investigate more details that have not been clarified and inconsistencies in the testimony of some people.
The two individuals will continue to be confronted, taking statements to review whether there are signs of behavior Fraudulent appropriation of assetsincluding Mr. Dang Nghia Toan, now a person with related rights and obligations, and the defendant Quan Trong Duc, former director of Hanoi branch of Viet A Commercial Joint Stock Bank (VietABank), who were prosecuted for the crime of Lack of responsibility causes serious consequences.
Previously, in the interrogation section, Duc and his subordinate, defendant Nguyen Thi Thu Huong, former head of corporate customer relations department at Dong Do transaction office, VietAbank, gave two conflicting versions of the testimony.
Huong claimed that she “super cheated” Nguyen Thi Ha Thanh, the mastermind of the case, saying that she had “no money” before, but still wanted to open a savings book with others in the form of a co-owner deposit contract, which means each person contributes a part. .
Thanh also made it clear to Huong that he intends to later pledge this deposit (passbook) to make a document to prove his financial capacity to “relate to apply for a project”. Thanh asked Huong to create conditions, otherwise “will not send money to VietAbank”.
Huong said that due to “customer satisfaction”, she reported this matter to director Quan Trong Duc to solve it together.
Initially, Duc proposed a balance receipt, but Thanh disagreed. Duc and Huong proposed to follow the second option. Accordingly, in addition to releasing co-owned passbook According to banking regulations, will issue more term deposit contract and blockade request letter.
Duc directed Huong to take the forms and Duc arbitrarily edited the content to match the prescribed bank form, signed and stamped himself. This was not known to other employees, Huong presented in court.
“I completely disagree with Huong’s above statement. I have never met Thanh, only heard the incident through Huong’s report. I also did not discuss with Huong about making illegal contracts and savings books”, defendant Duc immediately denied the testimony of his colleague.
Chairman Phan Huy Cuong questioned: “The defendant said he did not know, why did he still agree to sign and seal the forms related to Thanh’s file?”. Duc said that this was a “hole” in the bank’s operation and the defendant only signed documents in accordance with regulations, that is, when the counter and other departments signed for authentication.
“The defendant did not sit at the counter directly, how to know if the customer has paid enough, only trust the parts, they confirm, that is, the customer has paid,” Duc said.
In addition, Huong also stated that Thanh often does not have money to contribute to a co-owner’s passbook, so Huong will ask Dang Thi Quynh Huong, Head of Personal Customer Department, Dong Do Transaction Office (VietABank) to “take a hot loan” for him. Thanh, through borrowing from other customers.
Although these people did not know Thanh, Quynh Huong sponsored the loan, so she agreed to lend. The indictment determined that Quynh Huong had at least 4 times guaranteed this type of loan for Thanh, with a total amount of about 53 billion dong.
In these cases, Quynh Huong and Thu Huong together will closely monitor the deposit and loan process from the very beginning. After that, the two people will tell their subordinates, including the teller, controller and cashier, to prepare documents and accounts to transfer money to Thanh, and then direct the counter staff to prepare loan documents.
If the loan exceeds Duc’s approval limit, Quynh Huong will direct her staff to make a report for Duc to sign and submit to her superiors (VietABank approval center) so that Thanh’s loan can be disbursed within the same day.
If it is not possible to borrow money for Thanh in time, Huong will instruct the teller to still set up Deposit contract Show that Thanh and his partner have contributed enough money. But in Saving (ie the actual amount paid in) is only the amount of the Member’s partner. That is, even though he did not contribute money, Thanh was still listed in both of these bank documents. And then, the amount of money on these two documents often warped by half, ie the amount that Thanh actually did not contribute.
“The defendant saw such an amount of money but did not find out, still signed it?”, the chairman questioned. Duc explained that signing these documents at different times of the day “didn’t notice”.
“The defendant feels that he is responsible for not being able to manage the employee’s behavior, but until now he has not realized where he is wrong,” Duc said and affirmed that he did not benefit from Thanh.
In the case, in addition to Duc, Quynh Huong and Thu Huong, there are 14 former officials of 3 joint-stock commercial banks Quoc Dan (NCB), Viet A (VietABank) and Dai Cong VN (PVcomBank) who were also prosecuted for their involvement in the crime. investigation of frauds carried out by Thanh from 2016 to 2018.
The indictment determined that Thanh did business at a loss and owed about 80 billion VND. From 2016 to 2018, Thanh borrowed money with high interest rates, paid the latter with money from the latter.
In the first time, Thanh paid the debt on time, creating trust with lenders and bank staff. Thanh then used his personal status or asked someone else’s name on the Credit Contract to borrow large amounts of money from banks.
From June 2018 to November 2018, Thanh was unable to pay his debts, accused of repeatedly using fraudulent tricks to appropriate money from NCB, PVcomBank, VietABank and many individuals.
Knowing that Mr. Dang Nghia Toan had money, Thanh proposed to borrow money in the form of Mr. Toan and his wife depositing money into NCB or PVcomBank and then giving the savings book to Thanh to manage. Thanh will immediately pay Mr. Toan and his wife an external interest of 4.2% a month and when due, he will pay his savings book to Mr. Toan to go to the bank to withdraw the principal, while Thanh enjoys the interest rate.
Having obtained the book, Thanh used the mortgage to borrow money at NCB and PVcomBank. At the same time, he asked Nguyen Thanh Tung, Director of Jeongho Landmark Company, to make a decision to appoint Mr. Toan and his wife as directors of the company to include in the loan application.
The indictment identifies the word at NCBThanh borrowed VND 50 billion from Mr. Toan, asked him to deposit his savings into 5 books in NCB and then give the savings books to Thanh to keep.
Thanh and Nguyen Thanh Tung used the legal status of Jeongho Landmark Company, made false contracts for the sale of goods, then together with Tung forged the signatures of Toan and his wife on the documents and was disbursed 47.5 billion by NCB. copper.
At PVcomBankThanh borrowed VND 52 billion from Mr. Toan by asking Mr. Toan to deposit his savings in a bank. Savings book Thanh kept. Thanh then and Tung also faked documents, faked signatures and fingerprints of Mr. Toan and his wife to appropriate PVB 49.4 billion.
At VietABank, Thanh is looking for people with money to borrow with high interest rates or invite business cooperation. Because there is no collateral to offer to give money directly, Thanh suggested depositing savings into VietABank. From there, Thanh tried to borrow or withdraw money from the bank to use.
At the same time, Thanh approached Nguyen Thi Thu Huong and suggested that the co-owner deposit a large amount of savings and VietABank would then pledge that same passbook when lending.
With the above trick, Thanh performed 27 fraud cases, appropriating VietABank VND 273.9 billion and four other individuals VND 63 billion. The total damage of the case was determined to be more than 433 billion VND.
at Blogtuan.info – Source: vnexpress.net – Read the original article here