In the case that occurred at Van Thinh Phat Group, SCB Bank and related units, the Ministry of Public Security's Investigation Police Agency accused members of the Inspection Team of the Banking Inspection and Supervision Department (under the State Bank) of committing serious violations and receiving "gifts" from Truong My Lan's group (Chairman of Van Thinh Phat) and SCB Bank.
Specifically, 18 defendants in the SCB Bank Inspection Team were determined to have received money and material benefits from Ms. Lan and SCB. However, 7 people were not considered for criminal responsibility.
Specifically, they include: Mr. Lai Van Bach, Ms. Bui Vu Hong Trang, Ms. Pham Thi Thuy Linh (all from the State Audit); Mr. Pham Quoc Linh, Pham Hong Linh, Ms. Nguyen Lan Huong (all from the Banking Inspection and Supervision Agency) and Ms. Nguyen Ha Linh (Government Inspectorate officer).
According to the investigation conclusion, during the inspection process, the above-mentioned people fully and honestly reported the violations at SCB Bank.
SCB Bank (Photo: SCB).
These inspectors determined that the loans at SCB had many violations and "resolutely recommended that they be transferred to the competent authorities for consideration and handling". They requested and asked the defendant Nguyen Van Hung (the person who issued the inspection decision) and Ms. Do Thi Nhan (Head of the inspection team) to clarify the source of money SCB lent to pay off old debts.
These seven people also requested verification at the CIC Credit Information Center about the newly arising customer debt status.
However, due to not receiving the CIC verification document from the Head of the Inspection Team and the inspection period having expired, the above individuals signed a report amending the recommendation "to transfer the State Bank to continue to inspect and clarify the issue of new loans to repay old debts; to strengthen inspection and supervision; if signs of law violations are detected, to request transfer to competent authorities for consideration and handling".
In the group of individuals under the Banking Inspection and Supervision Agency, according to the investigation conclusion, the relevant inspectors also fully reported the violations, recommended administrative sanctions, and requested SCB Bank to correct and correct the violations and shortcomings.
Although they signed the Minutes of the meeting agreeing to narrow the content, methods, measures, and scope of the inspection, these people did not know about SCB's violations.
Regarding the amount of money they stole, Mr. Thinh, Ms. Huong and Mr. Linh proactively declared that they received money 4 times, of which they returned it 2 times, each person received and used 100 million VND; Ms. Nguyen Ha Linh declared that SCB gave them a total of 6,000 USD and 50 million VND; Mr. Bach, Ms. Trang and Ms. Thuy Linh declared that SCB gave them 9,000 USD and 100 million VND each.
The investigation agency assessed that the 7 individuals above had committed violations during the inspection process and received money from SCB Bank, however, their role was that of subordinates and they only participated in a certain part of the work. The reports of these people honestly reflected the content and results of the inspection.
Mr. Nguyen Van Hung (Photo: VNA).
In addition, these members were not assigned by Ms. Nhan the task of synthesizing general data on the financial status, bad debts and violations of SCB Bank.
When signing the Inspection Team's meeting minutes, they were only allowed to give opinions on the implementation part, so they did not know the entire content of the inspection results, did not know about the weak financial situation and serious violations of SCB.
The investigation conclusion showed that, after assessing the nature and level of behavior of the 7 members of the Inspection Team, the investigation agency determined that they were only secondary, passive, and dependent on the direction and imposition of Ms. Do Thi Nhan.
During the process of working with the investigation agency, these people honestly confessed their wrongdoings and the receipt of money; actively cooperated to help quickly clarify the case; and proactively returned all the stolen money.
Therefore, the Ministry of Public Security does not consider criminal responsibility for these 7 individuals but proposes handling them by the Party and government to ensure the deterrence of the law.
Source
Comment (0)