Talking to reporters in the corridors of the National Assembly, delegate Trinh Xuan An (Member in charge of the National Defense and Security Committee) raised a series of shortcomings and worries about the banking system after the recently announced Van Thinh Phat incident. exposed.
“Records” in the case of Van Thinh Phat and SCB
Mr. An commented that the case involving Van Thinh Phat and Saigon Commercial Joint Stock Bank (SCB) is particularly serious with many “records”. That is a “record” for the amount of money appropriated, the time the incident took place, the number of defendants, and the number of people affected. And especially the “record” of consequences for the economy as well as people’s confidence in credit activities.
“SCB’s incident is both an incident and an incident that no one wants, but it teaches us many lessons,” according to the delegate.
He acknowledged that this is not simply a criminal case, but also affects many other issues related to socio-economic, psychological and social beliefs.
Therefore, the authorities must be drastic and strict in handling the consequences, limiting the impact on the legitimate rights of organizations and individuals.
Emphasizing that prevention is important, according to Mr. An, if it can be controlled early, from afar, the consequences will certainly not be so terrible.
Allowing a company to appropriate up to 1 million billion VND over a long period of time, the delegate questioned the responsibility of the management agency, leading to the situation of “losing cows to build a barn”.
“For a credit institution, risk control measures are very strict. In particular, SCB is a joint stock commercial bank, operating under the law on credit institutions, why did this incident occur? like that. Why can an individual circumvent and have tricks to hold and control a bank like that?”, Mr. An raised the issue and said there was a laxity on the part of the inspection agency.
According to the delegate, in a sensitive field like banking, there must be “both soft and hard” measures, both flexible and strict.
Looking back at the SCB case that is causing a stir in public opinion, delegate Trinh Xuan An mentioned the episode where the Head of the State Bank’s interdisciplinary inspection team violated the law and was bribed with millions of dollars to “erase” many mistakes. Serious violations of SCB Bank. “This is really a very valuable lesson,” according to Mr. An.
The delegate analyzed the tricks of Van Thinh Phat and Ms. Truong Thi My Lan: establishing businesses under their own names, then establishing ecosystems, building ghost forces to distort credit activities.
Mr. An believes that this is a variation of cross-ownership, very easy to recognize, but to cut off this “octopus tentacle”, we are confused.
According to delegate Trinh Xuan An, it is necessary to objectively, comprehensively and directly evaluate the current cross-ownership situation in the banking system.
This assessment needs to go into substance, not just based on the superficial share ratio, but also needs to focus on the source of money, background, and connections of the people involved. The ultimate goal, emphasized by the delegate, is to cut off the “octopus tentacles” of bank manipulation.
“From the SCB case, it shows that there is still a pattern of some organizations and individuals doing or “acting” with the banks they control. Therefore, there is a need for a major review and thorough handling. This situation allows the banking system to become clean and healthy, contributing to socio-economic development,” according to Mr. An.
Control early to eliminate risks
To solve this problem, delegate An raised the issue of amending the Law on Credit Institutions. Accordingly, in addition to reducing the share ownership ratio, there must be special measures in inspection, supervision and as public and transparent as possible. Besides, people must be controlled.
“Negative actions in audits and inspections are consequences that lead to dire consequences. If there were not 3 foam boxes containing 5 million USD, if SCB was handled early from its inception and put under special control, it would not be possible. Such consequences occur,” Mr. An said.
From there, he emphasized that management and anti-negativity are very important in this field. And to control, there must be an independent evaluation and cross-checking mechanism.
“Experience from the SCB case is that early control is needed. We must have a truly scientific and standard warning system; design a monitoring and inspection model that is strong and independent enough so that the system does not penetrated, like SCB’s story,” Mr. An stated.
Another lesson, according to Mr. An, is to take strong measures to make credit activities healthier, especially commercial activities. “Does our country’s economy need 50 large and small banks? Is it necessary to review so that there are fewer but pure and standard?”, the delegate asked.
According to him, with several dozen banks of different sizes, we need to apply a risk management system according to world standards. Units that cannot meet them will be eliminated. And this is an opportunity to “purify” the banking system.