The High People's Court of Appeals in Hanoi recently postponed the appeal hearing of Le Manh Quan, 53, former director of the Nam Tu Liem District Social Insurance office (2014-2024), and Dinh Tinh Giang, 52, chief accountant (2020-2024). Both were convicted of negligence causing serious consequences at the initial trial, receiving sentences of three years and six months, and four years respectively.

The accountant, Do Thuong Thuong, 35, received a life sentence for embezzlement and did not appeal. However, her absence from the appeal hearing prompted the court to postpone proceedings to clarify details related to the other appeals.

A new date for the hearing will be set.

Do Thuong Thuong at the time of her arrest. Photo: Police Department

Do Thuong Thuong at the time of her arrest. Photo: Police Department

The case revolves around Thuong's role in verifying social insurance payments. She was responsible for checking individual and company records against the social insurance database to confirm eligibility for payments. For eligible cases, Thuong managed accounts and compiled payment lists.

The standard procedure involved the accounting department receiving a list of approved beneficiaries for sickness, maternity, and convalescence benefits. Thuong would then use the department's email to send data to bank staff to verify beneficiary information and account numbers. She would then print payment orders and lists for Giang and Quan to review and approve. After their signatures, Thuong would stamp the documents and send them to the bank to initiate the transfer of funds.

The prosecution alleges that after receiving the necessary approvals, Thuong altered payment information on the lists, substituting the accounts of three acquaintances for those of companies due large sums. She would then print these altered pages, insert them into the payment lists, stamp them with the official seal, and submit them to the bank.

To prevent complaints from companies and individuals who did not receive their payments, Thuong would create false payment orders in subsequent payment rounds, allocating funds to miscellaneous receivable accounts. She would then include the names of those whose payments she had diverted in these later lists, continuing her scheme to transfer funds to her chosen accounts.

Between 10/2022 and 2/2024, Thuong misappropriated over 72 billion VND. Of this amount, she returned 4.5 billion VND to some of the affected companies and individuals and transferred another 3 billion VND back to the social insurance office’s account. The remaining 64.8 billion VND, which she lost through online financial investments, is the confirmed amount of her embezzlement.

In 2/2024, Giang discovered discrepancies and reported them to Quan, who then informed the Hanoi Social Insurance authorities. Quan also filed a complaint with the investigative authorities. Thuong was arrested in April 2024, followed by Quan and Giang in July 2024.

Thuong confessed, claiming financial difficulties drove her to join online investment groups. She needed money for daily expenses and hoped to recoup her losses and repay the office. However, her investments resulted in further losses. She also stated that lax management and inadequate document scrutiny at the Nam Tu Liem Social Insurance office facilitated her actions.

Giang, the chief accountant, is accused of neglecting regular debt checks and failing to reconcile disbursed amounts with recorded transactions. He admitted to not thoroughly reviewing the documents Thuong submitted, blaming his inexperience with information technology, limited knowledge of accounting software, and misplaced trust in his subordinate.

Quan, the director, is accused of only checking for complete procedures, the chief accountant's signature, and the total amount on the documents, without verifying details. He admitted to not regularly monitoring the office's finances or his subordinates' work, attributing the prolonged period of undetected fraud to his trust in his staff. He claimed he delegated the monthly reconciliation of insurance payments to Giang and received no reports of irregularities. Both Quan and Giang denied noticing that the actual disbursed amounts exceeded the requested amounts.

The three individuals whose accounts Thuong used were unaware of the source of the funds and have not been charged.

Thanh Lam