Sacombank must pay 47 billion VND to customers who "suddenly lost money in their accounts"

On July 4, the People's Court of Cam Ranh City (Khanh Hoa) announced the verdict in the case of Ms. Ho Thi Thuy Duong suing Saigon Thuong Tin Commercial Joint Stock Bank (Sacombank), requesting the return of all the money deposited and the accrued interest. Ms. Duong authorized her husband, Le Quang Vinh, to attend the trial.

Suddenly lost all the money in the account

According to the lawsuit, in mid-2022, Ms. Duong's account opened at Sacombank's Cam Ranh Transaction Office "suddenly lost nearly 47 billion VND". Upon checking, she discovered a total of 12 transactions to withdraw the above amount, including 9 cash withdrawals between 6-9 pm (outside of business hours), and 3 transfers where Ms. Duong did not know the recipient.

Ms. Duong confirmed that she did not make the above transactions, and that her family was traveling to Phu Quoc at that time. After working with the bank many times but not meeting the requirements, she and her husband sent a petition for help to the Criminal Police Department and the Police Department for Investigation of Crimes of Corruption, Economy, and Smuggling (Ministry of Public Security).

By April 2023, the bank worked with the couple, agreeing to refund 20 billion VND (out of the total of nearly 47 billion VND that Ms. Duong demanded) but required 2 land use right certificates.

In court, Mr. Vinh maintained his lawsuit request, requesting that Sacombank return the lost VND 26.9 billion (minus VND 20 billion paid by the bank in April 2023), along with some interest. The total amount Mr. Vinh requested Sacombank to pay is more than VND 36 billion.

Sacombank representatives rejected all of Mr. Vinh and his wife's claims, claiming that the 12 documents withdrawing nearly 47 billion VND all had Ms. Duong's signature. All of these documents were transferred by Sacombank to the Khanh Hoa Provincial Police Investigation Agency. The results of the appraisal showed that these signatures belonged to Ms. Ho Thi Thuy Duong.

In addition, Sacombank also said that the 20 billion VND transferred to Ms. Duong's account was "temporary payment according to the customer's request" and not due to the bank's mistake so it was returned. "The bank is waiting for the conclusion of the authorities related to the case of Ms. Duong's accusation of losing money," said a representative of Sacombank.

Regarding transactions outside of business hours, the bank explained that "this is to support and serve customers".

The trial panel requested the bank to provide evidence such as photos proving that Ms. Duong was present at the Cam Ranh Transaction Office to carry out the above 12 transactions, but Sacombank has not provided any.

Regarding Ms. Duong's signature on the withdrawal documents, Mr. Vinh said that Ms. Duong was "tricked" by bank staff into signing 12 transactions when completing the loan contract of 5 billion VND at the Cam Ranh Transaction Office. "The documents were signed to legalize after the money in my wife's account had been withdrawn 2 months earlier," Mr. Vinh stated in court.

During the debate, the representative of Sacombank argued that this lawsuit was related to the embezzlement case that occurred at the Sacombank Cam Ranh Transaction Office, so it should be considered after the above criminal case was brought to trial to avoid overlap and conflict. Therefore, the lawyer requested the court to stop the trial of the lawsuit; reject the plaintiff's request to initiate.

Responding to the above issue, the court stated that Ms. Duong's family is only a person with rights and obligations related to the criminal case, so her request for Sacombank to return the money in the civil case does not affect the settlement of the case of embezzlement of assets by bank employees.

Court: Sacombank is at fault

After a day of deliberation, the Trial Panel determined that the documents and evidence showed that Sacombank was at fault. Ms. Duong did not withdraw cash and transfer 47 billion VND in her account. In particular, the two transactions on June 13 and 5, 2022, made while Ms. Duong was traveling in Phu Quoc, clearly demonstrated this.

In addition, the withdrawal process in Ms. Duong's account also had many errors. Specifically, the withdrawal was not done by the account owner being present at the transaction office, the withdrawal was made outside of the prescribed hours, the transfer was made with an amount exceeding the permitted limit, and documents were taken out of the bank's headquarters against regulations.

From there, the court declared that Sacombank must be responsible for compensation and refund to Ms. Duong.

In addition, the Trial Panel also believes that this has caused Ms. Duong's family many material and mental losses, business stagnation, loss of business relationships, and a lot of time spent traveling to claim money. The plaintiff's request for compensation for damages corresponding to the deposit interest rate of 5% (for the amount of nearly 47 billion VND) is well-founded.

Therefore, the court accepted all of the plaintiff's requests, forcing the bank to pay Ms. Duong the principal amount of nearly 47 billion VND (the bank had temporarily paid 20 billion VND in advance, the remaining amount of nearly 27 billion VND had to be paid); the total late interest amounted to more than 7 billion VND; and compensation for damages of 2.3 billion VND.

In addition, the court ordered Sacombank to return to Ms. Duong two original copies of the land use certificates that the bank had previously kept. "The bank is a legal entity, operating under the provisions of the law, and is only allowed to seal and keep personal documents based on loan records, related to lending...", the court declared.