On the morning of 11/9, lawyers continued to defend Ms. Nguyen Thi Binh, former principal of Ba Dinh Secondary School.
Ms. Binh is appealing her 3-year prison sentence for illegally collecting extra tuition fees 10 years ago, claiming innocence. Yesterday, the People's Procuracy stated that the defendant "showed signs of committing a crime" but pointed out seven errors, recommending the first-instance verdict be overturned for reinvestigation.
Ms. Binh subsequently stated her position, "I will not accept any outcome other than being declared innocent."
No party claims damages
Lawyer Truong Viet Toan, one of the eight defense attorneys, argued that all three elements constituting the crime in the case need re-evaluation, especially regarding the extent of damages and the identity of the injured party.
The lawyer stated that the first-instance verdict identified the damages in the case as 1,09 billion dong – the amount collected in excess of regulations.
The verdict noted this amount caused damage to the students' parents. However, on page 23, the trial panel determined the money belonged to the school, and the payments to teachers and excessive management costs damaged the school's interests.
According to the lawyer, the first-instance court therefore failed to consistently identify the entity whose assets were damaged. Meanwhile, records and reality show that parents "were fully aware of the fees and did not complain"; the head of the parent association affirmed that no parent claimed to have suffered damages.
If the school was determined to be damaged, lawyer Toan argued that the specific asset source diminished should be clearly indicated. The school's representative at the first-instance hearing stated that the remaining funds, not yet spent, had been deposited into the fund; the school also did not request reimbursement of the aforementioned 1,09 billion dong.
In fact, all collected money was submitted to the school; no amount was withheld or transferred out.
The lawyer cited Inspection Conclusion 143 by the Ha Noi People's Committee, which determined that expenditures "were basically in accordance with regulations, internal spending rules, and agreements with students' parents." According to Mr. Toan, if these expenditures are considered to have caused damages in the case, then this conclusion by Ha Noi also needs re-evaluation.
Damage calculation is uncertain
Lawyer Toan stated that the damage figure of 1,093 billion dong is "uncertain and lacks legal basis" for two reasons.
First, this figure relies on assumptions about group and class sizes based on teacher testimonies nearly 10 years later, which are contradictory. Some witnesses stated groups were divided, others said no, and some could not recall; even during confrontation, it could not be definitively determined.
Second, the lawyer cited the appraisal conclusion from the Ha Noi Department of Finance – currently the sole expert evidence on finance and accounting in the case. The conclusion stated there was insufficient basis to determine a specific amount outside of accounting records and could not ascertain the extent of damages.
According to Mr. Toan, the expert agency could not conclude the extent of damages, and since the 1,09 billion dong was not calculated based on reliable evidence, it cannot be accepted.
Increasing teacher income: a merit or a crime?
Besides the unclear damages and injured party, the lawyer argued that the first-instance verdict was contradictory in evaluating the same event in two opposing ways.
According to Mr. Toan, when determining guilt, increasing teacher income was used to infer non-material self-interest and reputation enhancement. However, when deciding the sentence, the first-instance court identified this as a mitigating circumstance for Ms. Binh.
"The act stemmed from incomplete understanding, aimed at improving teacher income and enhancing student knowledge, parents did not complain, and the act's danger to society was not high," the lawyer quoted the first-instance verdict, arguing that these two assessments were contradictory.
Regarding the crime of Abusing Position and Power while Performing Official Duties, the lawyer argued that to establish signs of self-interest or other personal motives, specific undue benefits sought by the defendant and evidence confirming such benefits as the motive for the illegal act must be demonstrated.
"One cannot infer a motive of reputation enhancement simply because the defendant was a principal and teachers received additional income," the lawyer stated.
The trial is ongoing and is expected to last two days.
Thanh Lam
