Combining a tutoring fee of 15,000 VND
According to the case file, Ms. Nguyen Thi Binh was appointed Principal of Ba Dinh Secondary School from August 2012.
In the 2013-2014 school year, the school continued to implement the fee for extra tutoring and extra classes of 15,000 VND per class for students, similar to the previous school year.
However, this collection level was later reflected by a teacher as not in accordance with current regulations.
Ms. N.M. H - former teacher of the school - said that the Principal and Accountant forged Ms. H's signature to embezzle, so she sent a denunciation to the police investigation agency.
After receiving the denunciation, the investigating police agency intervened. The investigating agency requested an appraisal with the conclusion that the signature on the document was Ms. Hang's and continued to expand the investigation into the general fee for tutoring and extra classes showing signs of violating regulations.
The process of resolving the case was prolonged, the file was returned many times to supplement and clarify the details. On December 12, 2025, the People's Procuracy of Region 1 under the People's Procuracy of Hanoi City issued Indictment No. 118/CT-VKS.
According to the indictment, in the 2013-2014 school year, tutoring and extra classes in schools were implemented according to Circular No. 17/2012/TT-BGDĐT, Decision No. 22/2013/QD/UBND, Guidance Document No. 5898/HD-SGD dated July 17, 2013 of the Department of Education and Training.
According to Decision No. 22/2013/QD/UBND of the Hanoi City People's Committee, the level of tutoring fees is agreed in writing between the school and parents, ensuring compliance with the actual conditions in the locality.
The decision sets out 5 different fees, ranging from 6,000 VND to 26,000 VND per class.
The prosecuting agency believes that Ms. Nguyen Thi Binh, in her position as Principal, directed accountant Pham Thi Minh Nguyet and homeroom teachers of grades 7, 8, and 9 to collect tutoring fees at a common level of 15,000 VND per class for each student.
According to the conclusion in the indictment, the application of this common collection level led to the amount collected exceeding the maximum level specified in Decision 22/2013/QD/UBND of the Hanoi City People's Committee.
In the period from December 2013 to May 2014, Ba Dinh Secondary School collected extra classes from 24 classes in grades 7, 8, and 9 with a total amount of more than 2.16 billion VND.
According to calculations by the prosecuting agency, if applying the maximum collection level according to regulations, the amount allowed to be collected is more than 1.07 billion VND. The surplus collection difference is determined to be more than 1.09 billion VND.
The investigating agency believes that the collection of extra tutoring fees higher than the regulated level has caused damage to parents of students in the above grades in the 2013-2014 school year with an amount of more than 1.09 billion VND.
On that basis, the People's Procuracy of Region 1 proposed to prosecute Ms. Nguyen Thi Binh and Ms. Pham Thi Minh Nguyet for the crime of "Abusing positions and powers while performing official duties", according to Clause 3, Article 356 of the 2015 Penal Code, amended and supplemented in 2017. The penalty frame for this crime is from 10 years to 15 years in prison.
Many teachers and parents send petitions
Regarding the case, there are currently many different opinions from teachers and parents who have had children study at school.
On January 10, 2024, the former Head of the Parents' Association of Ba Dinh Secondary School in the period 2013–2016 issued a report and confirmation related to the collection of extra classes.
According to the content of the report, the collection of extra classes and tutoring fees for grades at that time was carried out publicly.
The school organized a meeting to discuss and agree with parents and received consensus. Parents did not have any questions or complaints about collecting extra tuition fees during that period.
On January 14, 2024, some teachers of Ba Dinh Secondary School also signed petitions sent to functional agencies.
In the petition, the teachers said that they did not think the matter was serious enough to be prosecuted, investigated and criminally handled. The teachers expressed their desire for law enforcement agencies to comprehensively consider the case, ensuring a reasonable and satisfactory resolution.
Meanwhile, Ms. Nguyen Thi Binh also expressed that the collection level of 15,000 VND per class is proposed by the parent representative based on the previous year's collection level and the average level (including the base salary increase) of the lowest and highest levels according to the Decision of the Hanoi City People's Committee.
This was then discussed and agreed upon at many meetings, including meetings of the school board, pedagogical council, meetings of homeroom teachers, meetings of parents' representatives and meetings of parents of classes.
Ms. Binh said that the reason she agreed with the proposal to collect a common level of 15,000 VND/class is because in practice, the regulation on collecting many levels of tuition fees according to Decision 22/2013/QD/UBND of the Hanoi City People's Committee is difficult to implement. The reason is the difference in class size for each extra class, it is very difficult for homeroom teachers to monitor and calculate the collection level, while extra classes are fully equipped with teaching and learning equipment and air conditioning.
According to Ms. Binh, the highest collection level is 26,000 VND per class and the lowest level is 6,000 VND per class, creating a large difference between classes, while the class sizes are almost equivalent. Only 1 student difference is a different collection level, creating inequality for groups of few students who are all students in difficult circumstances. For example, for groups of 10 students, the collection level is 13,000 VND, for groups of 9 students, the collection level doubles to 26,000 VND. That is unreasonable for both students, parents and teachers. The number of students changes each class, so it is difficult to agree with student parents.
Expressing her opinion on this case, Lawyer Phung Thi Huyen, A+ Law Company Limited, said that Ms. Nguyen Thi Binh's case was carried out to collect money based on a voluntary agreement with parents according to Circular 17/2012/TT-BGDĐT (Ministry-level document).
The prosecuting agency's application of Decision 22/2013/QD-UBND (provincial-level document) to conclude that she "acted against official duties" is rigid, without considering the effective status of the document.
Moreover, this case completely lacks the elements constituting the basic crime: no motive for self-interest (the collected money is paid to teachers, the surplus fund is paid back to the budget) and no damage (the state budget is not damaged; parents voluntarily contribute, no one complains or requests compensation).
