On September 10, the Hanoi People's Court opened an appellate trial for the case of abusing positions and powers while performing official duties related to Ms. Nguyen Thi Binh - former Principal of Ba Dinh Secondary School and former accountant Pham Thi Minh Nguyet. The appellate trial was opened due to appeals from both defendants including Ms. Nguyen Thi Binh, former Principal of Ba Dinh Secondary School, who was appealing for innocence; and former accountant Pham Thi Minh Nguyet requesting non-incrimination, due to the grounds used to indict, which have been abolished.
Through the file and questioning at the court, the prosecutor affirmed that the activity of collecting tutoring fees of the former principal of Ba Dinh Secondary School "shows signs" of crime and pointed out 7 points that have not been clarified and need to be overturned for re-investigation.
Firstly, regarding the legal basis for application, there are signs of illegality. According to the Procuracy, the first-instance level relied on Decision No. 22/2013 of the Hanoi People's Committee on the maximum collection level according to the number of extra classes to conclude that the amount of money the school collected exceeded more than one billion VND. However, the conclusion of the Department of Document Inspection and Law Enforcement, Ministry of Justice affirmed that this Decision is not in accordance with Circular 17 of the Ministry of Education.
On the morning of September 10, in the questioning session, the representative of the Department still stated that Decision 22 is illegal, while representatives of the City People's Committee and the Department of Education and Training could not answer immediately. According to the Procuracy, the fact that the legality of Decision 22 has not been clarified requires the investigating agency to ask for official written opinions from state management agencies.
Second, regarding the assessment and incorrect determination of damage in the case. The first-instance level considering the entire amount of over-collected money (one billion VND) as the actual damage of the case is not accurate. According to the Procuracy, the over-collected money cannot be completely identical with the damage because in fact tutoring activities have taken place and 70% of this amount (more than 700 million VND) has been paid to teachers directly teaching.
Third, lack of material evidence to verify the division of extra classes. Regarding the division of extra classes to decide the amount of money collected, although the file has some testimonies and inspection reports showing the division of classes, the prosecuting agency did not seize the list of students taking extra classes by class as well as the monitoring book for extra classes.
The lack of these original documents makes the basis for prosecution not solid. Therefore, the Procuracy believes that it is necessary to continue to investigate and clarify from what stage the class division was carried out and the specific number of classes.
Fourth, according to Circular 17 of the Ministry of Education and Training, students who want extra classes must have a request and parents must directly sign a commitment with the school. However, the investigating agency only seized the agreement minutes as photocopies without confirmation from the homeroom teacher or the Board of Directors (with explanations due to typing errors). While the case file has not seized these requests for extra classes and has not taken statements from students as well as parents to prove the voluntary agreement.
Fifthly, the management of collected money shows signs of self-interest and violations of regulations. The Procuracy assessed that the first-instance court only considered the excess revenue but did not clarify the violations in the management and use of the deducted money, after it was paid to teachers directly teaching. Among these are 132 million VND (37.87%) divided to the principal; division of management work, electricity and water bills, facilities...
The Procuracy assessed that this allocation of revenue and expenditure was not approved by the Teachers' Council and is not included in the school's Internal Expenditure Regulations as prescribed. The first-instance level has not clarified whether this is a violation, what violation is there, and to what extent the violation is, which is also a shortcoming.
Sixth, regarding errors in determining the status of participation in the proceedings. According to the prosecutor, the teachers directly collected money, made lists, benefited, and the members of the Board of Directors only participated in the proceedings as "people with related rights and obligations". The representative of the Procuracy assessed that this was a shortcoming, not reflecting the correct position, role and responsibility of individuals in the case.
Finally, the case file shows that Ba Dinh Secondary School also organized to collect extra tuition fees for 6th grade students, but the first-instance level missed and did not investigate and clarify. From all the above grounds, the Procuracy believes that the first-instance judgment needs to be overturned for re-investigation.
I do not agree with any other option than acquittal
After the VKS's indictment, defendant Nguyen Thi Binh stated her opinion: "I do not agree with any other option besides pronouncing me not guilty at today's appellate hearing.
She argued that the police had worked with the school on the collection and spending regulations and then worked with the Ba Dinh District (old) Department of Education and Training, Hanoi Department of Education and Training. She said that not only Ba Dinh Secondary School, at that time, many schools collected an additional tuition fee of 15,000 VND/session.
Why not see what other schools are like, whether Ms. Binh is right or wrong, then prosecute me," the defendant said.
Regarding the files that the Procuracy believes need to be clarified, the former Principal affirmed that the prosecuting agency did not collect them, which is immediately shown in the minutes of the meeting between the school and the police.
According to Ms. Binh, the reason is that it has been a long time, plus the school has been repaired and rebuilt, and dossiers have to be transferred many times, while regulations do not require it to be kept for many years.
The case has been returned 6 times, I look forward to the appellate hearing every day but I am told to return the file" - the former Principal expressed.
