Eight lawyers are currently defending Nguyen Thi Binh, the former principal of Ba Dinh Secondary School in Hanoi, who was sentenced to three years in prison for illegally collecting tuition fees above the regulated limits. Binh has appealed the ruling and is seeking a retrial, with the Hanoi People's Court scheduled to hear the case over two days on August 26-27.

The case revolves around Binh's actions in collecting additional fees for extra classes, which were reportedly higher than the maximum amounts set by Decision 22/2013 of the Hanoi People's Committee. At the initial trial, it was established that Binh required teachers to charge 15,000 VND per lesson, while the legal maximum was set at 7,000-9,000 VND depending on class size. This discrepancy was a key factor in the charges against her.

During the trial, Binh argued that the fee collection was conducted following agreements with parents and complied with Circular 17/2012 from the Ministry of Education and Training, which allows for such arrangements. Her lawyers contend that if two legal documents conflict, the one with higher legal authority should prevail. They assert that Circular 17, which permits fee agreements between parents and schools, takes precedence over the local decision.

The prosecution maintains its position, recommending a sentence of four to five years in prison. The initial court found that while Binh's financial gain was minimal, estimated at around 72 million VND, she had benefited non-materially by enhancing her reputation through increased teacher salaries.

Following the initial verdict in March, Binh filed a full appeal and requested the Ministry of Justice to review the legality of Decision 22/2013. On May 4, the Ministry of Justice concluded that the decision imposing a maximum fee was inappropriate, as it did not comply with the higher legal standards set by Circular 17.

In light of this, the Hanoi People's Committee officially revoked Decision 22/2013 on May 5, which was effective immediately. Binh criticized the initial court's reasoning as unreasonable, arguing that her actions aimed to improve teachers' livelihoods and enhance educational quality, rather than constituting criminal behavior.