From Concert Hall to Prison Cell: A Case Study of Việt Nam’s Arbitrary Criminalization

In the final days of 2025, the prosecution of Nguyễn Thị Thu Hà, director of the unit behind the music program “Về đây bốn cánh chim trời,” captured significant public attention. [1] [2] The concert, intended to honor legendary composers like Trịnh Công Sơn and Văn Cao, ended in disaster on the night of Dec. 28.

Despite financial disputes with the production team and the withdrawal of key artists, the organizer continued to sell tickets and admit thousands of spectators into the venue. It was only after the audience had taken their seats that the cancellation was announced, sparking outrage and chaos.

Only two days after the program failed to take place, Hà Nội police arrested Ms. Hà on charges of fraud and misappropriation of property.

This case has generated considerable controversy, not only due to the swiftness of the criminal proceedings but also regarding the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offenses.

Consequently, a familiar question has resurfaced: is the government arbitrarily criminalizing legal relationships that effectively belong to other domains?

Public Opinions Split Over Prosecution

Following the incident, public opinion quickly split into two clearly defined camps regarding the police’s decision to prosecute. 

Those who supported the handling of the case largely echoed the explanations provided by the police through state-run media. [3] According to preliminary investigation results, the organizer of the “Về đây bốn cánh chim trời” program lacked the capacity to hold the performance but allegedly instructed staff to announce that it would proceed, continuing to sell tickets and collect money until the show was canceled just before showtime.

However, neither the police nor state media have addressed specific details regarding ticket sales timing, payment progress with artists, or the total amount considered “misappropriated.”

Representing the viewpoint aligned with the police, Atty. Đặng Văn Cường argued that “the deceptive tactic in this case lay in announcing the time, location, and content of the program to build trust among audiences, while in reality the program did not yet meet the conditions required for licensing. Continuing to sell tickets and collect money, therefore constituted misappropriation of property, with amounts reaching billions of đồng.” [4] 

Cường further stated that the conduct met the elements of the crime of fraud and misappropriation of property under Clause 4, Article 174 of the Penal Code, carrying a penalty of between 12 and 20 years in prison, or life imprisonment.

Conversely, a second group contends that the case remains a civil matter and does not yet meet the threshold for fraud. [5] [6] They argue that while selling tickets without sufficient conditions constituted a serious contractual breach, there is insufficient basis to conclude that there was deliberate intent to misappropriate property. [7] 

The organizers did not intend to cancel the program from the outset, as evidenced by their continued preparations and negotiations. At the investigation stage, Ms. Hà stated that mistakes in payment arrangements were the main reasons for the cancellation. [8]

Crucially, ticket buyers were guaranteed refunds. [9] Critics argue that these factors demonstrate sloppy business practices rather than criminal intent. They worry that criminalizing this case could set a dangerous precedent, whereby any failure to fulfill contractual obligations—such as delayed delivery or late payments—could be labeled as fraud.

“Timely” or “Abnormal” Police Action

Beyond the legal definition of the crime, the extraordinary speed of the prosecution has raised questions. A review of the timeline reveals an unusually aggressive response from authorities.

On the evening of Dec. 28, 2025, the “Về đây bốn cánh chim trời” concert was canceled at the last minute. Tiền Phong newspaper later reported that on Dec. 29, police in Từ Liêm ward, Hà Nội, had received complaints of fraud. [10] By the evening of Dec. 30—just two days after the incident—Hà Nội police had already initiated a criminal case, charged the defendant, and placed Nguyễn Thị Thu Hà in pretrial detention. [11]

This rapid pace has surprised many lawyers and fueled suspicions of external intervention. [12] Even allowing for public outrage, such speed is an anomaly in the Vietnamese legal system. [13]

This abnormality parallels the recent case of Lê Trung Khoa, where the court tried the defendant in absentia on Dec. 31, 2025, barely two months after the case was initiated. [14][15][16]

These examples stand in stark contrast to the systemic reality acknowledged by the Ministry of Public Security. [17] As of Sept. 30, 2023, nearly 110,000 criminal cases and 65,200 incidents remained under temporary suspension.

The human cost of these delays is evident in a recent Vĩnh Long traffic case involving the death of a schoolgirl in September 2024. [18] After local police twice refused to prosecute, the victim’s father took the law into his own hands in April 2025, shooting the driver before committing suicide. [19] Only in August 2025—nearly a year after the accident—did police finally charge the driver. [20]

Against this backdrop, the rush to prosecute a business failure seems even more irregular. Criminology expert Đào Trung Hiếu, a former Hà Nội investigator, cautioned against allowing “social emotions and justified outrage to push a business failure into the criminal realm too hastily.” [21] [22]

Blurring the Line Between Criminal and Civil Law

The blurring of boundaries between private and public law—and between civil and criminal matters in particular—is a familiar phenomenon in Việt Nam. While drawing the line can sometimes be difficult, each domain has a clearly defined scope and separate legal framework.

Respecting this boundary is essential because the two operate under fundamentally different principles: civil law prioritizes respect for agreements between parties, while criminal law is governed by coercive state intervention. To illustrate: if you breach a contract, you negotiate a resolution with the other party. But if you commit fraud, you face the police, criminal punishment, and a permanent record.

Because of these vastly different consequences, no one wants to be entangled in a criminal case. In principle, law enforcement should also prefer that disputes be resolved through civil means. Yet in Việt Nam, the criminalization of civil relationships has become increasingly common. 

Examples include VinFast reportedly turning to the police to silence dissatisfied customers, or journalist Nguyễn Đức Hiển bringing a personal dispute with Nguyễn Phương Hằng to the police. [23] [24] More recently, court rulings such as a seven-year prison sentence for a school principal who embezzled 10.7 million đồng, or a six-year sentence for a man raising white pheasants, have sparked similar controversy. [25] [26]

At the same time, the Politburo has issued directives against “criminalizing” economic, administrative, and civil relationships. This policy was clearly stated in Resolution No. 66-NQ/TW, signed by General Secretary Tô Lâm on April 30, 2025. [27] [28]

Additionally, on May 17, 2025, the National Assembly passed Resolution No. 198/2025/QH15, stating that where the application of law could lead to either criminal prosecution or non-prosecution, the non-criminal path should be chosen. [29]

Reality, however, tells a different story. Authorities often arbitrarily criminalize civil matters, prosecuting some cases while ignoring others of the same nature. When the director of “Về đây bốn cánh chim trời” was arrested, many noted the stark contrast with how previous concert cancellations were handled. [30] This arbitrariness extends beyond public debate; it erodes the value of the law itself and diminishes public trust, leaving only fear and caution in its wake.

Trường An wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on Jan. 09, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.