You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 7, 2020

Vietnam Issues Regulations on Receipt and Handling of Information on Smuggling, Trade Fraud, and Counterfeit Goods

Subscribe to Updates

On March 23, 2020, the National Steering Committee Against Smuggling, Trade Fraud, and Counterfeit Goods (“National Steering Committee 389”) issued Decision No. 195/QD-BCD 389 promulgating regulations on receiving and handling information from organizations and individuals (e.g., tips or leads) on smuggling, trade fraud, and counterfeit goods. Decision 195, which took effect immediately upon issuance, prescribes how Steering Committees at national, ministry, and provincial levels are to receive and handle such information; proper ways to send information to the Steering Committees; and responsibilities of the Steering Committees in cooperating with authorities to verify information, transferring the same to enforcement authorities, and following up with them on the handling and results of matters.

National Steering Committee 389 was established under the Prime Minister’s Decision No. 389/QD-TTg on March 19, 2014, and plays an important role in developing strategies and plans and coordinating enforcement actions against acts of smuggling, trade fraud, and counterfeiting, including IP infringements, which have a negative effect on national revenue and the production of enterprises. In addition to National Steering Committee 389, all provinces and cities directly under the central government and some related ministries, are required to establish Steering Committees at provincial and ministry levels, correspondingly, to carry out the same tasks within each province/city or the field in charge.

Briefly, Decision 195 states that information on smuggling, trade fraud, counterfeit goods, including goods of inferior quality, and IP infringements must be sent to the Steering Committees via telephone, e-mail, written documents, or through direct meetings. Notably, such information must be in the Vietnamese language and not aim to harm anyone. Otherwise, the submission of information should be rejected. The standing office of each Steering Committee is responsible to initially receive and verify the information, and must keep details of the informants confidential. After verifying, if the information is reliable, the standing office will transfer it to an appropriate enforcement authority for opening an enforcement action.

The standing office is also responsible to follow up with the enforcement authority for handling the case, while the enforcement authority must report the results of the enforcement action to the standing office. Also, the standing office must record all details from receipt of the information until results of the enforcement action are finalized, and send half-year and annual reports to National Steering Committee 389.

Nevertheless, it can be understood that Decision 195 aims only to apply to these Steering Committees but not to replace the ordinary receiving and handling of information, denouncements, and complaints by enforcement authorities. This means an informant can send information, denouncements, or complaints to the enforcement authorities directly, or can send them to the relevant Steering Committee.

As for law firms, for ordinary cases, they can continue to submit complaints directly to enforcement authorities calling upon them to conduct raid actions, which remains more effective and faster. In case of a complex infringement or a case of multi-faceted, complex infringements related to various enforcement authorities and/or such infringements taking place simultaneously in various provinces/cities, a complaint submitted to the Steering Committees to seek their instructions and coordination of enforcement actions can be advisable.

For more information on Decision 195, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More