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 15, 2026

Vietnam Tightens Competition Enforcement With Revised Sanctions Framework

Subscribe to Updates

On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration.

Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations

Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration.

Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance

Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance.

The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market.

For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact.

Non-compliance with conditional approvals

Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation.

Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions specified in conditional economic concentration approval decisions under Article 41.1(b) of the Competition Law.

Implementing a prohibited concentration

Decree 102 raises the fines from the former range of 1% to 3% to 1% to 5% of relevant market turnover on enterprises that proceed with a concentration after the Vietnam Competition Commission (VCC) has prohibited it under Article 41.1(c) of the Competition Law.

In addition to monetary fines, implementing a prohibited concentration may trigger structural and behavioral remedies, including forced divestiture (sale of all or part of the acquired shares/assets or splitting up merged/combined entities), and imposition of state control over prices and other key contractual terms of the post‑transaction entity.

Fixed fine for low nexus transactions

In addition to the zero-turnover scenario already recognized under Decree 75, Decree 102 introduces a second case for fixed fines ranging from VND 100 million to VND 200 million. This fixed-fine approach applies where the enterprises participating in an economic concentration (i) do not operate in the same relevant market, (ii) do not operate at different stages of the same production, distribution, or supply chain for a specific product or service, and (iii) do not have business lines that constitute inputs to, or are complementary to, one another.

This approach ensures an appropriate deterrent effect while avoiding the mechanical application of turnover-based penalties in cases where there is little or no relevant market turnover, or where the competitive relationship between the parties is highly indirect.

Authority to Revoke Merger Notifications and Approvals

A significant procedural change empowers the VCC to revoke notifications of completeness, preliminary review results, or economic concentration decisions if it discovers that a filing party provided false, misleading, or incomplete information, concealed or destroyed relevant documents, or coerced others to provide false information. This revocation authority operates as both an enforcement tool and a deterrent, signaling that the VCC will not hesitate to unwind approvals tainted by dishonest submissions.

Additionally, the decree clarifies that authorities may now compel enterprises to provide complete and truthful information and documents as part of remediation efforts. These expanded measures give regulators greater leverage to ensure post-merger compliance with conditions designed to preserve market competition. Enterprises should ensure that all information provided during the notification and review process is accurate, complete, and verifiable.

Removal of Certain Supplementary Penalties

Decree 102 eliminates several supplementary penalties that previously applied to specific violations, including the penalty of revoking business registration certificates for enterprises formed through prohibited mergers or joint ventures. It also eliminates certain provisions that previously allowed for warning penalties or specific enforcement actions related to violations of other competition law provisions. These changes streamline the penalty framework and remove certain overlapping or redundant sanctions.

Digital Handling of Competition Sanctions

Article 33a adds an “electronic layer” to the competition enforcement framework. In substance it does not create any new types of infringements or new fine levels, but instead brings competition cases (including issuance and receipt of administrative sanctioning decisions) into compliance with the general regime on handling administrative violations in the electronic environment under Decree 118/2021 (as amended by Decrees 68/2025 and 190/2025).

For businesses, this paves the way for (i) interacting with the competition authority and receiving sanction decisions and procedural documents via electronic means with the same legal effect as paper service, which may shorten response and appeal timelines; and (ii) enhanced monitoring and enforcement of competition infringements committed online.

Companies should therefore ensure their internal processes cover how they receive, process and respond to competition authority communications electronically, not only in hard copy.

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
Read More