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

September 29, 2025

Draft Decree Aims to Enhance Competition Law Enforcement in Vietnam

In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants.

A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime.

In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction.

This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts and provide clearer guidance for enforcement.

Draft Decree Amending Decree 75

To address these and other systemic issues, the government has circulated a draft decree amending and supplementing Decree 75 (“Draft Decree”). The Draft Decree proposes amendments to 16 out of 36 articles of Decree 75. Its objectives are to clarify and revise fine levels, supplement remedial measures, differentiate penalties according to the nature and severity of violations, and eliminate certain outdated sanctions and authorities. At present, there is no official information regarding when the Draft Decree will be finalized and promulgated.

Highlights of the Draft Decree include:

Remedial Measures

While Decree 75 addresses remedial measures beyond primary and supplementary sanctions for competition law violations, it does not require full compliance with conditions imposed in decisions on conditional economic concentration (in which transactions are permitted only if certain conditions are met). Between 2023 and July 2025, approximately 10 such decisions have authorized economic concentration on a conditional basis, reflecting a notable increase in such transactions. This trend underscores the need for stricter compliance with the conditions set out in these decisions.

To address this gap, the Draft Decree introduces a new provision requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions specified in conditional economic concentration decisions, in accordance with Article 41.1(b) of the Law on Competition.

Administrative Fines

The Draft Decree introduces several key changes and additions to the monetary penalties for administrative violations set out in Article 4 of Decree 75, to close legal loopholes, ensure that all violations are subject to appropriate penalties, and strengthen deterrence and fairness in the enforcement of competition law.

  • Under Article 4.3 of the Draft Decree, fines are increased (ranging from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion, approximately USD 20,000 to USD 40,000) for cases where the violating enterprise has zero total revenue, such as in anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominance, and economic concentration. The scope of application is also expanded to cover enterprises involved in economic concentration that are not in the same relevant market, do not operate at different stages of the same supply chain, and do not have business lines that are inputs or complementary to each other. Introducing a fixed penalty where a revenue-based fine could not previously be applied due to zero or indeterminable revenue ensures that all violations are penalized, preventing businesses from exploiting the absence of revenue to evade sanctions.
  • Article 4.4 of the Draft Decree clarifies the methodology for calculating the total relevant market revenue of enterprises participating in economic concentration in a specific case. When the violating businesses operate at different stages within the same production, distribution, or supply chain, or have interrelated or supporting industries, the total revenue used to calculate the penalty will be the combined revenue from all markets related to the violation, not just limited to a specific market. This addresses potential misunderstandings in determining the relevant market and total revenue within that market.
  • Article 4.8 of the Draft Decree further specifies how fines should be determined in cases with aggravating or mitigating circumstances, establishing the average prescribed fine as the benchmark for administrative violations in the field of competition.

Fines for Failure to Notify Economic Concentration

Article 14 of Decree 75 imposes a fine for failure to notify economic concentration ranging from 1% to 5% of the total turnover of each enterprise involved in an economic concentration, based on revenue from the relevant market in the financial year preceding the violation. The Draft Decree revises this article to establish clear, fixed (not turnover-based) penalties ranging from VND 1 billion to VND 4 billion (approximately USD 40,000 to USD 160,000), but capped at 5% of total revenue.

This change simplifies enforcement and reduces ambiguity. At the same time, maintaining the cap at 5% of total revenue ensures proportionality, while still acting as a sufficient deterrent.

Other Violations of Economic Concentration

Article 15 of the Draft Decree, which addresses violations of laws on economic concentration, has also been updated from a percentage-based fine to fixed fine brackets corresponding to the seriousness of the violations. Specifically, Clause 1 sets out a fixed penalty range from VND 2 billion to VND 4 billion (approximately USD 80,000 to USD 160,000).

Additional new clauses introduce specific remedial measures and supplementary sanctions tailored to the nature and gravity of the violations, such as higher fines, ranging from 1% to 5% of total relevant market revenue, for serious breaches involving prohibited economic concentration activities.

Violations in Providing Information and Documents

Article 22 has been amended to raise fines for violations related to the provision of information and documents, and to broaden the range of liable parties. Accordingly, fines may now be imposed not only on parties currently regulated (e.g., investigated parties, individuals with rights and obligations related to competition cases), but also on parties involved in economic concentration, those submitting notification dossiers, and those requesting exemptions for prohibited anti-competitive agreements.

Additionally, the Draft Decree clarifies the scope of remedial measures, and introduces sanctions applicable in cases where violations affect the review and assessment of dossiers.

Sanctioning Authority for Other Violations

The amendment to Article 28 of Decree 75, which governs the authority to impose administrative sanctions against other violations of competition law, reflects a more comprehensive and assertive approach to enforcement. The sanctioning authority of the Chief Inspector of the Ministry of Industry and Trade and inspectors is abolished, because the ministry no longer organizes inspections and no longer performs specialized inspection functions in the field of competition. The sanctioning authorities of the chairman of the NCC and the Council for handling competition restriction cases (Hội đồng xử lý vụ việc cạnh tranh) are integrated and clarified.

The types of acts covered are expanded, and the maximum fines for other violations of competition law are increased for individuals (up to VND 100 million, approximately USD 4,000) and organizations (up to VND 200 million, approximately USD 8,000);

Application of Law on Handling of Administrative Violations

The Draft Decree amends Article 29 of Decree 75, which regulates procedures for imposing administrative sanctions for competition violations, to provide specific guidance in cases where the Law on Competition and the Law on Handling of Administrative Violations contain different provisions on the same issue. In such cases, the amendment prioritizes the application of the Law on Competition. If the Law on Competition does not contain specific provisions, then the Law on Handling of Administrative Violations will apply.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
December 4, 2025
Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD), through its Office of Central Company and Partnership Registration, has released multiple draft orders for public consultation until December 12, 2025. These draft orders aim to strengthen the business registration process, with a focus on the requirements for establishing and amending the principal office address of a partnership or limited company, verification of authorized signatories, and measures to identify and prevent registrations involving persons linked to suspicious or high-risk activities. The draft orders’ proposed requirements are outlined below. Principal Office Verification The principal office address of a partnership or limited company, including house registration code, house number, full address details, and building name, must be fully aligned with the civil registry. The registrar will strictly verify this before accepting any registration or amendment. If the address used for registration is already registered for at least five other companies, the company must submit a consent letter from the person authorized to allow use of the principal office, along with supporting documents proving the right to use the address. Signatory Certification Compliance Duties Persons certifying directors’ signatures on registration forms are responsible for verifying their identities, maintaining up-to-date information, and complying with the requirements of the DBD’s Biz Regist digital registration system. Certain supporting documents proving the qualifications of certifying persons are also required, with some exceptions for specific professional roles. Identity and qualification verification must be renewed upon the completion of one year from the date of registration as a certifying person, or if the certification credentials expire before the one-year period ends, in accordance with the verification requirements. Verification of Suspicious Parties Any partner, shareholder, or director linked to a predicate offense will be required to meet with the registrar in person for further verification steps. For all parties related to a company
December 2, 2025
Investing in Mainland Southeast Asia is Tilleke & Gibbins’ essential guide for investors looking to do business in this vibrant region, whether it’s starting operations as a newly established entity or expanding into new territories or business models.
November 28, 2025
On November 26, 2025, the government of Vietnam issued Resolution No. 8/2025/NQ-CP to extend and expand the pilot program allowing Vietnamese citizens who meet certain conditions to gamble at three integrated casino resorts in Vietnam: Corona Resorts & Casino Phu Quoc (An Giang Province) – Effective immediately, and continuing an ongoing pilot program that started in 2019. The Grand Casino Ho Tram (Ho Chi Minh City) – New pilot program for five years starting November 26, 2025. Van Don Integrated Casino & Tourism Complex (Quang Ninh Province) – New pilot program for five years from the date the casino receives its license. The pilot program was originally established under Decree No. 03/2017/ND-CP on casino business, which also sets out the specific eligibility conditions for Vietnamese citizens. After the pilot period, these projects must stop allowing Vietnamese players until the government issues further decisions. This expansion of the pilot program comes after Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) released a draft decree earlier this year proposing significant changes to the regulatory framework governing casino operations. These revisions, which focus on increasing fiscal contributions from local players and strengthening compliance obligations for casino operators nationwide, are detailed below. Proposed Increase in Casino Entry Fees for Vietnamese Players The draft decree increases the entry fees applicable to Vietnamese citizens permitted to play at casinos. Under the current regulations, Vietnamese players are required to pay an entry fee of VND 1 million (approx. USD 38) for 24 consecutive hours or VND 25 million (approx. USD 950) per month. The draft decree proposes increasing these fees to VND 2.5 million (approx. USD 95) for 24 consecutive hours and VND 50 million (approx. USD 1,900) per month, effectively doubling the existing amounts and marking the first major fee revision since the pilot program allowing Vietnamese players