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​ 

October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education
September 26, 2025
As Vietnam accelerates its digital transformation, data centers have emerged as critical infrastructure supporting the shift toward a digital government, digital economy, and digital society. For businesses targeting Vietnam’s rapidly growing data center market, a clear understanding of the evolving regulatory landscape, compliance obligations, and government incentives is key to successful market entry and operation. This article provides a strategic overview of investment opportunities and key compliance requirements in Vietnam’s dynamic data center sector. Investment Incentives to Boost Data Center Growth Since July 1, 2024, organizations and individuals across all economic sectors have been encouraged to invest in and contribute to the development of data centers. By law, there are no restrictions on shareholding ratios, capital contributions, or foreign investor participation in data center and cloud computing services under business cooperation contracts. Currently, investment in AI data centers is classified as a specially incentivized industry, qualifying for preferential treatments and incentives in terms of investment, taxation, land use, and other related areas. Large-scale data centers, together with AI and cloud computing, are currently considered as strategic technologies and products for which Vietnam offers significant fiscal, tax, and land incentives to promote investment. Additionally, these large-scale projects may receive direct financial support from local development budgets for facility construction, technical infrastructure, and equipment procurement, subject to state budget provisions and applicable laws. AI data center construction projects also enjoy preferential treatment under customs regulations. Regulatory Approvals for Providing Data Center Services The 2023 Telecom Law and its guiding documents marked a significant milestone by classifying data center services as value-added telecom services. Under the law, a data center service is defined as a telecom service that enables users to process, store, and retrieve information via a telecom network through the leasing of part or all of a data center. A
September 19, 2025
Over the past two years—particularly since Thailand announced incentives for EVs, including tax exemptions and reductions—there has been a clear trend of manufacturers relocating their facilities to Thailand. This shift is reshaping the country’s industrial landscape and creating significant opportunities in the real estate sector for companies looking to establish or expand EV manufacturing operations in Southeast Asia. Incentive-Driven Market Transformation The government’s tax exemptions and reductions have proven effective in attracting foreign investment, with Chinese manufacturers currently dominating the market. Most EV parts and car manufacturers operating in Thailand are from China, reflecting the prominence of Chinese EV brands that have already established a presence in the country. The sector encompasses manufacturers of electrical equipment as well as companies seeking to establish facilities for producing electric vehicle components, parts, and accessories. The surge in activity is evident across Thailand’s EV manufacturing sector, with legal practices handling these transactions experiencing unprecedented demand. Industrial Real Estate Framework and Market Dynamics Thailand’s industrial real estate framework provides compelling advantages for foreign manufacturers, who typically face restrictions on foreign land ownership under the Land Code. However, foreign investors can benefit from exemptions to these restrictions if the land is located within industrial real estate zones designated by the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand (IEAT) or they obtain investment promotion from the Board of Investment (BOI) if the land is located outside an industrial estate area governed by the IEAT. Both the IEAT and BOI provide special tax and nontax incentives, including foreign land ownership, with even greater incentives available for land situated within the country’s Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC). This regulatory advantage has sparked a parallel trend in land development. Industrial real estate developers in the EEC are actively consolidating land into large plots to develop new industrial estate projects, recognizing that