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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 23, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has significantly revised its post-approval compliance framework for projects that receive investment promotion incentives, replacing the previous semiannual reporting system for project progress with a new quarterly reporting regime. The initial report is due by July 30, 2026, covering the second-quarter reporting period of April to June 2026. The new requirements—implemented through BOI Announcement No. 8/2569 and Office of the BOI Notification No. Por. 8/2569, both of which became effective on March 30, 2026—apply both to newly promoted projects and to existing promoted projects that remain in the implementation stage. Background Under the previous reporting framework, BOI-promoted companies that had not yet commenced full operations were generally required to submit reports on project progress to the BOI twice a year (February and July) through the BOI’s e-Monitoring system. By adopting a quarterly reporting regime, the BOI seeks to strengthen monitoring and evaluation of investment progress and project implementation. Reporting Requirements Under the new regulations, BOI-promoted companies must submit project progress reports on a quarterly basis during the implementation phase of a promoted project. The reporting periods and submission deadlines are: Q1 (January–March): April 30 Q2 (April–June): July 30 Q3 (July–September): October 30 Q4 (October–December): January 30 of the following year The quarterly reporting obligation runs from the date the BOI promotion certificate is issued until the BOI grants approval for commencement of full operations. For newly promoted projects, no quarterly report is required for the quarter in which the BOI promotion certificate is issued—the first reporting obligation arises in the immediately following reporting period. All project progress reports must be submitted electronically through the BOI’s e-Monitoring system. The existing annual reporting requirement also remains in effect, requiring promoted companies to submit an annual operating results report through the e-Monitoring system by July 31 of
Read More
June 9, 2026
On April 28, 2026, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) issued Notification No. 18/2026 introducing the new Foreign Remittance Business Regulations. The new regulations apply to companies intending to operate foreign remittance businesses in Myanmar that are not licensed banks, non-bank financial institutions, or other financial institutions. The regulations supersede and replace the previous regulatory framework governing foreign remittance businesses under CBM Notification No. 21/2019. While the overall structure remains familiar, the new regulations introduce more detailed requirements for licensing, operations, reporting, and compliance, with a stronger focus on transparency and regulatory oversight. Broader Licensing Requirements Under the new regulations, applicants must submit detailed business plans describing the use of information technology and mobile platforms, along with clear plans for handling remittances from workers abroad and resolving customer complaints. Financial Thresholds and Reporting Requirements The baseline financial thresholds remain unchanged. Licensees must maintain a security deposit of MMK 100 million in an escrow account, along with a separate revolving fund dedicated solely to remittance operations. The new regulations introduce more structured reporting obligations. Licensees are now required to submit daily remittance transaction data by the next business day before noon, in addition to monthly and periodic reporting requirements. Foreign bank account statements must also be submitted regularly, and licensees must provide updates on business operations every six months. Strengthened AML and CFT Framework The new regulations place a greater emphasis on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter financing of terrorism (CFT), with tighter controls over management changes. Any changes in shareholding, share transfers, or the appointment of key management personnel such as the managing director require prior approval from the CBM. Licensing Fees and Validity The new regulations increase licensing costs, while maintaining the same validity period of three years. The new regulations provide more detailed grounds for suspension and
Read More
June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More