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

July 25, 2025

Navigating Key Updates of Vietnam’s Amended Law on Enterprises

Subscribe to Updates

On June 17, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 76/2025/QH15 (Amended LOE) amending and supplementing the 2020 Law on Enterprises, which aims to reshape the legal framework to enhance transparency and alignment with international standards. The Amended LOE took effect from July 1, 2025.

Below are key notes on the Amended LOE.

Recognition of Beneficial Owners

The beneficial owner (BO) concept was previously addressed under Vietnam’s anti-money laundering framework. However, the formal recognition of a BO in the Amended LOE marks a pivotal advancement in embedding ownership transparency into corporate governance, in line with the G7 Financial Action Task Force’s standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing.

Under the Amended LOE and Decree No. 168/2025/ND-CP of the government dated June 30, 2025, on enterprise registration (Decree 168), a BO is identified through either equity ownership or control rights.

  • Equity ownership: Individuals holding 25% or more of a company’s charter capital or voting shares, either directly or indirectly, qualify as BOs. Indirect ownership is further defined as ownership of at least 25% of charter capital or voting shares through an intermediary organization.
  • Control rights: Individuals with the authority to make or influence major decisions are considered BOs. The actual control over a company includes the power (i) to appoint or remove most or all members of the board of directors or the members’ council or the general director of a company; (ii) to amend the charter; or (iii) to decide other key matters specified in the company’s charter. Notably, individuals representing state ownership in state-owned enterprises are excluded from the scope of the BO concept.

Companies are responsible for collecting, updating, and retaining information about BOs and cooperating with authorities when requested to identify BOs, among other obligations. Additionally, any companies registered before July 1, 2025, must submit a list of their BOs when updating or registering changes to their enterprise registration contents, unless they opt to provide an earlier notification.

Companies and their founders are required to declare BO information when (i) individuals or entities hold 25% or more of the voting shares in a joint-stock company, (ii) individuals own 25% or more capital contribution, or (iii) individuals have control rights. Decree 168’s guidance on “control rights” creates uncertainty, as determining who qualifies as a BO depends heavily on each company’s charter and specific decision-making powers. Additionally, control exercised indirectly makes it difficult to trace the actual individual behind corporate decisions. Therefore, the BO declaration will need further guidance from the competent authorities.

Re-definition of Market Price

The Amended LOE amended the definition of “market price” to provide clearer guidelines for listed shares, specifying a new method based on the average trading price over 30 days before valuation. The existing methods of determination of the market price under the 2020 Law on Enterprises remain unchanged.

These updates aim to standardize the valuation of shares and capital contributions and strengthen the credibility of registered capital figures.

Debt-to-Equity Cap for Private Bond Placement

To address regulatory gaps and heightened concerns over investor protection and financial stability in the bond market, the Amended LOE adds a new financial condition for private placements of bonds by non-publicly listed companies. The bond issuers’ total liabilities (including the bonds to be issued) must not exceed five times the equity as reflected in the latest audited financial statements. Importantly, this leverage cap applies exclusively to corporate bonds and does not extend to other privately issued debt instruments (such as debentures or promissory notes).

This new requirement does not apply to (i) state-owned enterprises, entities issuing bonds to fund real estate projects, credit institutions, insurers, reinsurers, insurance brokers, securities firms, and fund managers; and (ii) bond issuances disclosed to the stock exchange before July 1, 2025.

These reforms reflect a broader effort of lawmakers to restore investors’ trust, promote responsible capital raising, and safeguard the integrity of Vietnam’s financial markets.

Redemption of Redeemable Preference Shares

Previously, given the lack of specific legal procedures, licensing authorities were reluctant to approve capital reduction in cases where joint stock companies redeem redeemable preference shares (RPS). To solve this practical obstacle, the Amended LOE explicitly specifies the procedures for joint stock companies to decrease their charter capital after redeeming the RPS and returning capital to RPS holders

This amendment aims to streamline the licensing procedures in case of RPS redemption and promote operational flexibility. This is likely beneficial for investors seeking liquidity or exit rights tied to specific share classes, as it reinforces the viability of redeemable instruments within Vietnam’s corporate framework.

False Declaration of Charter Capital

False declaration of charter capital is prohibited, but is not explicitly defined, under the 2020 Law on Enterprises, resulting in inconsistent interpretations and enforcement by the competent authorities in practice. The Amended LOE provides a clear definition of “false declaration of charter capital” to clarify as either (i) failure to fully contribute the registered charter capital by the statutory deadline without registering a decrease in the declared amount; or (ii) intentional mis-valuation of assets contributed as capital in kind.

The reform aims to provide a clear legal basis to identify and penalize prohibited actions (such as false declaration of charter capital), prevent the formation of shell companies, and reduce risks of fraud and money laundering.

Outlook

The Amended LOE enhances transparency and regulatory oversight, aiming to boost foreign investor confidence, streamline compliance for businesses, and strengthen enforcement capabilities for regulators.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 3, 2024
On May 24, 2024, the Central Bank of Myanmar (“CBM”) issued a public notice warning individuals against participating in the sale, purchase, exchange, or transfer of unregulated digital currencies, as well as unauthorized money transfers. The CBM has indicated its readiness to enforce regulations by closing bank accounts and pursuing legal action, which may result in imprisonment, fines, or both, in accordance with the Central Bank of Myanmar Law, the Anti-Money Laundering Law and the Financial Institutions Law. The CBM is the sole legal entity authorized to issue currency in Myanmar, as stipulated in the Central Bank of Myanmar Law. The CBM does not recognize digital currencies as official currency, nor has it granted permission to financial institutions within Myanmar to trade them. The existing legal framework, comprising the Foreign Exchange Management Law and the Financial Institutions Law, further cements the illegality of cryptocurrency transactions within the nation’s borders. Four years ago, in May 2020, the CBM issued Notification No. 9/2020, prohibiting all persons residing in Myanmar from engaging in the sale, purchase, or exchange of unregulated digital currencies. The list of prohibited currencies includes widely recognized cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTD), Ethereum (ETH), and Perfect Money (PM), with a particular emphasis on transactions conducted through personal Facebook accounts and web pages. Before the issuance of the 2020 notification, the CBM had announced that anyone engaging in digital currency transactions did so at their own risk, but no enforcement measures were being taken at the time. However, after the 2020 notification was issued, the CBM has pursued legal action against persons involved in illegal currency conversion and unauthorized hundi money transfers using Tether (USDT). These enforcement measures have included shutting down bank accounts and initiating legal proceedings under the Anti-Money Laundering Law and the Financial Institutions Law.
Read More
May 30, 2024
A bank guarantee or bond is a powerful tool that provides contractual parties with security and assurance. Bank guarantees are commitments made by a bank (as a guarantor) on behalf of a customer (as an obligor) to a beneficiary to ensure that certain contractual obligations will be fulfilled. If the customer fails to comply with these obligations, the bank can compensate the beneficiary up to the amount specified in the bank guarantee. Bank guarantees are widely used in Thailand as a form of security and are common in construction agreements and government procurement contracts, among others. If the beneficiary (e.g., a project owner) concludes that the counterparty in the agreement (e.g., a contractor) has breached the underlying contract in some way, the beneficiary will demand payment from the bank pursuant to the guarantee. Collecting on a Guarantee and Preventing Payment In the context of construction and procurement agreements, there are two types of bank guarantees—conditional and unconditional. A conditional bank guarantee means that the project owner must satisfy certain agreed-upon conditions (e.g., provision of proof of the breach, proof of damages, or even consent from the contractor) to demand payment. An unconditional bank guarantee means that the bank must compensate the project owner for the demanded amount (up to the limit specified in the bank guarantee) without any conditions. When a project owner concludes that a contractor has breached the underlying contract (often for nonperformance or failure to comply with a representation or warranty), the project owner will demand payment from the bank holding the guarantee. Upon receiving such a demand, Thai banks will usually inform the contractor and ask if it has any objections. Even if the bank guarantee is unconditional, in practice, a bank may be reluctant to make payment if the contractor, as the bank’s customer,
Read More
May 9, 2024
As non-cash payments continue to surge in Vietnam, the requirement for strong security standards and a clear legislative framework for intermediary payment services (“IPS”) is becoming more and more critical. Recognizing this, the State Bank of Vietnam (“SBV”) has been working on a draft decree to supersede the outdated Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Draft Non-Cash Payment Decree”), which will lay the groundwork for non-cash payments in general and the provision of IPS in particular. Building upon this, the SBV recently issued a draft circular to replace Circular No. 39/2014/TT-NHNN dated December 11, 2014, on IPS (“Circular 39”) (“Draft IPS Circular”), which will offer more detailed guidance on the provision of IPS in Vietnam on top of the Draft Non-Cash Payment Decree. The Draft IPS Circular will be applicable to (i) IPS providers; (ii) foreign organizations providing IPS in Vietnam; and (iii) organizations and individuals involved in the provision of IPS. Some key updates regarding the Draft IPS Circular are as follows: Scope of Application The Draft IPS Circular sets out further guidance for the provision of IPS as listed under the Draft Non-Cash Payment Decree, including: (i) electronic clearing services; (ii) electronic wallet (“e-wallet”) services; (iii) collection and payment support services; (iv) financial switching services; (v) international financial switching services; and (vi) electronic payment gateway services. Notably, the Draft IPS Circular has explicitly excluded from its scope of application the provision of accounts by goods/service providers to their customers solely for the purpose of payment within the systems of such providers (e.g., cards/coupons or service/transaction accounts of online game service providers, transportation service providers, or securities companies, etc.). Requirements on the Provision of IPS Electronic Clearing Services: The Draft IPS Circular introduces regulations to cover certain elements of electronic clearing services that have
Read More
March 27, 2024
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has opened a public comment period on their consultation paper titled “Criteria for Supervising Virtual Banks” from March 19, 2024, to April 17, 2024. The consultation paper reveals that the BOT intends to apply traditional commercial bank supervisory standards to virtual banks. However, the BOT also explains that the wholly digital nature of the services offered by virtual banks necessitates additional regulatory supervision. Additional Supervisory Criteria for Virtual Banks Financial business group: If a virtual bank is within the same financial business group as other financial institutions, its parent company must structure the virtual bank to be under its own sole consolidated financial business group. After the virtual bank has undergone the “restricted phase” in its initial years of operation (see below), other financial institutions within the group are prohibited from extending credit to or engaging in transactions similar to lending activities with the virtual bank. Shareholding structure: If the increase in the financial institution system capital is higher than the actual capital injection resulting from the bank’s shareholding structure, the BOT aims to issue an additional regulation to supervise the capital of the virtual bank and financial institution system to prevent double counting. Operational risk: Virtual banks must not use a trademark or logo that bears resemblance to or implies association with other financial institutions or financial institution groups. Governance: Virtual banks must have at least one director and chief technology officer (CTO) with at least three years of experience in IT or digital service. Additionally, the CTO must work full-time for the virtual bank and may not be an employee of another legal entity. Restriction on related lending and related-party transactions: Virtual banks must obtain prior unanimous approval from their boards of directors before engaging in transactions with major shareholders or businesses
Read More