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 13, 2018

New Decree on Multi-Level Marketing in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

Multi-level marketing (MLM) activities are allowed under the law in Vietnam. However, in recent years, a few MLM companies in Vietnam have been accused of not being fair to customers, not fulfilling tax obligations, and/or at times trading in low-quality products. A report from the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) showed that from June 2015 to November 2016, the MOIT inspected and initiated investigations into 65 MLM companies and imposed fines totaling VND 11 billion (approximately USD 485,000) for violations. By the middle of March 2018, the MOIT had revoked the licenses of 17 MLM companies and another 17 MLM companies had voluntarily stopped their operations. Currently, there are 33 MLM companies operating in Vietnam.

With the aim of tightening the existing MLM regulations and giving MLM companies a better legal framework under which to operate, the government issued Decree No. 40/2018/ND-CP on Management of Multi-Level Marketing Activities (Decree 40) on March 12, 2018. The new decree, which will take effect on May 2, 2018, revises and replaces Decree 42/2014/ND-CP dated May 14, 2014 (Decree 42). Some of the highlights of Decree 40 are provided below.

New Registration Requirements

Decree 40 adds a few new requirements to the conditions a company must satisfy to obtain an MLM license: The MLM company must operate an IT system with a server in Vietnam to manage its MLM network; it must have a website with full information on its MLM activities; and it must have a communications system to receive and resolve queries and complaints from MLM participants.

In addition, the MLM company needs to have charter capital of at least VND 10 billion (approximately USD 440,000), and make an escrow deposit equivalent to 5% of its charter capital (but not less than VND 10 billion – an increase from the VND 5 billion required under Decree 42) into a bank account. The escrow serves as security for the MLM participants and funds may be used toward payment of unpaid penalties to Vietnamese authorities, and/or compensation for damages should the MLM company breach any of its obligations to the MLM participants.

Additional Restrictions

As was the case under Decree 42, only goods (not services) are permitted to be traded under the MLM model, and certain types of goods, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and various chemicals, are prohibited. Decree 40 also adds digital content products to the list of prohibited goods.

To combat the risks associated with some forms of multi-level marketing, Decree 40, like the previous Decree 42, prohibits MLM companies from performing a wide range of acts, such as requiring deposits or monetary payments from MLM participants. The following acts are newly prohibited under Decree 40:

  • Conducting promotions using an MLM network in which participants in the promotion have more than one position/ID number (in other words, where participants could benefit from having multiple virtual identities).
  • Organizing commercial intermediary activities (for example, engaging a commercial agent or broker) for the purpose of maintaining, expanding, or developing MLM networks.
  • Receiving or accepting documents from MLM participants in which the participants renounce some or all of their rights or release enterprises from their obligations toward participants under provisions of Decree 40.
  • Failing to use the management system registered with the MOIT to manage MLM participants.

Implementation

Within nine months from May 2, 2018 (i.e., by February 2, 2019), companies which were licensed for MLM activities under the previous Decree 42 must satisfy all conditions for doing business under Decree 40 (for example, their IT system must have a server placed in Vietnam, and they must have a system to receive and resolve queries and complaints from MLM participants).

Related Professionals

Practices

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