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

March 13, 2018

New Penal Code Brings New Risks to Businesses in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
BRINK Asia

A new Penal Code (the “New Penal Code”) came into effect in Vietnam on January 1, 2018. Important for foreign and domestic investors alike, the New Penal Code introduces a number of provisions on corporate criminal liability and anti-corruption, increasing the risks for businesses in the country.

These changes are particularly significant because under the previous Vietnamese criminal code, only individuals could be criminally liable. Now, however, corporate entities can face criminal sanctions too. The New Penal Code also criminalizes private sector corruption—something that was absent from Vietnam’s anti-corruption regime. Individuals working for private entities, including charities, can now be criminally liable for bribery offenses that exclusively involve other private parties.

Corporate Criminal Liability

Offenses and liability. There are a host of offenses in the New Penal Code that prescribe corporate criminal liability. The offenses include smuggling, dealing in banned and counterfeit goods, insider trading, tax evasion, money laundering, terrorism financing, failure to pay insurance to workers, insurance fraud, antitrust and environmental crimes, among others. Importantly, the New Penal Code does not establish corporate criminal liability for corruption offenses. Only the individual actors involved in bribery can be punished. 

Companies are criminally liable only when certain conditions are met. First, the crime must have been committed in the corporation’s name. Second, the crime must have been done to further the company’s interests. Third, the company must have  approved the offense. This latter point is especially important, as  a company may not necessarily bear criminal responsibility for the actions of a rogue employee.

Punishments. The New Penal Code sets out  various punishments for companies convicted of a crime. The primary corporate punishment consists of a fine. The law sets a minimum value of the fine at VND 50 million (about USD 2,200). The amount of the fine depends on the nature of the offense. A company’s financial capacity is also taken into account when fines are considered.

Other punishments include suspension of operations for a limited time period (with the maximum being three years), and, for more egregious offenses, a permanent shutdown. The law also allows  banning the company from engaging in particular fields, as well as a prohibition from raising capital. In addition, property gained from crimes can be confiscated,  including  illegal profits.

Mitigating and aggravating factors. Leniency is applied to companies that voluntarily disclose their offenses to authorities, and  cooperate during criminal proceedings. Leniency is also granted when a company voluntarily compensates for any inflicted damage or takes action to alleviate consequences of a crime. Interestingly, the law also describes making considerable contributions to social policies as a mitigating factor. While “social policies” are undefined, companies should take note. Importantly, a company may be exempt from punishment altogether after it repairs whatever damages the conduct caused and paid compensation.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are aggravating circumstances that could lead to stricter punishments. The New Penal Code states that if companies collude to commit a criminal offense, that is an aggravating factor. Other aggravating factors would include circumstances where a company deliberately commits the crime to the end or where it has committed the crime multiple times. A company can also face stricter punishment if “sophisticated tricks” are used to commit or hide the offense.

Anti-Corruption

The underlying concept stated in the New Penal Code that defines corrupt activities is “abuse of power.” Public and private office-holders are liable for offenses relating to abuses of power.  The term “office-holders” is broadly defined as people who are granted duties and authority “through appointment, election, contract conclusion, or another method.” The law also states that office-holders “might or might not receive salaries.” This seemingly covers anyone who has some measure of authority within an organization.

Giving and promising bribes. The New Penal Code criminalizes the giving and promising of bribes to any office-holder, person, or organization, whether public or private. The penalty for giving or promising  a bribe largely depends on the benefit’s value. The minimum value of tangible benefits to trigger a violation  is VND 2 million (about USD 88). Penalties range from fines of VND 20 million (about USD 880) and six months’ to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Interestingly, the law introduces a prohibition on bribery involving foreign government officials and officials with public international organizations. This is relevant as Vietnam is a significant recipient of official development assistance, and loans from multilateral development banks and financial institutions.

The law states that any person who voluntarily reports giving a bribe before being discovered might be exempt from criminal liability and could have all or part of the bribe money/property returned. Furthermore, if someone is “forced” to give a bribe, but voluntarily reports the bribe before being discovered, that person may be acquitted and have the bribe money returned.

Receiving bribes. Under the New Penal Code, government officials and individuals in the private sector are criminally liable for taking bribes. An offense is committed regardless of whether the bribe is received directly or via an intermediary. Penalties range from a minimum of two years’ imprisonment, to life imprisonment and death. The penalty depends on the value of the bribe received. Similar to giving bribes, the law contains a VND 2 million minimum threshold at which receiving a bribe violates the statute.

Brokering bribery. The New Penal Code criminalizes the act of “brokering” bribery. This provision applies directly to the private sector. “Brokering bribery” means bribery by an intermediary (though the law does not expressly define the term). An intermediary between a bribe giver and bribe taker is criminally liable under the law, independent from the main transacting parties. If the bribery broker voluntarily reports the bribe before the crime is discovered, the broker may be exempt from criminal responsibility.

Embezzlement. The New Penal Code characterizes embezzlement as a corruption-related offense. Embezzlement occurs when someone  abuses  power to embezzle property under his/her  management. Embezzlement crosses the criminal threshold when it involves a minimum amount of VND 2 million. The severity of the penalty depends on the amount appropriated and additional factors, such as the number of times the offense was committed, the seriousness of the offense’s impact on the organization, and others. The minimum penalty is two to seven years’ imprisonment; the maximum is the death penalty.

Corporate Compliance

With the New Penal Code introducing corporate criminal liability and criminalization of private sector bribery, companies doing business in Vietnam face new risks. It is therefore essential that investors establish and strengthen corporate compliance programs and take other measures to reduce  risk. Companies must also consider their reputational damage if dealing with a criminal prosecution or corrupt employees.

While the law does bring new risk, there is also benefit to investors. The New Penal Code will hopefully serve as a deterrent for those companies, employees, and managers who may be tempted to engage in criminal activity, seek kickbacks, give and take bribes, and pursue other corrupt actions. Organizations in Vietnam should educate their employees on the new law as part of their overall internal training and compliance efforts. Companies should also pay attention to any future implementing regulations that may further clarify corporate criminal liability and corruption-related aspects of the New Penal Code.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 28, 2026
Thailand has expanded the mandatory use of the Electronic Government Procurement (e-GP) system to cover submissions of procurement appeals to all government agencies subject to the Public Procurement and Supplies Administrative Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (Government Procurement Act). The expansion, which was set out in an official circular dated September 16, 2026, from the Public Procurement and Supplies Administrative Ruling Committee, takes effect on October 1, 2026. Notable Changes Under the expanded framework, bidders challenging an e-bidding or selective-method procurement result must file their appeal exclusively through e-GP within seven working days of the result being announced by the Comptroller General’s Department. While the system accepts filings around the clock during that window, submissions on the final day must be fully completed by 16:30 according to the e-GP system clock—merely starting a draft or uploading materials before the cutoff does not count as a confirmed submission. Government agencies that disagree with an appeal, in whole or in part, will also report their findings and supporting documents to the Appeals Committee through e-GP using the prescribed Appeal Opinion Report, also within seven working days of receipt. Withdrawals of appeals must likewise follow prescribed e-GP steps that vary depending on whether the matter is still under agency review, has been forwarded to the Appeals Committee, or has already been resolved. Excluded Categories Certain categories of procurement are not subject to the new guidelines on filing appeals electronically. These include: Procurement of supplies for confidential government use. Procurement conducted by government agencies operating overseas where the bidder is a foreign legal entity with no legal representative in Thailand, or where the bidder is a non-Thai national. Consulting service procurement under chapter 7 of the Government Procurement Act Design or construction supervision procurement under chapter 8 of the Government Procurement These exclusions apply
Read More
September 28, 2026
On July 22, 2026, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 292/2026/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the Law on Foreign Trade Management (Decree 292). Decree 292 came into effect on September 5, 2026, replacing Decree No. 69/2018/NND-CP, and introduces several important changes to Vietnam’s foreign trade regime. Of particular relevance is the addition to the list of goods prohibited from importation of “products and goods extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or partly through forced labor by enterprises, countries, or territories in accordance with relevant international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a party.” This new prohibition introduces forced-labor considerations into Vietnam’s import compliance framework and may have practical implications for how businesses manage related risks across their operations and supply chains. Implementation of the New Prohibition According to Decree 292, the minister or head of the relevant ministerial-level agency is responsible for publishing the detailed list and corresponding harmonized system (HS) codes for each category of goods prohibited from export or import under its purview. Goods involving forced labor fall under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, as of the date of this article, no corresponding list has been published specifying the goods to which the forced-labor prohibition applies, leaving businesses without official guidance on how the prohibition will be applied or enforced in practice. Nevertheless, this absence does not suspend the prohibition’s application. As Decree 292 has already taken effect, goods involving forced labor remain subject to the general legal framework applicable to goods prohibited from importation. In particular, Decree 169/2026/ND-CP provides for administrative penalties for the importation or transportation of prohibited goods into Vietnam. Depending on the nature and circumstances of the violation, criminal liability may also arise under the Criminal Code. In practice, enforcement is likely to depend on the
Read More
September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More