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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the