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​ 

December 12, 2025
Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More
December 12, 2025
Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
December 3, 2025
Recent high-profile corporate fraud and accounting scandals have brought increased scrutiny to governance, compliance, and enforcement practices in Thailand, highlighting the legal and practical challenges facing companies operating in the country. As regulators and law enforcement authorities sharpen their focus on financial misconduct, cybercrime, and corruption, businesses must navigate a complex and evolving investigative landscape. Tilleke & Gibbins’ investigations and compliance team examines these issues in the Thailand chapter of The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations – Tenth Edition, published by Global Investigations Review (GIR). The chapter provides a detailed overview of Thailand’s legal framework for corporate investigations, offering practical guidance for companies and counsel responding to regulatory and criminal scrutiny. The Thailand chapter covers key topics including corporate criminal liability, enforcement priorities, internal investigations, data protection considerations, dawn raids, whistleblowing, cyber-related investigations, and cross-border cooperation. It also addresses emerging issues such as cybersecurity enforcement, economic sanctions compliance, and anticipated developments affecting investigations in Thailand. The chapter is authored by John Frangos, Chitchai Punsan, Alongkorn Tongmee, Michael Ramirez, Piyawat Vitooraporn, and Michelle McLeod. The Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below, and the full guide can be accessed on the GIR website.
Read More