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​ 

September 25, 2025
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Phnom Penh have authored the Cambodia chapter of Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, the latest edition of Lexology Panoramic’s global guide to handling labor and employment disputes. The chapter provides practical insights on a wide range of dispute resolution issues, including: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The full Cambodia chapter is available for download below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
September 11, 2025
Thailand traditionally has had a reputation as a “crossroads” for numerous illegal activities and of the laundering of significant sums of tainted money. Member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)? No. Any Egmont members? Yes. Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) is a member of the Egmont Group. Regulation The relevant law, known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act (the Act), was passed in March 1999 with the aim of combating not only the drug trade but also other illicit activities, such as corruption, criminal fraud and prostitution. There have been a number of changes and updates to the Act, the most recent one in late 2015, in which the Act was amended to include: Additional predicate offences such as offences relating to human trafficking, online gambling and offences relating to unfair practices relating to derivatives and agricultural commodity futures. Broader scope of money laundering offence. Non-disclosure obligations to applicable financial institutions and reporting entities. Compulsory training to financial institutions and reporting entities’ employees responsible to monitor and ensure compliance with the Act. Retention period. Enhanced penalties Additionally, discussions did take place mooting further changes to the Act, set out in 2020 and 2021 drafts. Proposed changes included suggestions to expand the definitions of financial institutes, predicate offences and professions, as well as to impose greater reporting and due diligence responsibilities on companies subject to the Act. However, recent amendments to the Act in 2022 only included minor procedural and substantive changes that did not materially alter or expand the Act. The most notable amendments were changes to an injured party’s rights to claim damages caused by a predicate offence and the rights of beneficiaries claiming assets seized by the government in connection with a predicate offence. Financial intelligence unit Of the total number of transactions reported to AMLO annually,
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as