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

October 8, 2019

Vietnam Issues Penalties for Violations of Competition Law

Subscribe to Updates

On September 26, 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on sanctioning of administrative violations in the field of competition (“Decree 75”). Decree 75 will take effect on December 1, 2019, replacing Decree No. 71/2014/ND-CP. The new decree primarily provides guidance on the forms, levels, and procedures of administrative penalties found in the updated Law on Competition, which took effect on July 1, 2019.

The new Law on Competition mainly governs four groups of activities: (1) competition-restricting agreements, (2) abuse of dominant market position or monopoly position; (3) economic concentration; and (4) unfair competitive practices. Violators of the Law on Competition, depending on the nature and seriousness of the violation, can be subject to an administrative penalty or prosecuted for criminal liability. Additionally, if loss or damage is caused to other parties, compensation must be paid. Under the Penal Code, criminal penalties in the field of competition include fines of up to VND 3 billion (approximately USD 129,000) and a term of imprisonment of up to five years.

The main administrative penalties under Decree 75 are warnings or fines. In addition to the main administrative penalties, the violator may be subject to additional penalties such as confiscation of profits earned from the violation, revocation of its Enterprise Registration Certificate or similar license, or suspension of business activities from six months to one year.

Violators may also be subject to remedial measures, such as public correction, restructuring of an enterprise which abuses its dominant market position or monopoly position, or removal of illegal clauses from an agreement or contract.

Some key provisions on administrative penalties in Decree 75 are as follows:

(a) The maximum fine for violations on competition-restricting agreements and abuse of market dominance/monopoly position is 10% of the violating company’s total turnover in the relevant market in the financial year immediately preceding the year in which the violations were committed, but shall be lower than the lowest level of fines applicable to violations of corresponding regulations in the Penal Code.

(b) The maximum fine for violations of the provisions on economic concentration is 5% of the violating company’s total turnover in the relevant market in the financial year immediately preceding the year in which the violations were committed.

(c) The maximum fine for violations of the provisions on unfair competition is VND 2 billion (approximately USD 86,000).

If the violating company’s total turnover in the relevant market in the financial year immediately preceding the year in which the violations were committed in items (a) and (b) above is 0, the fine will be imposed in the range of VND 100 million to VND 200 million (approximately USD 4,300 to USD 8,600).

It is worth noting that the Decree 75 removed some overlapping penalties for violations related to intellectual property, multi-level marketing, and unfair competition in advertising and promotions, as these violations are governed by specific laws.

For more information on penalties in the field of competition, please contact [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 8, 2022
Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission has amended the guidelines prohibiting large purchasers from setting unfair credit terms for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The new guidelines, which were published in the Government Gazette on August 17, 2022, revise the definition of SMEs and clarify the duties of concerned parties. The original guidelines, which took effect in December 2021, set a favorable maximum period for credit terms for SMEs selling products or services to a third-party purchaser. Prescribing longer credit terms than the mandatory period would constitute an unfair trade practice in violation of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017). In defining what businesses are considered SMEs, the guidelines set thresholds for the number of employees and amount of annual turnover. The amended guidelines maintain these thresholds, but the new guidelines require that both employee-number and turnover thresholds be met in order for a business to be considered an SME. In contrast, the original guidelines only required either the employee-number threshold or the turnover threshold to be met. This amendment will likely mean that fewer business operators qualify as SMEs. Accordingly, two types of businesses are defined as SMEs under the guidelines: Manufacturers of goods with up to 200 employees and an annual turnover of no more than THB 500 million (approximately USD 13.5 million); or Service providers or wholesale or retail businesses with up to 100 employees and an annual turnover of no more than THB 300 million (approximately USD 8.1 million). To benefit from protection under the new guidelines against unfair credit terms, SMEs must provide documents proving the number of employees and the amount of annual turnover to trade partners that purchase goods or services from them. The new guidelines come into force on September 16, 2022. For more information on the unfair credit term guidelines, or
Read More
August 23, 2022
Indemnification clauses are common contractual provisions in many jurisdictions including Thailand, but enforcing them can be challenging in the eyes of Thai law. In general, to “indemnify” means to hold another party free of responsibility for a potential risk or loss. When one party (i.e., the “indemnitor”) indemnifies another party (i.e., the “indemnitee”), the indemnitor is obligated to pay or compensate the indemnitee for any liabilities or losses (within the scope agreed in the contract). In this way, an indemnification clause can be a useful provision to shift responsibility for potential risks from one party to another. In some jurisdictions, “indemnity” includes the recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred by the indemnitee. It may even carry with it the duty to defend or fund the defense of any claim brought against the indemnitee. If that is the case, even though the contract does not say so, the indemnitor would have to hire an attorney and pay the legal fees for the indemnitee. In contracts that contain an indemnification clause, the indemnity would typically include the duty to defend. Let’s use a case example to elaborate this point. In this hypothetical case, a supplier of machinery agrees to indemnify and defend a retailer against claims from the retailer’s customer in the event that a purchased machine becomes defective. As a result, besides being responsible for the damages that the retailer may suffer based on contract law or negligence, the supplier must also pay for the lawyers to defend the retailer if the customer decides to sue. In Thailand, this kind of indemnification clause may not be enforceable. Unlike contract rules in many jurisdictions, Thai contract law is silent on “contractual indemnity.” It is commonly understood in Thailand (and confirmed by Supreme Court decision 7943/2542) that “indemnity” means “compensation” under section 222
Read More
July 12, 2022
Before the issuance in late 2019 of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand’s Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses, which took effect in February 2020, Thai law made little mention of franchising as a business model—despite the great popularity of franchising in the country. The guidelines, which were issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), partly made up for the absence of a single, codified franchising law in the country and offered valuable direction on how franchisors and franchisees should operate in compliance with Thai law. One of the most significant conditions introduced by the original guidelines in February 2020 was a requirement for franchisors to provide a right of first refusal to their existing franchisees before opening a new franchise outlet within current franchisees’ operating vicinity. An update to the guidelines addressing the right of first refusal was issued in August 2020. Most recently, a second update was announced on July 13, 2021. It was published in the Government Gazette on August 19, 2021, and came into force on the following day. The August 2021 update further revised this provision, and the updated guidelines now adopt a less restrictive approach for franchisors in relation to this first-refusal requirement. Under the updated guidelines, a franchisor who decides to open a new outlet, whether it will be operated by the franchisor or by another franchisee or person, must notify the existing franchisee located in closest proximity to the intended location, and provide the franchisee with a right of first refusal for a period of 30 days. However, the franchisor does not have to provide the closest franchisee with a right of first refusal if the franchisee’s existing performance does not meet the franchisor’s criteria as specified and communicated to the franchisee in advance. In determining what
Read More
March 7, 2022
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins wrote the Thailand chapter for Licensing 2022, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Getting the Deal Through to licensing in 17 countries around the world. Two specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office—Alan Adcock, partner and deputy director of intellectual property, and Kasama Sriwatanakul, senior associate—authored the Licensing 2021 Thailand chapter, which covers the following topics: Laws: Unfair Contract Terms Act, Trade Competition Act, pre-contractual disclosure, registration of international licensing, implied obligations, Civil and Commercial Code, Trademark Act, Patent Act, and Trade Secrets Act. Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, PCT, TRIPs. Contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, evidence of use, licensing unregistered IP, opposability requirements, sub-licensing, co-owners, trade secrets, and copyright. Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, import/export restrictions, improvements and modifications, user restrictions, and legal developments. Competition law: Trade Competition Act, specific restrictions on licensing agreements, and significant court decisions. Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages. Termination: Conditions, indemnity, agency, and impact on sub-licenses. Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee bankruptcy on licensor and vice versa, protection, and rights to terminate. Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforcement, injunctions, contractual waivers Royalties and payments: Currency conversion, tax, remittance restrictions, and jurisdiction-specific payments. The Thailand chapter is available below as a PDF. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to Licensing 2022. To browse all 17 jurisdictions covered by the guide, please visit the Getting the Deal Through website.
Read More