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

April 7, 2020

Vietnam Issues Regulations on Receipt and Handling of Information on Smuggling, Trade Fraud, and Counterfeit Goods

Subscribe to Updates

On March 23, 2020, the National Steering Committee Against Smuggling, Trade Fraud, and Counterfeit Goods (“National Steering Committee 389”) issued Decision No. 195/QD-BCD 389 promulgating regulations on receiving and handling information from organizations and individuals (e.g., tips or leads) on smuggling, trade fraud, and counterfeit goods. Decision 195, which took effect immediately upon issuance, prescribes how Steering Committees at national, ministry, and provincial levels are to receive and handle such information; proper ways to send information to the Steering Committees; and responsibilities of the Steering Committees in cooperating with authorities to verify information, transferring the same to enforcement authorities, and following up with them on the handling and results of matters.

National Steering Committee 389 was established under the Prime Minister’s Decision No. 389/QD-TTg on March 19, 2014, and plays an important role in developing strategies and plans and coordinating enforcement actions against acts of smuggling, trade fraud, and counterfeiting, including IP infringements, which have a negative effect on national revenue and the production of enterprises. In addition to National Steering Committee 389, all provinces and cities directly under the central government and some related ministries, are required to establish Steering Committees at provincial and ministry levels, correspondingly, to carry out the same tasks within each province/city or the field in charge.

Briefly, Decision 195 states that information on smuggling, trade fraud, counterfeit goods, including goods of inferior quality, and IP infringements must be sent to the Steering Committees via telephone, e-mail, written documents, or through direct meetings. Notably, such information must be in the Vietnamese language and not aim to harm anyone. Otherwise, the submission of information should be rejected. The standing office of each Steering Committee is responsible to initially receive and verify the information, and must keep details of the informants confidential. After verifying, if the information is reliable, the standing office will transfer it to an appropriate enforcement authority for opening an enforcement action.

The standing office is also responsible to follow up with the enforcement authority for handling the case, while the enforcement authority must report the results of the enforcement action to the standing office. Also, the standing office must record all details from receipt of the information until results of the enforcement action are finalized, and send half-year and annual reports to National Steering Committee 389.

Nevertheless, it can be understood that Decision 195 aims only to apply to these Steering Committees but not to replace the ordinary receiving and handling of information, denouncements, and complaints by enforcement authorities. This means an informant can send information, denouncements, or complaints to the enforcement authorities directly, or can send them to the relevant Steering Committee.

As for law firms, for ordinary cases, they can continue to submit complaints directly to enforcement authorities calling upon them to conduct raid actions, which remains more effective and faster. In case of a complex infringement or a case of multi-faceted, complex infringements related to various enforcement authorities and/or such infringements taking place simultaneously in various provinces/cities, a complaint submitted to the Steering Committees to seek their instructions and coordination of enforcement actions can be advisable.

For more information on Decision 195, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 10, 2026
On June 17, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 on Nutritional Information on Processed Food Labels. The new regulation, which revokes three previous nutrition labeling regulations, introduces several notable changes affecting food and beverage manufacturers, importers, and distributors. These changes range from updated nutrient reference values and serving-size requirements to the introduction of the Nutri-Level front-of-pack labeling system for certain beverage products. Businesses operating in Indonesia should carefully review these developments and assess their products’ compliance with the new requirements during the transition period. Implementation of the Nutri-Level Labeling System To implement the recently issued decree on Nutri-Level labeling, BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 stipulates the requirements to implement the Nutri-Level labeling system on the front-of-pack. Under the new framework, ready-to-drink beverages, powdered beverages, and liquid or solid concentrates are required to display Nutri-Level labeling on the front label of their packaging. The Nutri-Level labeling system classifies products into color-coded levels A through D based on their sugar, sodium, and total fat content. The applicable Nutri-Level is determined based on the lowest level measured in the assessment of sugar, sodium, and total fat content. For products classified as level C or D, the Nutri-Level label must be accompanied by information on the relevant sugar, sodium, and total fat content per 100 ml of the ready-to-consume product. Products classified as level A or B may either display only the Nutri-Level designation or display the Nutri-Level together with the relevant nutritional information per 100 ml. Minimum Vitamin and Mineral Content Required for Declaration BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 introduces a stricter threshold for the declaration of vitamins and minerals in the nutritional value information section (ING). Vitamins or minerals may only be declared if they are present at a
Read More