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

May 14, 2021

Vietnam’s Decree 21 Updates Regulations on Security for Performance of Obligations

Subscribe to Updates

On May 15, 2021, Decree No. 21/2021/ND-CP of the Government of Vietnam dated March 19, 2021, guiding the implementation of the Civil Code of 2015 on security for performance of obligations (Decree 21) will come into effect and replace Decree No. 163/2006/ND-CP of the Government dated December 29, 2006, on security transactions, as amended by Decree No. 11/2012/ND-CP (together, “Decree 163”).

One of the most significant changes of Decree 21 in comparison to Decree 163 is the new system of terminology in relation to security for performance of obligations. In particular, the new decree provides new definitions for existing terms such as “guarantor” and “guarantee” and sets out the definitions of newly added terms such as “secured obligator,” “security contract,” and “reasonable duration.” This change reflects the intention of the legislators to unify the relevant terminology in accordance with the Civil Code of 2015.

Article 4 of Decree 21 lists out principles for the application of laws and the parties’ agreements on security for performance of obligations. Accordingly, in cases where the laws on specialized areas such as land, housing, insurance, banking, aviation, or intellectual property have provisions on security assets, establishment and implementation of means of security, or enforcement of security assets, the provisions of the specialized laws will prevail. Moreover, if the parties have agreements that are different from provisions in Decree 21 but do not violate (i) fundamental principles of civil law or (ii) conditions for a civil transaction to be valid or (iii) limitations on the exercise of civil rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other relevant laws, such agreements may be enforced.

Decree 21 devotes an entire chapter to regulations on security assets (collateral) which includes definitions and descriptions of security assets and detailed provisions on 10 types of security assets including land use rights and assets attached to land, objects, valuable papers, etc. Notably, Decree 21 no longer provides that a security asset may not be attached by the courts or authorities to perform the guarantor’s other obligations if the security transaction is valid and effective against third parties and the laws do not regulate otherwise, as provided under Decree 163. This change makes the new decree consistent with the existing regulations on enforcement of civil judgments which state that mortgaged or pledged assets may still be attached for the purpose of enforcement of civil judgments, provided that the applicable conditions are satisfied.

The new decree provides detailed regulations on the establishment and implementation of means of security and enforcement of security assets. Accordingly, a means of security may be established based on the agreement of the parties via a security contract or a lien. For enforcement of security assets, Decree 21 goes into detail on the enforcement of future assets or invested mortgaged assets for the first time.

Decree 163 will still be applicable to security agreements or security interests which were established and implemented prior to May 15, 2021. The parties to such security agreements or security interests which have not been implemented or have been implemented but contain provisions different from provisions under Decree 21 may, but are not required to, agree to amend the existing security agreements or security interests to comply with the new decree.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More
August 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public feedback on a proposed overhaul of the regulatory framework for licensed money changers authorized by the finance minister, under the Exchange Control Act, to buy and sell foreign banknotes separately from commercial banks and specialized financial institutions. The BOT published the draft principles on August 19, 2026, for public consultation, with comments accepted through September 18, 2026. If adopted in its current form, the new framework would substantially raise licensing standards, require existing licensees to undergo a review and upgrade process, temporarily freeze new applications in 2027, and reduce application intake rounds from 2028 onward, with significant implications for both existing operators and prospective new entrants. The overhaul initiative stems from the BOT’s recognition of a need to prevent the use of licensed money changers as channels for financial crime. The stated objectives are to build public confidence, ensure the safety of financial service users, and align the supervisory framework with the current risk profile of the business and evolving market conditions. Upgraded Licensing Standards The BOT intends to significantly revise the licensing framework, including requirements relating to registered capital, branch management, operational standards, and customer transaction limits. Detailed criteria have not yet been released and are expected to be subject to further consultation. All existing licensees will be required to upgrade to meet the new standards and submit evidence of compliance for BOT review on a case-by-case basis. Existing licensees that are unable to satisfy the upgraded requirements may face regulatory consequences, subject to the final framework and BOT review process. Freeze and Reopening The BOT will temporarily stop accepting new license applications throughout 2027 to focus resources on inspecting and upgrading existing money changers. Any party wishing to obtain a new money changer license must submit its application by
Read More
August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More