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​ 

February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More
February 4, 2026
On November 18, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft decree on administrative sanctions in the field of crypto assets and crypto asset markets (the “Draft Decree”), intended to implement Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP dated September 9, 2025, on the pilot crypto asset market in Vietnam (“Resolution 05”). While Resolution 05 sets out who may participate and under what conditions, the Draft Decree addresses a more practical question for market participants, i.e., what happens if those conditions are not met. In doing so, the Draft Decree offers important insight into how Vietnamese regulators intend to supervise, discipline, and ultimately shape the crypto market during the pilot phase. Regulatory Scope and Overall Sanctions Architecture The Draft Decree applies to both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals engaging in crypto-related activities in Vietnam’s market. Covered entities include: (i) crypto asset issuers; (ii) crypto asset service providers, including trading platforms and market operators; (iii) Vietnamese and foreign investors participating in the pilot market; and (iv) other organizations involved in the offering, issuance, or provision of crypto-related services in Vietnam. The breadth of this scope is deliberate. It appears to reflect a regulatory view that cross-border structures, offshore platforms, and indirect participation may not necessarily insulate market actors from compliance obligations once they operate within the pilot framework. For the crypto industry, this may mark a shift from regulatory ambiguity toward a more explicit articulation of jurisdictional reach. At first glance, the Draft Decree’s monetary penalties appear restrained. The maximum fine per administrative violation is capped at VND 200 million (approx. USD 7,700) for organizations and VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,800) for individuals. However, focusing solely on fine levels risks missing the point. The Draft Decree also places great regulatory weight on supplementary sanctions and corrective measures, including: (i)
Read More
January 26, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed an updated Vietnam chapter to Foreign Investment Review 2026, a recently published global guide to the legal and regulatory environment for foreign investment in 25 jurisdictions worldwide. Published and distributed by Lexology Panoramic, the guide discusses law and policy on oversight of foreign investment, regulatory frameworks, procedural requirements, and other important stipulations for foreign investors. The Vietnam chapter was prepared by Kien Trung Trinh, a partner in the Tilleke & Gibbins’ Hanoi office, Dung Thi Phuong Le, an associate in the firm’s office in Ho Chi Minh City, Nguyen Thi Huong Nguyen, associate in Hanoi, and Ngan Thuc Nguyen, paralegal in Ho Chi Minh City. The Vietnam chapter covers the following topics: Law and Policy: Government policies and practices, main laws and their scope of application (including details on investment promotional measures), definitions, rules for state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, relevant authorities and oversight, and national interest provisions. Procedure: Jurisdictional thresholds, national interest clearance, securing approval, the review process for competition clearance and associated penalties, involvement of authorities, facilitation of clearance, and post-closing regulatory powers. Substantive assessment: Substantive tests for clearance, authorities’ consultation with other countries and other relevant parties, transactional prohibitions and objections, mitigating arrangements and challenges to a decision, and protection of confidential information. Recent cases, updates, and trends: Relevant recent case law, key recent and ongoing developments. A PDF of the Vietnam chapter can be accessed through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar chapters to Foreign Investment Review 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Foreign Investment Review 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
January 26, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed an updated Myanmar chapter to the recently published Foreign Investment Review 2026, a global guide to the legal and regulatory environment for foreign investment in 25 jurisdictions worldwide. Published and distributed by Lexology Panoramic, the guide discusses law and policy on oversight of foreign investment, regulatory frameworks, procedural requirements, and other important concerns for foreign investors. The Myanmar chapter was prepared by Nwe Oo and Aye Thuzar Hlaing, senior associates in Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Yangon. The Myanmar chapter covers the following topics: Law and Policy: Government policies and practices, main laws and their scope of application (including details on investment promotional measures), definitions, rules for state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, relevant authorities and oversight, and national interest provisions. Procedure: Jurisdictional thresholds, national interest clearance, securing approval, the review process for competition clearance and associated penalties, involvement of authorities, facilitation of clearance, and post-closing regulatory powers. Substantive assessment: Substantive tests for clearance, authorities’ consultation with other countries and other relevant parties, transactional prohibitions and objections, mitigating arrangements and challenges to a decision, and protection of confidential information. Recent cases, updates, and trends: Relevant recent case law, key recent and ongoing developments. A PDF of the Myanmar chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam chapters to Foreign Investment Review 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Foreign Investment Review 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More