Investigations In Southeast Asia - Vietnam

1) What are the key anti-corruption legislations?

The key anti-corruption legislation in Vietnam includes:

First, the Anti-Corruption Law of 2018, as amended in 2025 (“Anti- Corruption Law”) is the primary law governing anti-corruption efforts in Vietnam. It outlines acts constituting corruption and provides for prevention, discovery, and handling of such acts, whilst also establishing penalties for corrupt acts. The law also mandates the establishment of anti-corruption agencies and mechanisms within government agencies and organisations.

Second, the Penal Code (2015, as amended, 2017, 2024, and 2025) (“Penal Code”) contains provisions on seven corruption-related crimes, including bribe-taking; embezzlement; abuse of position and power for appropriation of property; abuse of power or position in performance of official duties; acting beyond authority in performance of official duties; abuse of power or position to influence another person for personal gain; and commission of fraud in performance of duties. The Penal Code specifies the penalties for these offences, which can range from noncustodial rehabilitation to life imprisonment.

Third, Decree No. 59/2019/ND-CP of the Government guiding the implementation of the Anti-Corruption Law (as amended by Decree No. 134/2021/ND-CP in 2021 and Decree No. 184/2026/ND-CP in 2026) (“Decree 59”) provides detailed guidance on the prevention, detection, and investigation of corruption cases. This Decree also establishes procedures for reporting and handling corruption complaints. Decree No. 184/2026/ND-CP (effective from 1 July 2026) provides enhanced accountability of declaration obligations with an explicit list of six specific items for explanation during the review and/or investigation. It also grants authority to Inspectorates at different levels to monitor the private sector, including (i) charity organisations/social enterprises, and (ii) publicly listed companies and credit institutions.

Fourth, Decree No. 130/2020/ND-CP of the Government concerns the monitoring of property and income of persons with powers and positions at agencies, organizations, and units (as amended by Decree No. 164/2026/ND-CP in 2026). This Decree provides for mechanisms to report and declare property and income by State servants holding certain positions at State organs and public organisations.

Additionally, anti-corruption regulations are embedded in various other laws and implementing decrees (such as the Law on Cadres and Civil Servants (2008, as amended 2025), the Law on Public Employees (2010, as amended 2019), and the Law on Management and Use of Public Property (2017, as amended 2025)), and those governing tendering and administrative violations. These regulations collectively aim to create a robust framework for combating corruption in Vietnam. Despite these efforts, challenges remain in enforcement and implementation, but the legal framework provides a solid foundation for ongoing anti-corruption initiatives.

Additionally, anti-corruption regulations are embedded in various other laws and implementing decrees (such as the Law on Cadres and Civil Servants (2008, as amended 2025), the Law on Public Employees (2010, as amended 2019), and the Law on Management and Use of Public Property (2017, as amended 2025)), and those governing tendering and administrative violations. These regulations collectively aim to create a robust framework for combating corruption in Vietnam. Despite these efforts, challenges remain in enforcement and implementation, but the legal framework provides a solid foundation for ongoing anti-corruption initiatives.

2) Who are the enforcement bodies?

In Vietnam, several key bodies are responsible for preventing and combating corruption:

• The Government Inspectorate conducts inspections, handles citizen complaints, and leads anti-corruption efforts across various levels of government.
• The Ministry of Public Security investigates and combats corruption and manages extradition and the transfer of prisoners.
• The People’s Procuracy prosecutes corruption cases and ensures legal compliance in handling crime reports and prosecutions.
• The People’s Courts conduct trials and appeals of corruption cases.
• The State Audit Office of Vietnam performs audits to prevent and detect corruption, and audits suspected corruption cases as per the law.

Other agencies that play important roles in preventing and fighting corruption include the Central Steering Committee for Anti-Corruption, the Central Committee for Disciplinary Inspection, and the People’s Committees and Councils at all levels, each operating within their respective functions and powers.

3) Is requesting or accepting a bribe prohibited by the legislation?

Yes, both requesting and accepting a bribe are strictly prohibited under the Penal Code. This applies to government officials as well as individuals in the private sector. The law criminalizes any act of taking, requesting, or soliciting a bribe valued from VND 2,000,000 and more, whether it is received directly or through an intermediary.

Furthermore, any officeholder who is offered a gift of any value must refuse to accept it. If the gift cannot be refused, the officeholder is required to report the incident to his/her management and hand over the gift to the appropriate department within five days of receiving it.

4) What are some case studies / examples of gratification that might constitute bribery?

Gratification is not provided for by the laws of Vietnam. However, in practice, “gratification” refers to any benefit, advantage, or reward whether direct or indirect - that is given or received in connection with a corrupt transaction. Bribery including bribe-taking, bribe-giving and bribe brokerage, on the other hand, is the act of offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of a value of VND 2,000,000 and more to influence a public official or employee to perform or not perform an official act falling into their functions.

It is worth noting that the specific elements of bribery can vary depending on the circumstances of the case. However, the general principle is that any benefit offered or received with the intent to influence an official’s decision can be considered bribery.

Below are two examples of Vietnam’s more recent significant corruption cases:

Case Study 1:

The “Viet A” case is a significant corruption scandal in Vietnam involving the Viet A Company (a private company) and several high-ranking officials. The company, led by former General Director Phan Quoc Viet, was found guilty of bribing government officials to secure licenses for selling COVID-19 testing kits at inflated prices during the pandemic.

Key figures in the case include (a) Phan Quoc Viet, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his primary role in giving bribes with a total bribed sum amounting to USD 3.45 million and VND 4 billion; (b) Nguyen Thanh Long (Former Minister of Health), who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for receiving a total of USD 2.25 million in bribes; and (c) Trinh Thanh Hung (Former Director of the Department of Science and Technology for Economic-Technical Sectors), who was sentenced to 15 years (later reduced to 13 years) for receiving a total of USD 350,000 in bribes.

The scandal highlighted the misuse of power and corruption within the procurement process during a critical time, leading to severe legal consequences for those involved.

Case Study 2:

The “Van Thinh Phat” case is an unprecedented case in Vietnam; Ms. Truong My Lan, the chairman of the Management Board of Van Thinh Phat Company (a private company) was sentenced to death for embezzlement of VND 304.096 billion (about USD 11,59 billion) from Sai Gon Joint Stock Commercial Bank (SCB) with more than 42,000 recorded victims. A record-breaking number of 86 individuals were officially charged, and the damage/ loss caused to the economy was monumental.

Case Study 3:

The “Rescue Flights” case serves as a landmark example of how corruption can infiltrate the highest levels of the criminal justice system, extending beyond administrative bribery into the criminal investigation phase itself.

While serving as the primary investigator in the sweeping “Rescue Flights” corruption probe, the perpetrator, Mr. Hoang Van Hung (the former lead investigator and Head of Department 5 of the Security Investigation Agency under the Ministry of Public Security) was reassigned to a different department. Despite losing his formal authority over the case, he continued to leverage his former position. He cooperated with a co-conspirator (the former deputy director of Hanoi Public Security) to contact, mislead, and promise legal immunity to corporate suspects facing prosecution. At the conclusion, Mr. Hung was convicted of “fraudulent misappropriation of assets” (under Article 174 of the Penal Code) with the penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment and compensation for damages of VND 18.8 billion.

5) What are possible defences?

The Penal Code does provide for certain mitigating factors for all crimes, and an individual facing bribery or corruption charges must provide justified reasons and evidence to support these mitigating factors to potentially reduce his/her liability.

It should be noted that, recently, the National Assembly of Vietnam issued Resolution No. 198/2025/QH15, introduced special mechanisms and policies to promote the development of the private economy (following the issuance of Resolution No. 68/NQ-TW of the Politburo, outlining directions for private sector growth). Both Resolutions emphasize that priority will be given to civil, administrative, and economic remedies when handling civil and economic violations. Violators will have the opportunity to repair the damages caused. If the violations are subject to criminal liability, the economic remedies taken by the violators will be an important factor for the authorities during the investigation, prosecution, and hearing processes.

The above-mentioned policies of the Resolutions are being effectively applied in Vietnam and some cases have already benefited from their application.

As a matter of practice, for corruption-related crimes, significant consideration will be given to factors including (but not limited to) compensation for all damages; repayment of all amounts illegally received; making of a truthful confession; and cooperation with the relevant authority during the legal proceedings, etc.

6) Is there criminal liability for corporate entities who have either paid or accepted a bribe payment?

While the Penal Code has introduced corporate criminal liability for various offences, it does not extend to corruption. This means that only individuals can be held criminally accountable for acts of corruption, whether in the public or private sector.

However, it is important to note that corporate entities can still face legal consequences for certain corruption-related activities. For instance, corporations may be subject to criminal liability for offences such as money laundering, tax evasion, and terrorism financing, which can be linked to corruption.

6.1 Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the legislation, what is the penalty for corporate entities violating the law?

While corporate entities themselves are not directly liable for corruption under current Vietnamese law, individuals within companies that are involved in the cases can be held accountable for their corrupt conduct, including bribery.

For companies convicted of other crimes, such as money laundering or speculation, the Penal Code outlines various penalties. The primary punishment is typically a fine, starting at VND 50 million (equivalent to approximately USD 1,900). The specific amount of the fine is determined by the severity of the offence and the company’s financial capacity.

Additional penalties may include temporary suspension of operations, permanent closure, restrictions on business activities, and prohibitions on raising capital. Furthermore, any property or illegal profits obtained through criminal activities can be confiscated.

6.2 Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the legislation, does having a compliance program designed to prevent bribery constitute a defence?

Generally, the Penal Code does not establish corporate criminal liability for committing bribery. Therefore, the law does not recognise internal compliance measures as a defence in such cases.

However, the law does provide that individuals may receive leniency if they voluntarily report the bribery, or if they were coerced into committing the act (please see also our responses to Question 5 above).

6.3 Are companies required to disgorge profits earned as a result of bribery?

Yes, Vietnamese law does explicitly mandate the disgorgement of corrupted property and illegal profits earned through acts of corruption under Article 93 of the Law on Anti-corruption.

7) Are there any specific laws governing private-to-private bribery (i.e. bribery between private entities)?

Yes, the Penal Code does govern bribery between private entities; this includes bribe-taking, bribe-giving, and bribe brokerage. Penalties for bribery is equally applied to both public and private sectors.

While the Penal Code does not explicitly prescribe corporate criminal liability for bribery, it can still hold individuals within corporate entities responsible. This includes individuals such as executives, managers, or employees who authorised, directed, or participated in the bribery.

8) Is foreign bribery a crime?

The Penal Code has a broad scope of effect, meaning it can apply to crimes committed by foreigners (not foreign corporate entities) within Vietnamese territory or involving Vietnamese public officials.

Specifically, regarding bribery, if a foreigner bribes a Vietnamese public official, regardless of where the act takes place, it falls under the jurisdiction of Vietnamese law. This is because the crime directly affects a Vietnamese government official. If an act of bribery occurs within Vietnamese territory, regardless of the nationality of the parties involved (except otherwise provided for by international treaties to which Vietnam is a party, or in case the crimes are committed by a person enjoying diplomatic immunities) it will be prosecuted under Vietnamese law. This is based on the principle of territorial jurisdiction.

On the other hand, if the individual is a foreigner convicted of bribery in another country and not extradited to Vietnam, Vietnamese authorities generally cannot prosecute them for the same offence.

9) Is a bribe payment to foreign government officials prohibited by the legislation?

Generally, yes, but this is subject to specific situations. As mentioned in Question 8 above, the Penal Code has a broad scope of effect. All crimes committed within the territory of Vietnam can be prosecuted with some exceptional cases. In terms of extraterritorial jurisdiction, foreign individuals and organisations committing a crime outside the territory of Vietnam can also be prosecuted in accordance with Vietnamese law, if the offences infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of Vietnamese citizens, the State of Vietnam, or otherwise according to treaties to which Vietnam is a signatory.

In addition, the Vietnamese authorities consider the act of giving or promising to give a bribe to foreign public officials, or officials of public international organisations, as the criminal offense of “giving a bribe”, in accordance with Article 364 of Penal Code.

10) Are facilitation payments legal?

Vietnamese law does not recognise or exempt any facilitation payments. Any payment made with the intention of influencing a public official to perform or refrain from performing their duties, regardless of the amount, is considered a bribe and is illegal under Vietnamese law.

11) What should corporate entities do when a potential bribery issue is reported or detected?

Under the Criminal Procedural Code (2015), reporting acts constituting crimes (including bribery) is both an obligation and a right of organizations and individuals. Thus, theoretically, upon discovery of bribery, a corporate entity must report the same to the relevant authority. It is especially crucial when the bribery involves State property or State officials. In cases of bribery within a corporate entity (for example, embezzlement of company assets), careful consideration should be given to whether the matter should be reported or handled internally. It is advisable to seek professional guidance before deciding on the appropriate steps.

If the company has internal policies on anti-corruption, codes of conduct, or whistleblowing, it must strictly follow the procedural steps to conduct the internal investigation, which could help: (i) identify the parties/employees involved, (ii) protect the whistleblower, (iii) in gathering/collecting all available evidence (including but not limited to documents, recordings, witnesses’ interviews), and (iv) apply disciplinary actions against the violator according to the company’s internal labor regulations.

If necessary, the company can consult with legal counsel for legal assessment and develop a strategy to respond to the issue, including steps to mitigate the risks and protect the company’s interests.

Meanwhile, the company can consider (i) taking disciplinary measures against the employee(s) involved in the bribery, including but not limited to dismissal, as well as (ii) reviewing and strengthening internal policies and compliance procedures to prevent future occurrences.

12) If a company wishes to commence corporate investigations in respect of potential wrongdoing, who should conduct these investigations? Should corporate entities appoint lawyers to do so?

It is advisable that this issue should be addressed in the company’s internal labor regulations. A neutral or impartial person (in relation to both the subject of the investigation and the issues in question) may conduct the investigation. The investigator should not be a potential witness to the matter in question nor have prior knowledge about the subject matter of the investigation.

To minimize the risk of false accusations and to preserve evidence, corporate entities may appoint lawyers to assist with internal investigations, given that they can provide valuable guidance on conducting such investigations and ensure that evidence is collected and preserved in a legally compliant manner.

13) Are companies required to self-report bribery? Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the anti-corruption law, is it possible for a corporate entity to reach a deferred prosecution agreement or leniency agreement with the enforcement authorities?

Corporate entities have an obligation to report potential bribery, or acts of corruption, to the competent authorities. This requirement stems from the Anti-Corruption Law, which outlines specific obligations for private-sector entities to prevent and address corruption. These include implementing measures to prevent corruption; to promptly detect, report, and coordinate with competent authorities to prevent and handle corruption occurring within their entities in accordance with the law, the company’s charter, as well as the rules and regulations of the entities; to promptly provide information on acts of corruption by persons holding certain positions or powers, and coordinate with competent authorities to prevent and handle corruption.

A person who is aware of any bribery/corruption and fails to report it shall bear criminal liability for misprision or concealment in some specific circumstances. While commercial legal entities are only subject to criminal liabilities for certain crimes, a person holding certain positions or power within the entity may face criminal liability for misprision or concealment if they fail to report the bribe.

Vietnam does not have a well-established system of deferred prosecution agreement like other jurisdictions. However, leniency may be granted to individuals who voluntarily disclose their offences to competent authorities and cooperate during criminal proceedings. Leniency is also granted when violators voluntarily compensate for damages or take steps to mitigate the consequences of their actions. It is important to note that commercial legal entities are not subject to bribery charges under current law, so deferred prosecution or leniency agreements may not be applied to them (please see also our responses to Questions 5 and 11 above).

14) Does the law provide any protection or other incentives for whistleblowers?

Yes, Vietnamese law provides some protection and incentives for whistleblowers. These include safeguards against retaliation, confidentiality of identity, commendation, financial rewards, and legal assistance.

This protection complies with the Law on Denunciation (2018), the Law on Anti-Corruption, the Criminal Procedure Code, and other relevant regulations.

Financial rewards for whistleblowers are governed by the Law on Emulation and Commendation (2022).

15) What can corporate entities do to prevent corruption in a company?

Based on our experience, corporate entities can mitigate the risk of corruption inside the company by setting-up compliance programs that include the following measures: customise internal policies and procedures to prevent and handle bribery incidents; conduct internal training on such policies and procedures; perform due diligence with a local third party, such as consultants, agents, or partners; create a reporting hotline/channel for employees to raise any concerns about potential misconduct/bribery inside the corporate entity while ensuring protection for the whistleblowers; and engage legal advisors for legal requirements and best practice for anti-corruption schemes.

16) How can corporate entities implement an anti-corruption policy and create a code of conduct?

Both the Anti-Corruption Law and Decree 59 provide some basic anticorruption methods for certain legal entities in the private sector, including public companies and credit institutions, that are subject to requirements on openness, transparency, and rules on handling conflicts of interest.

These entities are required to conduct internal surveys with local employees/staff, and/or consult with external advisors to obtain market insight related to potential bribery to identify potential compliance risks, (e.g. gift-giving during the Tet (Lunar New Year) holiday, Middle-Autumn holiday, etc.).

They are also required to issue specific regulations on the form of disclosure, the content, and the responsibilities for assuring openness and transparency. Private-sector entities must disclose, among other things, their policies related to the rights and benefits of employees, codes of conduct, charters, and staff organization.

Additionally, these entities are required to specify cases of conflicts of interest, the reporting obligations in such cases, and the protection regime for employees who alert management to conflicts of interest.

Nevertheless, it is recommended for all foreign investors to maintain a strong compliance program designed to prevent bribery and corruption to meet legal requirements of other jurisdictions which may be applicable to its legal entities in Vietnam, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977) in the United States and the UK Bribery Act (2010).

Originally published by DNA