The case against Mr Nguyen Duc Kien and its potential implication

The first hearings of the criminal cases against Mr Nguyen Duc Kien, former Board member of Asia Commercial Bank (ACB) and Ms Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu, former staff of Vietinbank, a large State-owned bank have raised many fundamental issues about the business law framework in Vietnam. Unfortunately, without a full transcript of the hearings, one cannot comment on the legal interpretation adopted by the courts.

That being said, newspaper reports about Mr Kien’s conviction of illegally doing business (tội kinh doanh trái phép) have shed some light about the court’s interpretation of “doing business” under Article 4.2 of the Enterprise Law. The background of the case is as follows:

• Mr Kien set up two companies which do not register for the business lines of sale and purchase of shares but for other business lines;
  

• These two companies acquire and/or sell shares in other companies;
  

• The procurator takes the view that the two companies have illegally done business which are not recorded in their business registration certificates. Under Article 9.1 of the Enterprise Law, a company is required to do business within the scope of its business registration certificates;
  

• Mr Kien takes the view that under Article 13 of the Enterprise Law, a company is entitled to acquire shares in another company. Therefore, there is no need for Mr Kien’s companies to register for the business lines of sale and purchase of shares. In practice, the approach taken by Mr Kien’s companies is widely common. Some business registration authorities even refuse to register the business line of sale and purchase of shares on the basis that this activity is permitted by the Enterprise Law already; and
  

• The first instance court hold that because Mr Kien’s companies do not do any business other than sale and purchase of shares, these companies are considered as engaging in the business of sale and purchase of shares.
  

 Article 4.2 of the Enterprise Law provides that “doing business” (kinh doanh) means the continuous conduct of one, several or all of the stages of the investment process, from production to sale of products or provision of services in the market for profits. There is no further interpretation of the term “continuous conduct”. Now, it seems that the court will consider a business conduct by a company to be a continuous conduct if such business conduct is the only business conduct of the company. In light of this interpretation, owners of companies in Vietnam will likely pay more attention to ensure that their companies will at least actually engage in some business lines as provided in their business registration certificates.

Can a limited liability company in Vietnam sell its new capital contribution for a premium?

A profitable and well-run company usually demands a “premium” when it issues new equity to investors. This means that in a profitable company, a new investor may be required to pay more than the price paid by an existing investor for the same amount of equity and voting rights in the past. Usually, the difference between the price of the new equity portion and the nominal value of such equity portion is referred to as premium.

However, it appears that a limited liability company (LLC) in Vietnam may not be able to do so without changing the voting rights of existing members. This is because:

• Other than in the context of a joint stock company (JSC), there is no legal concept of equity capital premium in the Enterprise Law and in accounting regulations. “Par value” of shares only exists in the context of shares in JSCs. And under Circular 19/2003, the difference between issuance price of new shares by a JSC and their aggregate par values could be recorded as “capital premium accounts”. On the other hand, capital contribution in a charter capital of a LLC does not have a “par value”.  There is no legal concept for the difference between the price of the new capital contribution portion and the nominal value of such capital contribution portion. Therefore, LLC does not have capital contribution premium if it issues new capital contribution;

• Decree 102/2010  further provides that charter capital of a LLC with two or more members is “the total value of capital portions” already contributed or undertaken to be contributed within a certain period by its members and is stated in the company charter. If the value of all assets contributed by members of a LLC including new members constitutes the charter capital of such LLC then there is no capital contribution premium in a LCC. In addition, under Decree 102/2010, all amounts paid by a new member of a LLC should carry voting rights; and

• Tax regulations only expressly exempt corporate income tax on share premium received by a JSC. Therefore, there is no certainty that a LLC will be exempted from capital contribution premium.

In light of the above, a LLC wishing to issue new capital contribution at a premium may consider an alternative structure which allows such a LLC to record the actual value of the amount to be contributed by the new member and at the same time maintains the desired ownership percentage and voting among all members.

“Legal capital” for companies in Vietnam

In other countries, legal capital is often understood to be “the amount of a company's equity that cannot legally be allowed to leave the business and cannot be distributed through a dividend or any other means. The closest meaning to this under Vietnamese law is “charter capital”.

However, for a Vietnamese company, the term “legal capital” has a different meaning than it is usually understood in other countries. Currently, under the Enterprise Law, “legal capital” (vốn pháp định) is defined as the minimum amount of capital required by law for the establishment of an enterprise engaging in certain conditional business (e.g. real estate, banking or securities). “Charter capital” is the amount actually contributed or will be contributed by the shareholders of a company. Therefore, the “charter capital” must be at least equal to the “legal capital”, and in most cases are much higher than the “legal capital”. Usually, legal capital is fixed at a specific number. For instance, an entity engaged in real estate business must have a “legal capital” of VND 6 billion. This means that the entity must have a charter capital of VND 6 billion or more.

The above difference may cause certain confusion when interpreting Vietnamese law. For example,

• Before 1 July 2006, for foreign-invested enterprises, under the old Foreign Investment Law, the term “legal capital” is defined to mean the equity capital contributed (or to be contributed) by the investors in a foreign invested enterprise. Certain laws or regulations still use the term “legal capital” in this sense. These laws and regulations are usually issued before 1 July 2006. However, by mistakes, some laws or regulations issued after 1 July 2006 still use the term “legal capital” in this sense (e.g. the amendment to the Law on Cinematography issued in 2009).

• The WTO Commitments of Vietnam also contain various references to “legal capital” in the context of applicable foreign ownership limits. Again the term “legal capital” in this context should be understood as “charter capital”.  

That being said, there is no express guidance about how to interpret the term “legal capital” used in the above scenarios. Therefore, if the authority happens to take a restrictive view then the foreign ownership limit in certain sectors provided in the WTO Commitments or certain laws and regulations may be subject to a much lower limit.

“Bailiff” services in Vietnam

Vietnam has just introduced bailiff services (dịch vụ thừa phát lại) on a nationwide scope under a Joint Circular 9/2014 between the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court issued on 28 February 2014. A bailiff service company may provide services:

• To serve notices relating to court proceedings;
• To prepare certified written minutes (vi bằng) to serve as evidence for use before the courts; and
• To verify the conditions of the debtor for enforcement of a court judgements and to enforce court judgments.

The introduction of bailiff services will hopefully improve the poor state of dispute settlement through courts in Vietnam. 

Vietnam Business Law Blog

Is Metadata Personal Data? New Risks Under Vietnam’s Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL 2025)

about 3 weeks ago

When companies think about data protection, they usually focus on “visible” data like names, email addresses, or bank details. However, there is a hidden layer called metadata - essentially “data about data” - that often gets ignored.

Under Vietnam’s new personal data protection rules, overlooking metadata is a major risk. If metadata can be used to identify a specific person, it falls under the same strict rules as regular personal data.

What is Metadata? The “Digital Footprint”

Metadata is information that describes the context of a file or a message rather than the content itself. Even if you remove a person’s name from a file, the metadata can still point directly to them.

Land Access Privileges for Investor under Vietnam’s New BT Framework

about 3 weeks ago

Vietnam is currently at a pivotal stage of infrastructure modernization. To meet the immense demand for capital, the State has moved to revitalize private sector participation, most notably through the “Build – Transfer” (BT) model.

In a typical BT arrangement, a private investor finances and constructs an infrastructure project, then transfers it to the State upon completion. In return, the State “pays” the investor with land funds, allowing them to develop a “reciprocal project” (dự án đối ứng) to recover their capital and generate profit. While this mechanism is essential to stimulate private sector participation, the recent new legal framework for BT projects may raise significant concern regarding the land access privileges granted to BT investors compared to their counterparts in the general real estate market. In particular,

Case Law No. 81/2024 Creates More Confusion Than Clarification

about 3 weeks ago

The recently issued Case Law No. 81/2024/AL (CL 81) introduces a precedent that allows creditors to bypass the standard statute of limitations by re-characterizing an unpaid contractual debt as a property reclamation claim upon the mutual termination of the contract and an agreement on the payable amount. Below are a few of our observations regarding CL 81.

Summary of the Case

The dispute originated from a service contract between Company M (the Service Provider) and Company A (the Client). After the Service Provider performed its services, the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract. Subsequently, the Client explicitly confirmed in writing the specific amount of the service fee it owed to the Service Provider and the late payment interest but ultimately failed to make the payment. When the Service Provider filed a lawsuit to recover the unpaid amount, the Client requested the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the 3-year statute of limitations for a contractual dispute had already expired.

Insights From Case Law 78/2025/AL - Distinguishing Contributions For Charter Capital From Business Cooperation

about 3 weeks ago

For investors in Vietnam, "contributing capital" to a company can mean two very different things: becoming a legal owner (member/shareholder of a company) or simply being a business partner. A recent case law no. 78/2025/AL clarifies this distinction and indicates that several pieces of evidence may be considered to prove company member/shareholder status.

Case Summary

In this dispute, Mr. H, the plaintiff, provided significant funds to D Limited Liability Company, which was managed by his relatives. Although Mr. H received the profit distribution for over a decade and signed minutes acknowledging his contribution, Mr. H was never officially recorded as a member of the company in the enterprise registration certificates (ERC) or the company’s charter.

Comments on The Draft of Government Resolution to Solve Transitional BT Projects

about a month ago

When partnering with government agencies (G2B), the risks often come from policy changes and the adoption of new legislation, causing obstacles, delays, and payment backlogs in PPP contracts (especially BT contracts). Following the establishment of Steering Committee 751 (Ban Chỉ Đạo 751) to resolve investment projects with pending legal issues, the Government has recently prepared a Resolution Draft (the Draft) to address approximately 160 transitional BT projects still facing legal obstacles (such projects, “Pending BT Project”).

Focusing specifically on Pending BT Projects where land-use rights serve as the State’s payment mechanism, the following analysis highlights critical issues arising from the proposed changes introduced by this Draft: