Licences and Permits for running business in Vietnam

Navigating among numerous licences and permits required by law for running a business in Vietnam has never been easy. There many reasons including:

  • There is no comprehensive list of valid licences and permits available. Therefore, businesses run the risks of missing certain licences and permits. This is particular true as many authorities in Vietnam have the power to issue licences and permits;
  • The time and efforts required for obtaining a licence or permit may be substantial. In practice, the authorities may not always check or enforce the required licence or permit. Therefore, the risk in practice of missing a particular licence and permit varies; and
  • That being said, in theory, missing a required licence or permit may be subject to administrative penalty and, in extreme case, criminal penalty (e.g. see the case against Mr Nguyen Duc Kien).

Regarding the first point, I just come across of report on business licences and permits prepared by the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) in December 2013 (MPI List). The MPI seems to have spent substantial time and efforts verifying with all other ministries about the licences and permits issued by such other ministries. As such, the MPI List is quite comprehensive. The MPI List provides for the list of 334 licences and permits requires for various conditional business lines in Vietnam.

Therefore, a business owner may use the information in the MPI List to check if it has obtained all the licences and permits mentioned in the MPI List for its operation, if necessary.

A copy of the MPI List in Vietnamese can be downloaded here.

An unofficial translation of the MPI List by VILAF can be downloaded here.



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.

​​