Vietnam investment regulations – Definition of “Investment project”

Under the Investment Law, an investment project means “…a collection of proposals for the expenditure of medium and long-term capital in order to carry out an investment activity in a specific geographical area and for a specified duration …”

There are various uncertainties from the definition of an “investment project”:

  • By using the word “proposal”, the law seems to suggest that an investment project is a plan not a physical thing. However, the definition does not make clear to whom and by whom the proposal should be made and how the proposal will be implemented or adjusted.
  • When the law refers to “transfer of an investment project” then it is not clear whether this means the transfer of the proposal or transfer of the underlying assets of such projects or transfer of the capital in the project company.  
  • It is not clear if a reference to “project location” at law is a reference to the geographical area in the definition of investment project or a reference to the head-quarter of the project company.
  • It is not clear if a reference to “foreign-invested project” a reference to an investment project of which the project company is owned by a foreign investor or to an investment project which is financed by foreign capital including funds from a foreign lenders.
  • The term “capital” could broadly include loan capital or equity capital. However, if the term capital includes “loan capital” then this would require all loan transactions to be subject to investment procedures under Vietnamese law.
  • There is no clear distinction between the implementation of an investment project and the activity of the project company. This often results in action by a project company to be subject to both provisions of the Enterprise Law regulating the activities of a company and the provisions of the Investment Law regulating the implementation of an investment project.
  • In an M&A transaction when an investor acquires shares in a project company from an existing investor then it is not clear whether the share purchase activity by the purchasing investor or the activities of the project company is considered an investment project.  

In short, the concept of investment project under Vietnamese law is far from clear. This results in unclear and overlapping procedures between the Investment Law and other laws. It would be better and clearer for potential investors if this concept is replaced with a more specific definition (e.g. concession or development rights). 

Re-introducing debt-equity ratio control for foreign-invested enterprises?

Earlier this month (December 2012), the Prime Minister issued Directive 32 to various ministries to instruct the ministries to remove obstacles to increase investment efficiency.  The Prime Minister instructed the State Bank to focus on developing a mechanism to monitor the total amount of domestic and foreign loans in comparison with the total investment capital of foreign direct investment projects. It seems that the Prime Minister now wants to re-introduce debt-equity ratio control for foreign-invested enterprises. Before 2006, under the old Foreign Investment Law, a foreign invested enterprise’s owner equity must be at least 30% of the total investment capital of a project.

Vietnam Business Law Blog

In criminal proceedings in Vietnam, civil claims (e.g., claims for compensation, repair of damaged property) often arise alongside criminal charges against criminals. The Criminal Procedure Code 2015 introduces the position of “civil claimants” (nguyên đơn dân sự) and “civil defendants” (bị đơn dân sự) to facilitate the handling of civil claims in Vietnamese criminal proceedings. However, other than creating these positions, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 lacks detailed provisions on how these civil matters should be addressed in criminal proceedings. This legal gap, coupled with inconsistent judicial practices, makes the resolution of civil claims within criminal cases particularly complex and problematic. This post will explore the key challenges in resolving civil claims during criminal proceedings.

  • No clear procedures - Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides that civil matters in criminal cases are to be resolved during the adjudication of the criminal case. However, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides no further instructions on the procedure for resolving civil claims within criminal proceedings. It remains unclear what procedural rules apply—whether the criminal court should follow its own process or adopt the procedures set out in the Civil Procedure Code 2015 to settle a civil claim during criminal proceedings. This uncertainty can lead to inconsistent judicial practices and procedural confusion.

  • Scope of civil claims - Article 64.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 defines a civil defendant as “an individual, agency, or organization that, as prescribed by law, is responsible for compensating for damages”. It appears from the definition of civil defendant that a civil claim during criminal proceedings only relates to the issue of compensation for damages. It is not clear whether other issues such as ownership of assets or return of illegal property could be covered in a civil claim during criminal proceedings. In addition, the court may also designate the person making or subjecting to a claim on civil issues which are not claim for damages to another position (e.g., person with related rights and obligations) during the proceedings.

Decree 125 of the Government dated 5 October 2024 (Decree 125/2024) introduces updated regulations for the education sector, including a requirement that a license must be obtained for establishing "other centres performing continuing education tasks" (trung tâm khác thực hiện nhiệm vụ giáo dục thường xuyên in Vietnamese and in the rest of this article, Other Continuing Education Centres). Crucially, the education law fails to clearly define these centres, creating significant ambiguity for education service providers, particularly those centres teaching K-12 subjects (e.g., math, literature).

First, the Education Law 2019 and Decree 125/2024 lack an explicit definition of Other Continuing Education Centres. Interpreting relevant provisions of the Education Law 2019, it appears that Other Continuing Education Centres are centres providing:

Following the issuance of the Law on Electricity 2024, Vietnam's Government has swiftly replaced its initial framework for Direct Power Purchase Agreements (DPPAs) under Decree 80/2024 by issuing Decree 57/2025 on 3 March 2025. Coming into effect immediately, Decree 57/2025 repeals Decree 80/2024, which had only been active since 3 July 2024. Decree 57/2025 largely maintains the two DPPA models introduced by Decree 80/2024  (1) via private line (Private DPPA) and (2) via the national grid (Grid-Connected DPPA), but introduces important changes impacting eligibility, pricing, and contractual details. Key changes include:

  • Flexible customer eligibility - Decree 57/2025 links customer eligibility (for initial participation and ongoing qualification) to a minimum consumption threshold (Minimum Take Amount) defined in the Wholesale Electricity Market Operation Regulations issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT). Decree 80/2024 instead used a fixed threshold (average ≥200,000 kWh/month). Accordingly, eligibility for participating in either DPPA model now depends on potentially dynamic wholesale market rules rather than a static figure, requiring ongoing monitoring of MOIT's regulations.

  • Stricter customer eligibility – A Large Customer in a DPPA arrangement which has been implemented for 12 months must ensure that in a calendar year, it has purchased from EVN the Minimum Take Amount for the 12 month periods ending on 31 October of the previous calendar year. Under Decree 80/2024, there is no requirement that the Minimum Take Amount must be purchased from EVN. It is not clear if this requirement will apply to a Private DPPA under which the customer purchases directly from the RE Generator.

Article 9 of the Investment Law 2020 provides for three kinds of business for foreign investors:

  • market-access-prohibited business lines (ngành, nghề chưa được tiếp cận thị trường in Vietnamese) (Prohibited Businesses);

  • business lines with conditional market access (ngành, nghề tiếp cận thị trường có điều kiện in Vietnamese) (Conditional Businesses); and

  • business lines which are not Conditional Businesses and Prohibited Businesses and are subject to the same market access treatment as domestic investors (Unrestricted Businesses).

However, Decree 31/2021 introduces another category of business lines being "business lines without market access commitment" (ngành, nghề Việt Nam chưa cam kết về tiếp cận thị trường in Vietnamese) (Uncommitted Business). It is unclear what the relationship between the Uncommitted Business and the Conditional Business under the Investment Law 2020 is.

Under Article 24.2 of the Investment Law 2020, offshore investors who intend to acquire equity in Vietnam-based companies must meet the land regulations on “conditions for receiving land use right” (LUR). However, the land law does not specify any conditions applicable to the offshore investors given that they are not a regulated land user.

Article 28.1(d) of the Land Law 2024 and its guiding provision, Article 9.1 of Decree 102/2024 only permit foreign-invested entities (FIEs), which can be established by offshore investors, to receive a transfer of equity being value of land use right originating from land allocation with land use fee payment or land lease with one-time rental payment to the State. Article 9.1 of Decree 102/2024 suggests that "equity being value of land use right " (vốn đầu tư là giá trị quyền sử dụng đất) (LUR Equity) is the equity in a company's charter capital created by contributing land use rights.

These provisions seem vague and can be interpreted differently, leading to varying conclusions.

65% or 51% simple majority voting?

Under the Enterprise Law, the quorum for a meeting of the Shareholders Meeting is met when the number of shareholders present in person and by proxy represents at least 65% of all voting shares. A decision of the Shareholders Meeting on matters which are not a super majority issue can only be passed if it is approved by a number of shareholders holding more than 65% of the number of shares entitled to vote.

Resolution 71 approving Vietnam’s accession to the WTO (Resolution 71)  provides that “[A] shareholding company is entitled to provide in its charter … the number of members [of the company] required for holding a shareholder meeting [and] … the majority vote necessary (including 51% majority) in order to pass decisions … of the shareholder meeting”.

Foreign investment in service sectors not included in the WTO Commitments

F

oreign investors interested in service sectors in Vietnam will first need to look at the commitments of Vietnam to the WTO on various sectors (WTO Commitments). If the relevant service falls into one of the service sectors committed in the WTO Commitments then the investors will more or less have an answer. If the relevant service does not fall into one of the service sectors committed in the WTO Commitments (Non-committed Services) then one would need to look at the relevant domestic laws to see if the market is open to foreign investors. Usually, if there is no express restriction on a Non-committed Services under domestic laws then a foreign investor should be able to invest in such sector. This position is reflected in Decree 108/2006 implementing the Investment Law.