Vietnam Business Law is a website managed by lawyers of Venture North Law Limited (VNLaw). Venture North Law Limited (VNLaw) is a Vietnamese commercial law firm. We won the Rising Law Firm of the Year Award at the Southeast Asia Law Awards for the years 2020 and 2021 held by The Legal 500. Very few Vietnamese law firms have achieved a similar regional recognition.
Posted in: Securities Regulations
The Securities Law 2006 requires any securities issued by a public company to be registered with the Vietnam Securities Depository Centre (VSD). The term “securities” includes, among other things, shares, bonds, warrants, options, future, and “investment contracts”. The registration at VSD is to record the ownership rights and other rights of the securities holders.
Option arrangements are used quite frequently in M&A transactions in Vietnam. Many foreign investors have used options or convertible securities as a mechanism to, among other things, acquire additional shares once the regulatory restriction is removed or to allocate commercial risks between the parties.
Generally speaking, an option arrangement should be valid for the following reasons:
Under Article 64 of the Commercial Law, options to purchase goods or options to buy goods are allowed to traded on a commodity exchange organized under the Commercial Law. In particular, call option or put option contract means an agreement whereby the option purchaser has the right to purchase or to be sold a certain type of goods at a pre-determined price (referred to as the contracted price) and must pay a certain amount of money for the purchase of this right (referred to as the option price). The option purchaser has the right to opt to carry out or not to carry out such purchase and sale of such goods.
However, the major difficulty relating to option arrangement is that exercising an option is not an automatic process. In Vietnam, after an option is exercised, the parties usually have to obtain necessary regulatory or corporate approvals so that shares can be issued or transferred to the relevant option holder. Therefore, cooperation of the counterparties is essential for successfully exercising an option arrangement. Certain option arrangements appear to have been successfully implemented with the cooperation of the parties involved.
Another difficulty is that although there is law which generally recognizes options arrangements, there are few detail implementation rules and regulations or court precedents. Therefore, it is difficult to anticipate how the authorities including the courts and other authorities view and enforce an option arrangement in practice.
On 18 December 2025, the Vietnamese government issued Decree 323/2025 on the establishment of Vietnam International Financial Center (VIFC). Decree 323/2025 takes effect immediately and provides guidance for Article 8 and 9 of Resolution 222/2025 of the National Assembly on VIFC. In this post, we discuss some interesting points of Decree 323/2025
1. Single or multiple units
The National Assembly intends that VIFC is one single unit. To confirm this intention, Decree 323/2025 provides that VIFC is a unified legal unit (thực thể pháp lý thống nhất in Vietnamese). However, Vietnamese law does not have definition of legal unit (thực thể pháp lý). In addition, this provision of Decree 323/2025 also seems to contradict with Resolution 222/2025 which defines VIFC as an area with defined geographical boundaries.
However, by locating that single unit into two separate location, putting it under management of multiples authorties, and giving each location a different set of priorities, it is doubtful on how the operation of VIFC can be unified. This is evidenced by:
The VIFC is oddly named as “Viet Nam International Financial Center in Ho Chi Minh City (VIFC-HCMC) and Viet Nam International Financial Center in Da Nang City (VIFC-DN)” which compries two individual names within one single entity name.
The Operating Authority and Supervisory Authority of VIFC have legal person status, which implied that these authorities’ legal responsibility is independent with VIFC’s legal responsibility.
The Law on Artificial Intelligence (AI Law), which was passed by the National Assembly on 10 December 2025, is arguably among the most anticipated pieces of legislation of Vietnam in 2025.
Unfortunately, similar to the Law on Digital Technology Industry, Vietnam’s AI Law still feels like a half-baked legislation, which makes it hard to clearly identifying the key players in the artificial intelligence (AI) value chain. This article would examine several key terminologies under the AI Law.
To retain talent after investing in expensive training, employers often require employees to sign a training contract covering, among other things, work commitment and reimbursement of training costs. In that context, the critical legal question arises if there is a conflict between the provisions of the training contract and the employment contract which of the two will prevail. For example, if an employee exercises their right to terminate the employment contract under the Labor Code, can they disregard the work commitment and avoid reimbursement penalties stipulated in the training contract?
Under Data Law 2024 and the Law on Personal Data Protection 2025 (PDPL 2025), several data-related services, including “personal data processing service” (dịch vụ xử lý dữ liệu cá nhân), personal data protection service (DPO Service), data intermediary service, data trading floor and data synthesis and analysis service (collectively, New Data-Related Services) are now designated as conditional business sectors. The New Data-Related Services (which could include dozen of sub-services) are subject to specific licenses and operational conditions. In the past, data processing or exploitation services in Vietnam were not classified as conditional business lines, allowing providers to operate with limited regulatory prerequisites.
In short, the Government has arguably created (or at least intended to create) more than just a regulatory system; it has established a complex compliance economy. This new framework tethers businesses to a costly ecosystem of mandatory intermediaries, from licensing consultants to training centers and credit rating agencies. To remain operational, enterprises must now absorb the dual burden of initial licensing fees and the recurring costs of maintaining qualified staff and ratings. As these obligations mount, the pressing question remains: will this expensive bureaucracy actually reduce the daily scam calls and messages suffered by Vietnamese citizens, or simply increase the cost of doing business?
We are still waiting for the official Decree guiding the Corporate Income Tax Law 2025 (CIT Law 2025). However, the New Draft Decree of the Government dated 5 September 2025 (New Draft Decree) and the Official Letter 4685 of the Tax Department dated 29 October 2025 (Official Letter 4685) provide critical updates.
For foreign investors, the rules for selling capital in Vietnam are shifting. The new rules broaden the tax scope while offering potential - though ambiguous - exemptions. Below is our analysis of the key changes.
1. Clarifying the Scope: Direct vs. Indirect Transfers
In our previous post, we highlighted the uncertainty regarding whether “indirect transfers” (selling the offshore parent) and “direct transfers” (selling the Vietnam entity) would be taxed differently. The previous Draft Decree was ambiguous, applying the 2% revenue tax rate only to transactions where the owner “does not directly manage the business.” This implied that direct transfers might face a different tax rate.
The New Draft Decree resolves this uncertainty with two key changes:
· Unified Tax Treatment: Article 3.3 of the New Draft Decree explicitly states that taxable income for foreign companies includes income from capital transfers, whether direct or indirect. This confirms a unified approach: whether a foreign investor transfers capital in a domestic entity or in an offshore holding company, the tax treatment is identical.
· New exemptions replacing the “management” test: Article 11.2(i) of the New Draft Decree clarifies that the 2% tax on revenue applies to all capital transfers, with three specific exceptions: (i) restructuring (tái cơ cấu), (ii) internal financial arrangements of the seller (dàn xếp tài chính nội bộ của bên chuyển nhượng), or (iii) consolidation of the seller’s parent company (hợp nhất của công ty mẹ của bên chuyển nhượng).
While this appears helpful for internal group restructuring, investors should note that terms like “restructuring” and “internal financial arrangements” are not clearly defined in Vietnamese law. Without specific definitions, the determination of these exemptions will remain subject to the tax officers’ discretion.
In recent years, digital assets have been at the forefront of regulatory discussions worldwide. Vietnam is also making an effort to create a legal framework for its 100-billion-dollar market with the issuance of the 2025 Law on Digital Technology Industry – which is the first to introduce the legal definition of “digital assets”, and the Resolution 05/2025/NQ-CP greenlighting pilot program for the cryptographic digital assets market (Resolution 05/2025).
With the effective date of the Law on Digital Technology Industry fast approaching, we have a few comments on the current legal concept of digital assets in Vietnam, which we find to be rudimentary and raises more questions than answers.
For a long time, Vietnam’s housing law has restricted housing developers (generally, “master developer”) from distributing houses or residential land use rights within a project as in-kind profit to capital-contributing partners (generally, “secondary investors”). This restriction aims to prevent the master developers from using capital contribution arrangements to sell off-plan houses to customers before those properties are legally qualified for sale. In particular, Article 116.1(e) of the Housing Law 2023 currently provides that:
Under the Enterprise Law 2020, a minority ordinary shareholder voting against certain important decisions of the General Meeting of Shareholders may request the relevant joint stock company to redeem the shares held by such dissenting shareholder. However, the law is not clear about the scope of this redemption. In particular,
It is not clear whether the redemption right covers both ordinary shares and preference shares held by the dissenting shareholder. The law provides that in the request for redemption, the shareholder will specify the number of shares of each class. This suggests that the redemption right covers preference shares in addition to ordinary shares.
A conflict arises if the redemption right is found to cover preference shares, but the terms of those shares (as defined in the charter) do not permit redemption. In this situation, it is not clear whether the company can lawfully refuse the request. Since a shareholder needs to comply with the charter which contains the terms of the preference shares, the dissenting shareholder cannot require the company to redeem the relevant preference shares. On the other hand, since the provisions on the content of a redemption request do not clearly exclude shares which cannot be redeemed, the dissenting shareholder can argue that it has the right to specify all the shares (including non-redeemable preference shares) in the redemption request.
In June 2025, the National Assembly passed a new Law on Personal Data Protection (PDPL 2025), set to take effect on 1 January 2026. This new law represents a significant evolution from the foundational framework established by Decree 13/2023, introducing a far more comprehensive and stringent regime for personal data protection. This post will analyze some critical highlights of the new PDPL 2025, with some important implications for businesses. To offer a comprehensive perspective, we also include a summary generated by Google's Gemini AI for comparison and reference (see here).
A narrower extraterritorial scope of application
The PDPL 2025 narrows its extraterritorial application compared to previous regulations. Instead of a broad rule for "foreigners' data, the PDPL 2025 explicitly applies to foreign entities that are directly involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and people of Vietnamese origin residing in Vietnam. This new provision successfully addressed the confusion and uncertainty that the earlier draft of PDPL 2025 had introduced (see our discussions here).
However, this scope of application still has the following issues:
· It has not addressed the existing ambiguity under Decree 13/2023 of whether the applicable subjects under the PDPL 2025 apply to the processing entities or data subjects (see our discussions here)
· The PDPL 2025 is also unclear on its application to foreign organizations processing the data of non-Vietnamese individuals (e.g., tourists, expatriates) within Vietnam. While Article 1.2 of the PDPL 2025 does not explicitly cover this scenario, Article 5.1 states the law applies to all "personal data protection activities on the territory of Vietnam", which may arguably cover this case.
In June 2025, the National Assembly adopted several amendments to existing 2012 Law on Advertising (Advertising Law Amendments 2025). The amended law will take effect from 1 January 2026. In this post, we discuss some of the material changes introduced by Advertising Law Amendments 2025. To offer a comprehensive perspective, we also include a summary generated by Google's Gemini AI for comparison and reference (see here).
New Carve-out To The Prohibition On Comparative Advertising
The Advertising Law Amendment 2025 allows comparative advertising between one’s own products/goods/services and those of other entities of the same kind when there is “legitimate supporting documentation”. Before this, all comparative advertising was prohibited. The new carved out opens the door for lawful and transparent comparative advertising.
At law, the following provisions suggest that existing shareholders of a Vietnamese shareholding company have pre-emptive rights over new shares issued by the company:
Under Article 79.1(c) of the Enterprise Law, an ordinary shareholder in a shareholding company has priority right to subscribe for new shares issued by the company in proportion to the shareholding of such shareholder in the company;
Article 87.2 of the Enterprise Law provides that when a shareholding company issues new ordinary shares and offers such shares to all ordinary shareholders, the company must send a written notice to each shareholder setting out the terms of the offer and a reasonable period for the shareholder to consider the offer. If there is any shareholder failing to subscribe for the shares offered to them, the Board of Directors (the Board) of the company is entitled to offer such shares to a third party on terms, which are not more favourable than the terms originally offered to the relevant shareholder; and
Article 87.2(c) of the Enterprise Law provides that a shareholder may transfer its pre-emptive right to other persons.
On the other hand, there are certain provisions, which indicate that there may be exemptions to the pre-emptive rights of existing shareholders under the Enterprise Law. In particular,
Article 87.6 of the Enterprise Law states that “the Government shall provide implementing regulations for private placement of shares”. One therefore may argue that in case of a private placement of shares, there is no pre-emptive right. This is consistent with the fact that the regulations on private placement of shares which involve issuance of new shares to third party investor do not specifically require each existing shareholder to waive their pre-emptive rights before the company can issue new shares to third party investors. In practice, it seems that the regulators do not take into account pre-emptive rights of existing shareholders if the new share issuance is approved by the shareholders meeting; and
The Ministry of Finance has issued a model charter applicable to public companies in Vietnam, which provides that new shares must be offered to existing shareholders proportionally “unless otherwise decided by the General Meeting of Shareholders” (Decision 121 of the MOF dated 26 July 2012). A resolution of the General Meeting of Shareholders of a public company (which adopts the model charter) to issue shares to a specific entity could therefore be interpreted as constituting an exception to the right to personal notice and waiver that is in the Enterprise Law.
Under the Securities Law, inside information means information about a public company which has not yet been disclosed and which, if disclosed, could have a major impact on the price of the securities of such public company. The Securities Law prohibits the use of inside information to purchase or trade in shares of public companies. There is no exception to the prohibition at law.
The Securities Law also prohibits “disclosing or supplying inside information to or advising another person to purchase or sell securities on the basis of inside information”. It is not clear if the phrase “to purchase or sell securities on the basis of inside information” qualifies (1) for the word “advising” only or (2) also for the words “disclosing or supplying inside information”. In case of (1), one could take a strict view that the mere disclosing or supplying inside information to another person is prohibited even if such person does not purchase of sell shares on the basis of the inside information provided. However, interpretation (1) is not reasonable because it would capture anyone (including, for example, employees or auditors of the public company, itself) who need to have access to inside information for providing services to the public company or other reasonable purposes.
On 18 December 2025, the Vietnamese government issued Decree 323/2025 on the establishment of Vietnam International Financial Center (VIFC). Decree 323/2025 takes effect immediately and provides guidance for Article 8 and 9 of Resolution 222/2025 of the National Assembly on VIFC. In this post, we discuss some interesting points of Decree 323/2025
1. Single or multiple units
The National Assembly intends that VIFC is one single unit. To confirm this intention, Decree 323/2025 provides that VIFC is a unified legal unit (thực thể pháp lý thống nhất in Vietnamese). However, Vietnamese law does not have definition of legal unit (thực thể pháp lý). In addition, this provision of Decree 323/2025 also seems to contradict with Resolution 222/2025 which defines VIFC as an area with defined geographical boundaries.
However, by locating that single unit into two separate location, putting it under management of multiples authorties, and giving each location a different set of priorities, it is doubtful on how the operation of VIFC can be unified. This is evidenced by:
The VIFC is oddly named as “Viet Nam International Financial Center in Ho Chi Minh City (VIFC-HCMC) and Viet Nam International Financial Center in Da Nang City (VIFC-DN)” which compries two individual names within one single entity name.
The Operating Authority and Supervisory Authority of VIFC have legal person status, which implied that these authorities’ legal responsibility is independent with VIFC’s legal responsibility.
The Law on Artificial Intelligence (AI Law), which was passed by the National Assembly on 10 December 2025, is arguably among the most anticipated pieces of legislation of Vietnam in 2025.
Unfortunately, similar to the Law on Digital Technology Industry, Vietnam’s AI Law still feels like a half-baked legislation, which makes it hard to clearly identifying the key players in the artificial intelligence (AI) value chain. This article would examine several key terminologies under the AI Law.
To retain talent after investing in expensive training, employers often require employees to sign a training contract covering, among other things, work commitment and reimbursement of training costs. In that context, the critical legal question arises if there is a conflict between the provisions of the training contract and the employment contract which of the two will prevail. For example, if an employee exercises their right to terminate the employment contract under the Labor Code, can they disregard the work commitment and avoid reimbursement penalties stipulated in the training contract?
Under Data Law 2024 and the Law on Personal Data Protection 2025 (PDPL 2025), several data-related services, including “personal data processing service” (dịch vụ xử lý dữ liệu cá nhân), personal data protection service (DPO Service), data intermediary service, data trading floor and data synthesis and analysis service (collectively, New Data-Related Services) are now designated as conditional business sectors. The New Data-Related Services (which could include dozen of sub-services) are subject to specific licenses and operational conditions. In the past, data processing or exploitation services in Vietnam were not classified as conditional business lines, allowing providers to operate with limited regulatory prerequisites.
In short, the Government has arguably created (or at least intended to create) more than just a regulatory system; it has established a complex compliance economy. This new framework tethers businesses to a costly ecosystem of mandatory intermediaries, from licensing consultants to training centers and credit rating agencies. To remain operational, enterprises must now absorb the dual burden of initial licensing fees and the recurring costs of maintaining qualified staff and ratings. As these obligations mount, the pressing question remains: will this expensive bureaucracy actually reduce the daily scam calls and messages suffered by Vietnamese citizens, or simply increase the cost of doing business?
We are still waiting for the official Decree guiding the Corporate Income Tax Law 2025 (CIT Law 2025). However, the New Draft Decree of the Government dated 5 September 2025 (New Draft Decree) and the Official Letter 4685 of the Tax Department dated 29 October 2025 (Official Letter 4685) provide critical updates.
For foreign investors, the rules for selling capital in Vietnam are shifting. The new rules broaden the tax scope while offering potential - though ambiguous - exemptions. Below is our analysis of the key changes.
1. Clarifying the Scope: Direct vs. Indirect Transfers
In our previous post, we highlighted the uncertainty regarding whether “indirect transfers” (selling the offshore parent) and “direct transfers” (selling the Vietnam entity) would be taxed differently. The previous Draft Decree was ambiguous, applying the 2% revenue tax rate only to transactions where the owner “does not directly manage the business.” This implied that direct transfers might face a different tax rate.
The New Draft Decree resolves this uncertainty with two key changes:
· Unified Tax Treatment: Article 3.3 of the New Draft Decree explicitly states that taxable income for foreign companies includes income from capital transfers, whether direct or indirect. This confirms a unified approach: whether a foreign investor transfers capital in a domestic entity or in an offshore holding company, the tax treatment is identical.
· New exemptions replacing the “management” test: Article 11.2(i) of the New Draft Decree clarifies that the 2% tax on revenue applies to all capital transfers, with three specific exceptions: (i) restructuring (tái cơ cấu), (ii) internal financial arrangements of the seller (dàn xếp tài chính nội bộ của bên chuyển nhượng), or (iii) consolidation of the seller’s parent company (hợp nhất của công ty mẹ của bên chuyển nhượng).
While this appears helpful for internal group restructuring, investors should note that terms like “restructuring” and “internal financial arrangements” are not clearly defined in Vietnamese law. Without specific definitions, the determination of these exemptions will remain subject to the tax officers’ discretion.
In recent years, digital assets have been at the forefront of regulatory discussions worldwide. Vietnam is also making an effort to create a legal framework for its 100-billion-dollar market with the issuance of the 2025 Law on Digital Technology Industry – which is the first to introduce the legal definition of “digital assets”, and the Resolution 05/2025/NQ-CP greenlighting pilot program for the cryptographic digital assets market (Resolution 05/2025).
With the effective date of the Law on Digital Technology Industry fast approaching, we have a few comments on the current legal concept of digital assets in Vietnam, which we find to be rudimentary and raises more questions than answers.
For a long time, Vietnam’s housing law has restricted housing developers (generally, “master developer”) from distributing houses or residential land use rights within a project as in-kind profit to capital-contributing partners (generally, “secondary investors”). This restriction aims to prevent the master developers from using capital contribution arrangements to sell off-plan houses to customers before those properties are legally qualified for sale. In particular, Article 116.1(e) of the Housing Law 2023 currently provides that:
Under the Enterprise Law 2020, a minority ordinary shareholder voting against certain important decisions of the General Meeting of Shareholders may request the relevant joint stock company to redeem the shares held by such dissenting shareholder. However, the law is not clear about the scope of this redemption. In particular,
It is not clear whether the redemption right covers both ordinary shares and preference shares held by the dissenting shareholder. The law provides that in the request for redemption, the shareholder will specify the number of shares of each class. This suggests that the redemption right covers preference shares in addition to ordinary shares.
A conflict arises if the redemption right is found to cover preference shares, but the terms of those shares (as defined in the charter) do not permit redemption. In this situation, it is not clear whether the company can lawfully refuse the request. Since a shareholder needs to comply with the charter which contains the terms of the preference shares, the dissenting shareholder cannot require the company to redeem the relevant preference shares. On the other hand, since the provisions on the content of a redemption request do not clearly exclude shares which cannot be redeemed, the dissenting shareholder can argue that it has the right to specify all the shares (including non-redeemable preference shares) in the redemption request.
In June 2025, the National Assembly passed a new Law on Personal Data Protection (PDPL 2025), set to take effect on 1 January 2026. This new law represents a significant evolution from the foundational framework established by Decree 13/2023, introducing a far more comprehensive and stringent regime for personal data protection. This post will analyze some critical highlights of the new PDPL 2025, with some important implications for businesses. To offer a comprehensive perspective, we also include a summary generated by Google's Gemini AI for comparison and reference (see here).
A narrower extraterritorial scope of application
The PDPL 2025 narrows its extraterritorial application compared to previous regulations. Instead of a broad rule for "foreigners' data, the PDPL 2025 explicitly applies to foreign entities that are directly involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and people of Vietnamese origin residing in Vietnam. This new provision successfully addressed the confusion and uncertainty that the earlier draft of PDPL 2025 had introduced (see our discussions here).
However, this scope of application still has the following issues:
· It has not addressed the existing ambiguity under Decree 13/2023 of whether the applicable subjects under the PDPL 2025 apply to the processing entities or data subjects (see our discussions here)
· The PDPL 2025 is also unclear on its application to foreign organizations processing the data of non-Vietnamese individuals (e.g., tourists, expatriates) within Vietnam. While Article 1.2 of the PDPL 2025 does not explicitly cover this scenario, Article 5.1 states the law applies to all "personal data protection activities on the territory of Vietnam", which may arguably cover this case.
In June 2025, the National Assembly adopted several amendments to existing 2012 Law on Advertising (Advertising Law Amendments 2025). The amended law will take effect from 1 January 2026. In this post, we discuss some of the material changes introduced by Advertising Law Amendments 2025. To offer a comprehensive perspective, we also include a summary generated by Google's Gemini AI for comparison and reference (see here).
New Carve-out To The Prohibition On Comparative Advertising
The Advertising Law Amendment 2025 allows comparative advertising between one’s own products/goods/services and those of other entities of the same kind when there is “legitimate supporting documentation”. Before this, all comparative advertising was prohibited. The new carved out opens the door for lawful and transparent comparative advertising.