Confidentiality obligations of a lawyer in Vietnam

Lawyers in Vietnam are subject to the following confidentiality obligation with his/her clients including:

A lawyer is prohibited from disclosing information on cases, matters, clients that the lawyer has knowledge in the course of practicing except otherwise agreed by the clients or otherwise provided at law (e.g., the Penal Code 2015). Since this rule is carved out by “otherwise provided at law”, a lawyer cannot invoke this rule to avoid the request of providing information or testifying against his/her client in a criminal case;
A lawyer must not use information on cases, matters, clients that the lawyer has knowledge in the course of practicing for purpose of violating benefits of the State, public benefits, lawful rights and benefits of organization, individuals, and agencies;
A law firm must procure its lawyers and staffs not to disclose information on its cases, matters, clients; and
Under Article 73.2 of the Criminal Proceedings Code 2015, a defense lawyer must not disclose information on a case or an offender that the defense lawyer has knowledge in the course of defending for the offender except otherwise agreed in writing by the offender and must not use such information for purpose of violating benefits of the State, public benefits, lawful rights and benefits of organization, individuals, and agencies. A defense lawyer may invoke this privilege to deny providing information or testifying against his/her client but it is not clear whether this privilege can protect him/her from a criminal charge for failure to report extremely serious crimes or crimes which fall within Chapter XIII (crimes relating to the national security) if such case is established.

A lawyer in Vietnam is required to practice either in a law firm or in his/her own personal capacity. Therefore, technically, an in-house lawyer working for a corporation may not be regarded as a lawyer.

This post is contributed by Tran Thi Ha Phuong, a legal intern at Venture North Law, and Ha Thi Dung, a partner at Venture North Law.

Info

Comment

New guidance on expedited proceedings for disputes arising from handling of non-performing loans in Vietnam

On 15 May 2018, the Supreme Court issued Resolution 3 on expedited proceedings for disputes arising from handling of non-performing loans (NPL) and security assets of NPL (Resolution 3). Resolution 3 is an implementing legislation of Resolution 42 of the National Assembly on NPLs (Resolution 42). Resolution 3 takes effect from 1 July 2018 and will expire when Resolution 42 expires in August 2022. Resolution 3 will apply to claims (1) accepted for hearing by the courts before 1 July 2018 but have not been brought to trial; and (2) accepted during its term but still in process when it expires. Resolution 3 cannot be based on to protest against effective judgment under retrial and cassation.

Resolution 42 allows disputes relating to security asset of an NPL to be conducted under expedited proceedings. Resolution 3 further clarifies that:

Disputes on obligations to hand-over security assets of an NPL is clarified to be dispute relating to the case where the securing party or the party holding the security asset (1) does not hand-over the security asset, or (2) does not hand-over correctly according to the request of the secured party or the party having right to enforce the security asset; and
Dispute on right to enforce security asset of NPL is clarified to be dispute on the determination of person having right to enforce the security asset of an NPL.

ACQUIRING LAND USE RIGHTS THROUGH A BUSINESS COOPERATION CONTRACT IN VIETNAM

In Vietnam, if a real estate investor (Investor) cannot Acquire A Land Area Through Common Options to implement its investment projects, it may consider entering into a business cooperation contract (BCC) with a local land user. Under a BCC structure, the parties do not establish an entity but usually cooperate to use their available resources (including land use rights) to do business. In this case, the party having land use rights (Landlord) retains the title over the land without transferring them to the Investor, but the Investor may obtain certificate(s) which evidence its title over assets attached to the relevant land area (generally, ownership certificate). There is a risk that a BCC contract may be regarded as a land sub-lease contract between the local land user and the Investor. However, a BCC structure is quite common in practice and there are certain legal basis for such a structure.

Corporate criminal liability in the context of an M&A transaction in Vietnam

The Penal Code 2015 is silent as to whether corporate criminal liability incurred by one commercial legal person will be succeeded or extinguished if such legal person is liquidated, merged (sáp nhập), consolidated (hợp nhất) or split (chia) and ceases to exist. Under the Civil Code 2015, when a legal person is merged, consolidated or split, only “civil obligations” (nghĩa vụ dân sự) of such legal person are transferred to the relevant new (or succeeding) legal person. As such, criminal liability (trách nhiệm hình sự) of such legal person may not be transferred to the new (or succeeding) legal person. Similarly, under the Enterprise Law 2014, when an enterprise is merged, consolidated or split, only unpaid debts and property obligations (nghĩa vụ tài sản) are transferred to the relevant new (or succeeding) enterprises. It is not clear if criminal liability of the first enterprise could qualify as property obligations which can be transferred to or succeeded by the new (or succeeding) enterprise.

Under the Criminal Proceeding Code 2015, if a legal person, who has been convicted with a crime, undergoes a merger, de-merger, consolidation then the legal person succeeding the rights and obligations of the first mentioned legal person is responsible for performing penalties in form of monetary fine. This provision seems to suggest that not all criminal liabilities will be passed on the succeeding legal person. That said, in a recent seminar on corporate criminal liability, an official of the Ministry of Justice, being a member of the drafting team of the Penal Code 2015, has indicated that he is in favour of the requirement that in the context of the liquidation, merger, consolidation or split of a legal person, a new (or succeeding) legal person must inherit criminal liability of the disappearing entity.

Info

Comment

Vietnam Business Law