Vietnam investment regulations – Direct investment v.s. indirect investment
Under the Investment Law, direct investment means a form of investment whereby the investor invests its invested capital and participates in the management of the investment activity. On the other hand, indirect investment means a form of investment through the purchase of shares, share certificates, other valuable papers or a securities investment fund and through other intermediary financial institutions and whereby the investor does not participate directly in the management of the investment activity.
The confusing point here is what “participating in the management” of investment activity. If having purchased shares of a listed company in Vietnam, a foreign investor attends the shareholders meeting of such company and exercises its voting rights then arguably the investor has “participated in the management” of the company in Vietnam. A more relevant example is a foreign investor purchases a minority stake in a domestic joint stock company and nominates its personnel to hold position in the Board of Directors of such company. In such case, it is not clear if the investor could be deemed to have “participated in the management” of the company in Vietnam.
The consequences of being treated as a direct investment and an indirect investment may be material. If an investment is an indirect investment then the parties may not need to obtain an Investment Certificate and must settle the transaction in Vietnamese Dong through a VND capital contribution account. If an investment is a direct investment then the parties may need to obtain an Investment Certificate and could settle the transaction in foreign currency.
It would have been clearer if the Investment Law replaces the concept of “participating in the management” with “control”. In such case, an investor will be deemed to make a direct investment if it has “control” of the investment activity. In other cases, the investor will be deemed to make an indirect investment.
As discussed in our previous post, we believe the pilot mechanism introduced under Resolution 171 will bring a significant improvement to the legal framework for commercial housing development in Vietnam. With the enactment of implementing Decree 75/2025, this pilot mechanism is now fully set up. In this post, we will highlight key takeaways from Decree 75/2025 and discuss potential implications for housing developers.
On 29 April 2025, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) has issued Circular 3 on the opening and using of VND account for conducting indirect investment in Vietnam (Circular 3/2025). From 16 June 2025, Circular 3/2025 will replace Circular 5 dated 12 March 2014 of the SBV (Circular 5/2014) guiding the opening and using of indirect investment capital account (IICA) for conducting indirect investment in Vietnam.
n a landmark reform for 2025, the Government of Vietnam has commenced a significant restructuring of its ministries. This major overhaul, approved by Resolution No 176 of the National Assembly dated 18 February 2025, aims to create a leaner, more efficient, and effective state apparatus to better support the nation's development.
The restructuring involves a series of complex mergers and transfers of functions between ministries. Based on the guiding decrees, the key changes include:
The Vietnamese government recently issued Decree 69/2025 (effective 19 May 2025), which amends Decree 01/2014 regarding foreign investor’s share purchase in Vietnamese credit institutions. Here are the main changes:
1. Scope of application
Decree 69/2025 clarifies that foreign-invested economic organisations (FIEOs) which are required to comply with investment conditions and procedures applicable to foreign investors must now follow the same rules (in Decree 01/2014 as amended by Decree 69/2025) applicable to foreign investors when buying shares in Vietnamese credit institutions.
Under the Investment Law 2020, these FIEOs refer to entities where foreign investors hold a majority of the charter capital (FIEO-F1). Notably, Decree 69/2025 does not explicitly state whether it applies to economic organisations majority-owned by an FIEO-F1, even though such economic organisations are also treated as foreign investors under the Investment Law 2020.
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.