Payment for shares in Vietnamese companies
Article 12.1 of the amended Ordinance on Foreign Exchange of the Standing Committee requires a foreign investor making an indirect investment including purchasing shares or capital contribution in a Vietnamese company to convert its foreign currency into Vietnamese Dong and transfer all payment through a Vietnamese Dong indirect investment capital account (CCA). Therefore, payment for shares in a Vietnamese companies should be made in Vietnamese Dong.
However, before Circular 32/2013 of the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV), it is not clear whether it is possible for a foreign investor to agree to denominate the share purchase price in US$ and pay the same in equivalent Vietnamese Dong. Article 22 of the Ordinance on Foreign Exchange requires all transactions “in the territory of Vietnam” must not be denominated in US$ except in case permitted by the SBV. Although a foreign investor does not reside in Vietnam, the CCA of such foreign investor is located in Vietnam. Therefore, a share purchase transaction between a foreign investor and a local seller could still be captured by the words “in the territory of Vietnam”.
Under Circular 32/2013 effective from 10 February 2014, it should now be possible for the parties to denominate the purchase price for shares in a Vietnamese company in US$. This is because:
- Under Article 4.16 of the new Circular 32/2013, a resident supplying goods to a non-resident may denominate the price and receive payment in foreign currency; and
- Under the Civil Code and the Commercial Law, goods may include valuable papers such shares.
In a criminal case involving a business, from time to time, the courts will need to decide on the civil liability of the criminal and other persons including those who are not aware of the crime relating to the case. For example, if A commits a fraud against B and uses the monies obtained from B to repay a debt between A and C who is not aware of A’s crime. In addition to deciding on whether A is guilty or not, the court will need to decide whether (1) requesting A to compensate B for the loss that B suffers or (2) requesting C to return the monies C receives from A to B (assuming that A is convicted). However, it appears that the court does not have a consistent approach. In this post, we discuss the approaches that the courts took in some significant criminal cases for the last decade.
Huyen Nhu Case – 2014
Huynh Thu Huyen Nhu was the head of a transaction office of Vietinbank (a large State-owned bank). Huyen Nhu has offered high interest rate (exceeding the interest rate cap provided by law) to various companies to convince them to deposit their monies with a branch of Vietinbank. After those companies made the deposit under instructions of Huyen Nhu, Huyen Nhu used fake documents and payment instruction to cause Vietinbank to transfer the deposit to Huyen Nhu’s designated accounts. Huyen Nhu used most of the amount obtained through her fraud to repay her debts to several individuals. The damages caused by Huyen Nhu is reported to be around VND 4000 billion (about US$ 200 million at such time), being largest bank fraud at the time.
In addition to convicting Huyen Nhu of the crime of committing fraud to appropriate properties (lừa đảo chiếm đoạt tài sản), the court also requested Huyen Nhu to compensate all the relevant companies for the losses that such companies suffer. The relevant companies took the view that they are not victim of Huyen Nhu’s fraudulent acts but Vietinbank is. Therefore, the relevant companies requested Vietinbank to repay them the deposits they made with Vietinbank. However, the court rejected such view and considered those companies to be victims of Huyen Nhu’s fraudulent acts. The court confiscated the amount of interests that Huyen Nhu paid her lenders but did not require these lenders to return the entire amount they received from Huyen Nhu.
On 22 October 2024, the Government of Vietnam issued Decree 135/2024 on mechanisms and policies incentivising the development of “self-generation and self-consumption rooftop solar power” (Self-Consumption RSP). Unfortunately, there is still a great deal of ambiguity in the provisions of Decree 135/2024 that might create unnecessary confusion in applying and administering the implementation of Decree 135/2024. Please see our discussion of a few ambiguous provisions of Decree 135/2024 below.
1) Potential risk from Decree 135/2024’s scope of application – Decree 135/2024 is said to only govern Self-Consumption RSP [systems] that are installed on the roof of construction works that were invested and constructed in strict compliance with law, including regulations on investment, construction, land, environment, safety, firefighting and fire prevention. As such, any noncompliance of the underlying building may cause the rooftop solar system to not be recognised as a Self-Consumption RSP system and therefore cannot enjoy the incentives policies under Decree 135/2024. It is unclear (i) whether mitigated noncompliance in the past (before the Self-Consumption RSP system is installed) would cause the building to be considered not “invested and constructed in strict compliance with law” and therefore prevents the installation of Self-Consumption RSP system on said building, and (i) whether noncompliance that arises after the Self-Consumption RSP system is installed and operated would affect the applicability of Decree 135/2024 to such system and what the outcome would be.
The National Assembly of Vietnam adopted a new law (the Amended Investment Law) to amend and supplement several provisions in Investment Law 2020. Most provisions of the Amended Investment Law take effect from 1 January 2025, except certain cases will take effect from 1 July 2025. In this post, we discuss some notable points in this Amended Investment Law.
Special Investment Procedures
The key point in this Amended Investment Law is the introduction of a special investment procedure (Special Procedure) which allows the eligible investors in certain high-tech sectors to obtain the investment registration certificate (IRC) and implement its project in a shorter time and reduces procedures, including waiver of various approvals and procedures.
The project utilizing the Special Procedure are exempt from various standard approvals and procedures, including IPA, technology appraisal, environmental impact assessment report, detail planning, construction permit and other approvals and permits in construction, fire fighting and prevention. The issued IRC serves as document for land lease or conversion of land use purpose. However, before commencing construction, investors are obliged to submit a report on the project's economic-technical construction investment, along with the corresponding appraisal report, to the relevant Authority.
This Special Procedure prevails relevant regulations under other laws enacted before 15 January 2025 when there is any difference between the Special Procedure and such other laws. For projects having IPA or IRC before the effective date of Amended Investment Law and eligible for utilizing the Special Procedure, the investor of such project can choose to apply the Special Procedure. The Special Procedure is still subject to further guidance from the Government and Ministry of Planning and Investment.
Vietnam’s housing market has experienced rapid growth in recent years, driven by urbanization, economic development, and increasing demand. A shortage in housing supply in some big cities currently has prompted policymakers to enhance land policies to unlock resources for housing project development. As new Land Law 2024 seems to fall short in resolving the land supply constraints for residential development, on 30 November 2024, the National Assembly adopted Resolution 171 on piloting implementation of commercial housing projects through agreements on voluntary assignment of land use rights (LUR) or use of existing LUR (Resolution 171).
With its introduction of a more flexible mechanism for commercial housing development, Resolution 171 is anticipated to address the housing supply shortage. However, developers will need to wait for a detailed decree to ensure the feasibility and compliance of their proposed projects.
In the FLC and Van Thinh Phat cases, the authorities have accused the controlling shareholders of FLC and Van Thinh Phat of various crimes including crimes relating to public issuance of securities, stock manipulation or private issuance of bonds. In an apparent attempt to prevent these crimes to be recommitted, in December 2024, the National Assembly passes some important amendments to the Securities Law 2019 (2024 Amendment). The Amendment takes effect from 1 January 2025 and could impose significant risks to public companies and their shareholders in Vietnam.
Sweeping changes to the liability regime for public companies, their shareholders and advisors
Under the 2024 Amendment, organization or individuals participating in the process of preparing applicable files or reporting documents relating to securities activities and securities market (hoạt động chứng khoán và thị trường chứng khoán) will be responsible for ensuring that:
such application files and reporting documents are legal, accurate, true and complete; and
such application files and reporting documents have clear and not misleading information and contain all material content which affect decision of the authorities, organisations and investors.
Advisors, who provide advice on the application files and reporting documents relating to securities activities and securities market, must be honest and prudent and must ensure that all analysis is reasonable and prudent.
Before the 2024 Amendment, the Securities Law 2019 only imposes liabilities to issuers, underwriters, auditors and “certifying organisations” when they conduct a public offering of securities or register their securities for listing or trading. However, by referring to all securities activities and securities market, the 2024 Amendment appears to expand the liability regimes to apply to all activities in the market including those which are normally not subject to such liability such as (1) private offering of securities, (3) public disclosures by a public companies or their shareholders, (4) secondary trading of securities by investors, and (4) advisors who are involved in these activities.
In practice, it would be very difficult for public companies and their shareholders and advisors to ensure that all of the documents and information relating to their public disclosures and securities trading activities do not contain misleading information and contain all material information, which affect decision by not only investors but also the authorities and other organisations.
On 24 September 2024, the Ministry of Public Securities (MPS) published the draft law on personal data protection (Draft PDPL). Compared to Decree 13/2023, the Draft PDPL introduces several significant points related to personal data protection. This blog will explore the key highlights and implications of these new provisions.
1) Expanded scope of application
As compared to Decree 13/2023, the Draft PDPL broadens its scope to cover additional entities, being “agencies, organizations, and individuals collecting and processing personal data of foreigners within Vietnamese territories.” (Article 1.2(dd). This provision appears to enhance the protection of personal data belonging to foreign nationals. However, it remains unclear whether the provision applies solely to foreigners present in Vietnam or also to those residing abroad. The ambiguity lies in the interpretation of the phrase “within Vietnamese territories”. If it extends to foreigners outside Vietnam, it could impose significant compliance burdens on Vietnamese enterprises processing personal data of foreign nationals.
Furthermore, it is confusing that the Draft PDPL does not address the existing ambiguity in the scope of application under Decree 13/2023. Instead, it introduces another type of applicable entity that could potentially create even greater uncertainty.
2) Definition of personal data associated to “citizen”
Unlike Decree 13/2023, the Draft PDPL defines both basic personal data and, seemingly, sensitive personal data as being specifically associated to “citizens”. It is unclear why Draft PDPL limits its personal data protection to citizens rather than to all individuals, regardless of nationality or status. This approach is not in line with the term “personal data” in GDPR (which refers to that of a natural person). Furthermore, limiting protections to citizens could also infringe on the rights of non-citizens and stateless people, potentially conflicting with Article 21 of the 2013 Constitution, which guarantees privacy rights to "everyone," not just citizens.
Additionally, the term “citizen” is ambiguous, as it is unclear whether it refers to Vietnamese citizens only or also encompasses foreign citizens. If the former interpretation is adopted, this would be inconsistent with the broader scope outlined in Article 1.2(dd) of the Draft PDPL, which governs the personal data of foreigners. If the latter interpretation is adopted, it would not be reasonable for the Draft PDPL and Vietnamese authorities to govern personal data of foreign citizens (especially those who are not in Vietnam).
This post continues discussing some additional changes of the Law on Credit Institution 2024 (LCI 2024). For changes discussed in our Part 1, please see here, in Part 2, please see here.
1. More comment on security agent
As discussed in Part 2, LCI 2024 allows security agent operation. However, the relevant provision of LCI 2024 has the following limitations:
1.1. such provision does not clarify the nature of security agent and whether it is the relation of representative (đại diện) or authorization (ủy quyền) as stipulated under the Civil Code. Under LCI 2024, the activity of security agent is implemented under the provisions of relevant laws, without further clarifying which relevant laws are; and
1.2. LCI 2024 does not provide any details on what a security agent can do (such as definition of security agent or the role of the security agent).
2. New classification for letter of credit
LCI 2024 no longer classifies letter of credit operation as a payment service provided via account (dịch vụ thanh toán qua tài khoản). LCI 2024 now defines letter of credit as a form of credit extension through the issuance, confirmation, negotiation, payment and return of letter of credit.
One can assume that where possible (i.e., not prohibited by international treaties) Vietnamese law will likely provide better treatment to Vietnamese investors over foreign investor. However, in the examples discussed below, foreign investors do get better treatment over Vietnamese investors:
Investor protection - The biggest advantage that many foreign investors have over Vietnamese investors is the ability of the foreign investor to make a claim against Vietnamese Government before international arbitration under various investment treaties that Vietnam has signed with several countries. Vietnamese investors have no ability to do so. The Government of Vietnam has indeed been subject to several investor-State disputes and is well aware of the risk that it can be sued if it mistreats foreign investors.
The Official Gazette (Công Báo) publishes legal instruments (văn bản quy phạm pháp luật) issued in accordance with the Law on Law. However, the Official Gazette also has a section which publishes “other legal documents” (Văn bản pháp luật khác). It is not clear if these “other legal documents”, which are not legal instruments, will have the force of law.
The Law on Legal Instruments (or Law on Laws) defines a legal provision (quy phạm pháp luật) to mean a general rule of conduct, with universal binding force, applied repeatedly to agencies, organizations, and individuals within the entire country or a specific administrative unit, as prescribed by a competent state agency in this Law and ensured by the State. A legal instrument (văn bản quy phạm pháp luật) is a document containing legal provisions issued in accordance with the Law on Legal Instruments and must be published on the Official Gazette. The Law on Legal Instrument prohibits the issuance of documents which are not a legal instrument but which contain legal provisions. Since the “other legal documents” published on Official Gazette are not issued in accordance with the Law on Legal Instruments, they should not contain a legal provision and should not have the force of law.
It is unclear whether indirect ownership or control is taken into account when determining a company is the parent company of another company. Under Article 195.1 of the Enterprise Law 2020, a company will be deemed to be a parent company of another company in one of the following circumstances:
the former owns more than 50% of the charter capital or the total number of ordinary shares of the latter;
the former has the right to directly or indirectly appoint “the majority or all directors of the Board, Director or the General Director” of the latter; or
the former has the right to amend the charter of the latter.
The above definition makes it unclear because indirect control is only clearly mentioned in the case of appointing Board directors and Director (General Director) (i.e. the second limb).