Vietnam foreign borrowing limits for 2014
The foreign borrowing limits applicable to the Government and companies in Vietnam have just been issued last week under Decision 477 of the Prime Minister. Based on these limits, the State Bank of Vietnam will give its approval for foreign borrowing including offshore bond issuance by companies in Vietnam during 2014. Under Decision 477, for the year 2014:
- commercial borrowing by companies which are guaranteed by the Government is capped at US$ 2.8 billion;
- commercial borrowing by companies which are not guaranteed by the Government is capped at US$ 3.8 billion. However, this limit may be increased during the third quarter, if necessary;
- the Government may issue an international bond but the amount is not mentioned; and
- various ministries including the Ministry of Planning and Investment, the Ministry of Industry and Trade are instructed to evaluate its guarantee exposures in various BOT or large infrastructure projects. It is not clear if this instruction means that the Government now considers its obligations under various Government Guarantee and Undertakings for large scale infrastructure projects equivalent to its guaranteed obligations under foreign loans regulations.
Introduction
From 1 July 2025, Vietnam’s local Government system formally operates according to a new “two-tier” system in 34 provinces as opposed to the old “three-tier” system in 63 provinces. In the new system, there are only two levels of local Government including provinces (tỉnh) and wards (xã, phường). Government agencies at district level no longer exist. Vietnam also combines several existing wards to form a larger ward. As a result, we estimate that Vietnam now has about 3,300 local people’s committees down from 10,000 local people’s committees.
To achieve this, by 1 July 2025, the National Assembly and the Government have, among other things, amended the Constitution, amended the Law on Organisation of Local Government, issued 34 resolutions and 28 Decrees to restructure the local government system. Unfortunately, despite such herculean efforts, it appears that the new regulations have not addressed adequately various legal issues arising from the restructuring. In this post we will discuss some of these issues. More information can be found from the attached research generated by the latest AI LLM from Google (Gemini Pro 2.5).
No clear geographical boundaries between various local authorities at wards levels.
It appears that on 1 July 2025, the Government did not establish clear geographical boundaries between the newly established wards. This is because the Standing Committee of the National Assembly sets a deadline of 30 September 2025 for the Government to do so for each province. Until a source of truth of the geographical boundaries at wards level is set up, many companies and individuals may not know for sure the correct addresses that they may use in their operations including application submitted to the authorities, invoices issued to clients, or contracts.
In 2024, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted the new Law on Organization of the People’s Court (Law on Courts), which implemented significant reforms to the structure of the People’s Court system in comparison to the 2014 Law on Courts. Shortly after the promulgation of the 2024 Law on Courts, Vietnam initiated a substantial reorganisation of its administrative divisions, transitioning from a three-tier (province, district, commune) model to a two-tier (province, commune) model. Consequently, in 2025, the National Assembly approved an amendment to the 2024 Law on Courts to align the court system with the updated two-tier administrative division model (2024-2025 Law on Courts). Below are our discussions on the key changes under the 2024-2025 Law on Courts when compared to the 2014 Law on Courts.
1) Complete Restructuring of the Court Hierarchy
The court system is majorly reformed with the removal of the High People's Courts (Tòa án nhân dân cấp cao) and replacement of District Courts with Regional Court (Tòa án nhân dân khu vực).
In this post, we continue to discuss certain aspects of the new provisions on beneficial owners (BOs or commonly called as “UBOs”) under the new amendments to the Enterprise Law 2020 passed in June 2025 (2025 Enterprise Law Amendment) and the new Decree 168/2025 on enterprise registration. We have discussed some of the issues in our earlier post.
UBOs with joint controls
Under the 2025 Enterprise Law Amendment and Decree 168/2025, the criteria to determine whether an individual is an UBO seem to apply to a single individual only. As such, it is not clear if the information about related persons of such individual (e.g., his/her relatives) should be taken into account when determining an UBO. For example, it is not clear if an individual together with his/her spouse hold more than 25% voting rights of an enterprise should be declared as an UBO. A literal reading of Decree 168/2025 suggests that declaration of UBOs is not required in case of joint control. However, such an approach is likely not consistent with the purpose of the provisions on UBOs.
The law amending the Enterprise Law 2020 (Amended Enterprise Law 2020), effective 1 July 2025, introduces the following key changes:
1. The New Beneficial Owner Regime
1.1. The Amended Enterprise Law 2020's most significant change is the introduction of a Beneficial Owner (BO) regime, designed to enhance transparency and align Vietnam with international anti-money laundering standards.
Who are BOs?
1.2. The Amended Enterprise Law 2020 defines a BO as the individual who ultimately owns or controls an enterprise. The recently issued Decree 168/2025 on enterprise registration (Decree 168/2025) further clarifies the specific criteria for identifying a BO. In particular, an individual is considered a BO if they meet one of the following conditions:
In Vietnam, industrial parks are usually developed by private investors (IP Developer), rather than the State. The IP Developer will directly lease a large land parcel from the State, build necessary infrastructure, and then sublease land with ready-built infrastructure to the ultimate tenants (IP Tenant) for their investment projects.
From a legal standpoint, the nature of these land sublease agreements (sublease contract) between the IP Developer and the IP Tenant is an interesting issue. Should the sublease contract be treated as a property sale or a traditional lease? The answer has significant implications for the rights and obligations of both parties.