Licences and Permits for running business in Vietnam

Navigating among numerous licences and permits required by law for running a business in Vietnam has never been easy. There many reasons including:

  • There is no comprehensive list of valid licences and permits available. Therefore, businesses run the risks of missing certain licences and permits. This is particular true as many authorities in Vietnam have the power to issue licences and permits;
  • The time and efforts required for obtaining a licence or permit may be substantial. In practice, the authorities may not always check or enforce the required licence or permit. Therefore, the risk in practice of missing a particular licence and permit varies; and
  • That being said, in theory, missing a required licence or permit may be subject to administrative penalty and, in extreme case, criminal penalty (e.g. see the case against Mr Nguyen Duc Kien).

Regarding the first point, I just come across of report on business licences and permits prepared by the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) in December 2013 (MPI List). The MPI seems to have spent substantial time and efforts verifying with all other ministries about the licences and permits issued by such other ministries. As such, the MPI List is quite comprehensive. The MPI List provides for the list of 334 licences and permits requires for various conditional business lines in Vietnam.

Therefore, a business owner may use the information in the MPI List to check if it has obtained all the licences and permits mentioned in the MPI List for its operation, if necessary.

A copy of the MPI List in Vietnamese can be downloaded here.

An unofficial translation of the MPI List by VILAF can be downloaded here.

Featured
New M&A Approval Forms Under Circular 55/2026 Changes

On 15 May 2026, the Ministry of Finance issued Circular 55/2026/TT-BTC (Circular 55/2026), introducing a new set of forms for investment activities in Vietnam. Two specific changes in the new form of application for M&A Approval are notable for investors engaged in M&A transactions.

Picture1.png
Vietnam Government trims the list of conditional business sectors

On 15 May 2026, the Government issued Resolution No. 66.17/2026/NQ-CP (the Resolution 66.17 or the new), slimming down the list of conditional business sectors currently set out in Appendix IV of Investment Law 2025 (the old).

Resolution 66.17 will take effect on 1 July 2026 and is set to expire on 28 February 2027, by which time the Government expects the National Assembly to formalise these adjustments through an amendment to Appendix IV. Although there would be a question about the effectiveness of the Resolution 66.17 over the Appendix 4 of Investment Law 2025 and how the investment authority will apply in practice, the investor may, in the meantime, treat the Resolution 66.17 as the working text for the next 9–10 months while following up on the law amendments.

Transferring a Real Estate Project in Vietnam: Two Procedures and Their Practical Implications

Under Article 41 of the Law on Real Estate Business 2023 (Real Estate Business Law), a real estate project (Project) eligible for transfer may follow one of two sets of legal procedures, depending on how it was approved. While the difference may appear procedural at first glance, it has significant implications for when the transfer transaction is legally completed, and for what the parties can (or cannot) do if the transaction ultimately falls through. This post discusses the two procedures and the practical implications arising from the distinction between them.

Vietnam raises general merger notification thresholds

Vietnam has temporarily raised several general economic concentration notification thresholds under Resolution No. 66.18 of the Government dated 18 May 2026 (Resolution 66/2026), a practical change for M&A transactions as fewer deals should be caught solely by Vietnamese assets, Vietnamese turnover or transaction value.

Official Letter 13629 of Ministry of Finance: Notable Clarifications and Gaps in Corporate Regulations

On 3 September 2025, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) released the Official Letter no. 13629 addressing questions related to difficulties and obstacles arising from legal regulations in the finance and investment sector. This correspondence has several notable issues that are summarized below. While some of the MOF’s guidance offers welcome flexibility and operational reassurance, others fall short of providing clear or comprehensive clarification, leaving important gaps unresolved and inconsistencies with other legislation unaddressed.

Delegation by the General Meeting of Shareholders endorsed in principle (Query no. 29)

Query/Issue raised:

Current regulations regarding delegation/authorisation (both could be translated to/from "uỷ quyền" in Vietnamese) by the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) to the Board are unclear and conflicting. […]

Independent Director Qualification Under The Vietnamese Enterprises Law – A Point Of Ambiguity

A recurring issue in Vietnam corporate governance is whether a former member of the Board of Directors can be appointed as an “independent” Board member in the subsequent term, provided that all other statutory criteria are satisfied. This typically arises where companies want to retain a former board member while still complying with independence requirements under Article 155.2 of the Enterprises Law 2020 as amended in 2025 (Enterprises Law 2020).

Under Article 155.2(dd) of Enterprises Law 2020, an independent Board member must “not hold the position of member of the Board of the company within the last 05 years or longer unless he/she was designated in 02 consecutive terms.”

Unclear Risk Allocation for Latent Defects under Vietnamese Law

Vietnamese law currently lacks a formal definition of “latent defect” (khiếm khuyết ẩn) and a clear mechanism for allocating liability once such defects arise. This regulatory vacuum often leads to prolonged disputes between the Employer and the Contractor, particularly when the construction contracts do not include explicit risk allocation.

For the purpose of our discussion below, a “latent defect” is defined as a fault or flaw in construction works/item that is not discoverable through a reasonably thorough inspection at the time of handover.

Is Metadata Personal Data? New Risks Under Vietnam’s Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL 2025)

When companies think about data protection, they usually focus on “visible” data like names, email addresses, or bank details. However, there is a hidden layer called metadata - essentially “data about data” - that often gets ignored.

Under Vietnam’s new personal data protection rules, overlooking metadata is a major risk. If metadata can be used to identify a specific person, it falls under the same strict rules as regular personal data.

What is Metadata? The “Digital Footprint”

Metadata is information that describes the context of a file or a message rather than the content itself. Even if you remove a person’s name from a file, the metadata can still point directly to them.

Land Access Privileges for Investor under Vietnam’s New BT Framework

Vietnam is currently at a pivotal stage of infrastructure modernization. To meet the immense demand for capital, the State has moved to revitalize private sector participation, most notably through the “Build – Transfer” (BT) model.

In a typical BT arrangement, a private investor finances and constructs an infrastructure project, then transfers it to the State upon completion. In return, the State “pays” the investor with land funds, allowing them to develop a “reciprocal project” (dự án đối ứng) to recover their capital and generate profit. While this mechanism is essential to stimulate private sector participation, the recent new legal framework for BT projects may raise significant concern regarding the land access privileges granted to BT investors compared to their counterparts in the general real estate market. In particular,

Case Law No. 81/2024 Creates More Confusion Than Clarification

The recently issued Case Law No. 81/2024/AL (CL 81) introduces a precedent that allows creditors to bypass the standard statute of limitations by re-characterizing an unpaid contractual debt as a property reclamation claim upon the mutual termination of the contract and an agreement on the payable amount. Below are a few of our observations regarding CL 81.

Summary of the Case

The dispute originated from a service contract between Company M (the Service Provider) and Company A (the Client). After the Service Provider performed its services, the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract. Subsequently, the Client explicitly confirmed in writing the specific amount of the service fee it owed to the Service Provider and the late payment interest but ultimately failed to make the payment. When the Service Provider filed a lawsuit to recover the unpaid amount, the Client requested the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the 3-year statute of limitations for a contractual dispute had already expired.



Info
Written by Nguyen Quang Vu On In ,