Foreign Investment in Vietnamese Credit Institutions: Key Changes in Decree 69/2025

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.

Read MoreInfo
Comment
Written by Nguyen Quang Vu On In ,

Private Corporate Bonds: Ambiguity Concerning The Permissible Use Of Bond Proceeds

Decree 153/2020 (as amended), which governs private corporate bond offerings, creates ambiguity concerning the permissible use of bond proceeds, especially when parent companies aim to finance their subsidiaries.

Decree 153/2020 stipulates that bond proceeds can be used for implementing investment programs and projects, restructuring debts of the issuing enterprise itself, or for other purposes sanctioned by specialised laws. The ambiguity stems specifically from how the qualifier “of the issuing enterprise itself” applies to these permissible uses. This leads to two primary interpretations:

Read MoreInfo
Comment
Written by Nguyen Quang Vu On In ,

Dealing With Civil Liability In A Criminal Case In Vietnam – A Review Of Certain Practical Cases

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.

Read MoreInfo
Comment
Written by Nguyen Quang Vu On In ,

New Law on Credit Institutions 2024 (Part 3)

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.

Read MoreInfo
Comment
Written by Nguyen Quang Vu On In