Vietnam

Vietnamese civil law provides the following principal causes of action under the Civil Code 2015. Recovery is compensatory only and punitive damages are not recognised.

• Proprietary reclamation. An owner may reclaim property from any person unlawfully possessing, using, or deriving benefit from it. This is a right in rem (enforceable against anyone holding the asset, not only the original wrongdoer) and is the primary proprietary remedy in fraud cases where the original asset can be located. The law prefers return in specie and requires the return of profits derived during unlawful possession. In a civil proceeding context (without a criminal conviction), the law provides no mechanism for the proprietary right to survive asset conversion.
• Contractual remedies. Two inconsistent remedies are available where fraud arises in contract. Under the rescission regime, a fraudulently induced transaction is voidable, not automatically void. When rescission is granted, the transaction is unwound, and the claimant is entitled to restitution of what was transferred. Damages for breach of contract compensate for loss of the bargain and are appropriate where rescission is barred or expectation loss exceeds restitution.
• Non-contractual liability (tort). Liability arises for any unlawful act causing financial loss, whether or not a contractual relationship exists. Proof of fault, damage, and causal link are required.
• Unjust enrichment. The law imposes an obligation on a person who holds another’s property without a legal basis to return Distinct from a proprietary claim, a restitution claim under this regime generates only a personal right against the specific obligor, not an interest in specific assets.

Vietnam addresses fraud primarily through criminal law. Principal instruments include:

• Penal Code 2015, amended 2017. Fraud, abuse of trust, embezzlement, money laundering, insider trading and market manipulation are crimes that can result in significant custodial sentences and mandatory confiscation.
• Law on Anti-Money Laundering 2022. Customer due diligence, suspicious transaction reporting, and asset freezing obligations on banks, securities firms, real estate businesses, and designated non-financial businesses.
• Law on Securities 2019, amended 2022 and 2024. Fraud (including provision of false or misleading information in securities offering), insider trading, and market manipulation are prohibited.
• Law on Digital Technology Industry 2025. The law formally recognises cryptoassets as property, resolving the classification uncertainty and supporting certain civil remedies. However, it does not supply tracing rules and transfer mechanisms.

Vietnamese courts accept jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code 2015 where:

• the defendant is Vietnamese or domiciled/registered in Vietnam;
• assets are located in Vietnam;
• the fraud was committed in or directed from Vietnam or its consequences were suffered here; or
• the parties have agreed to submit to Vietnamese courts.

There is no anti-suit injunction power and no forum non conveniens doctrine. Jurisdiction over foreign defendants without assets or a presence in Vietnam is more difficult to establish and enforce.

The principal connecting factors under the Civil Procedure Code 2015 are:

• location of assets (the most frequently relied upon in fraud cases, as courts accept jurisdiction where disputed assets such as bank accounts, land, or securities are located in Vietnam);
• domicile or registered seat of the defendant;
• place where the fraudulent act was performed or its consequences were felt; and
• written contractual submission to Vietnamese courts.

Choice of law rules are governed by the Civil Code 2015:

• non-contractual obligations: chosen law, or absent choice, the law of the place where the damage occurs; if both parties are based in the same country, that country’s law applies;
• property rights: lex situs, where assets are in Vietnam, Vietnamese property law governs questions of ownership and security; and
• contractual claims: chosen law or, absent choice, law most closely connected to the contract.

Courts default to Vietnamese law where foreign law is not pleaded and proved by expert opinion.

Vietnamese law has no equitable tracing doctrine and asset recovery relies on ownership claims, restitution, and interim measures rather than a distinct tracing jurisdiction.

• Cash and bank accounts. Bank accounts are subject to asset freezing orders in civil proceeding and criminal seizure under a criminal proceeding.
• Real property. Land use rights and buildings are registered assets traceable through the national land registration system.
• Securities. Shares and bonds held through the Vietnam Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation (VSDC) are identifiable.
• Digital assets. Digital assets include virtual assets (used for exchange or investment) and cryptoassets (relying on encryption or blockchain technology). There are no distinct tracing rules for those assets and therefore asset tracing remains significantly underdeveloped.
• Other movable property. Vehicles, equipment, and goods are traceable through registration systems.

No. Vietnamese law has no equivalent to the Re Hallett’s Estate presumption, Re Oatway, or the pari passu approach displacing Clayton’s Case. Commingling effectively defeats civil recovery, as a claimant must prove ownership of specific identifiable assets. There is no proportionate share doctrine. In criminal proceedings, prosecutors establish fraudulent origin through transactional evidence and seek confiscation. Criminal referral is the only effective route where assets have been mixed.

Vietnamese law recognises ownership claims over identifiable property but has no constructive trust and no equitable lien. Unjust enrichment is a personal remedy only. In the Bitcoin Robbery case (Judgment No. 841/2023/HS-PT), the court ordered personal compensation only and no proprietary restitution of unconverted Bitcoin or land purchased with fraud proceeds (see Question 11.2, below). Proprietary-like remedies through structured judicial discretion are untested.

Vietnamese civil law does not recognise tracing into substituted assets. Courts assess loss value and order compensation; the victim becomes an unsecured creditor. In criminal proceedings, prosecutors may seek confiscation of substitute assets.

Interim measures are available under the Civil Procedure Code 2015 and are the primary interim remedy in civil fraud proceedings. Available measures include:

• account and property freezing;
• seizure of movable property;
• prohibition on transfer of property rights; and
• prohibition on change of asset status.

Applications may be made concurrently with filing a Statement of Claim and a security deposit equivalent to the potential damage to the respondent is typically required. Vietnamese courts have no power to freeze assets outside Vietnam.

In criminal proceedings, investigative authorities may independently order account freezing and asset seizure without court application. This route is faster and more effective than civil measures, and the primary tool for urgent asset preservation.

Civil proceedings offer limited disclosure: parties may request third-party documents (often ineffective); courts may order evidence production (during proceedings, not pre-action); public registries provide baseline asset information without court involvement. There is no Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction.

Criminal proceedings offer substantially wider tools:

• compelled production of bank records and documents;
• searches of premises, workplaces, and vehicles;
• seizure of documents, objects, and data storage devices;
• special investigative measures including covert recording, communications interception, and electronic data collection;
• forensic analyses; and
• use of AML financial intelligence and mutual legal assistance.

This asymmetry is the principal reason why early criminal referral is essential in complex fraud cases.

No. The law does not provide for court orders compelling disclosure before proceedings are issued. The only pre-action mechanism is application for interim measures concurrently with filing a Statement of Claim. A claimant may conduct pre-action asset tracing through publicly accessible registries without court involvement.

Yes, though the scope and practical effectiveness differ significantly between civil and criminal matters. In civil matters, Vietnamese courts can assist by serving process, summoning witnesses and experts, and taking evidence. This assistance is primarily procedural and does not extend to coercive asset recovery measures. In criminal matters, assistance is considerably wider. Vietnamese competent authorities can provide service of documents; collection of evidence; criminal prosecution and extradition; and, most importantly for asset recovery, tracing of assets, seizure, account freezing, confiscation of proceeds, and disposal of criminal assets. From 1 July 2026, the Law on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil Matters 2025 and the Law on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters 2025 replace the prior framework, significantly expanding criminal mutual legal assistance (MLA) scope to include search and seizure, confiscation, return of assets to rightful owners, and arrangements for foreign authorities to be present during execution of requests in Vietnam.

Practical effectiveness is uneven. Criminal cooperation, particularly with ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) neighbours and bilateral treaty partners, is generally more structured and reliable than civil assistance. Investigative authorities have developed practical experience through high-profile domestic prosecutions. Practical limitations remain significant: formal MLA requests are often slow, measured in months rather than weeks; coordination on asset management and return once assets are located is underdeveloped; and reciprocity-based cooperation (absent a bilateral treaty) is unpredictable and may be refused or delayed. There is no fast-track mechanism for urgent asset preservation requests from foreign courts.

Vietnam has 16 bilateral criminal MLA treaties, six bilateral civil MLA treaties, and 12 general (civil and criminal) MLA treaties. The ASEAN Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters 2004 covers evidence, search and seizure, confiscation, and service between Vietnam and the other nine ASEAN member states. Where no bilateral treaty applies, UNCAC (United Nations Convention against Corruption) (ratified 2009), UNTOC (United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime)/Palermo Convention (ratified 2012), and the Vienna Convention (acceded 1997) serve as MLA bases between co-parties. UNCAC is the primary instrument for corruption-related asset recovery; UNTOC is relevant to organised fraud and money laundering.

Foreign civil judgments may be recognised and enforced under the Civil Procedure Code 2015, subject to treaty or reciprocity. Recognition is not automatic, and a separate application is required. Grounds for refusal include:

• conflict with Vietnamese law or public policy;
• improper service;
• Vietnamese exclusive jurisdiction; and
• prior enforcement.

Foreign criminal judgments against Vietnamese nationals refused extradition may be enforced where the conduct constitutes a Vietnamese offence and the judgment is final.

Foreign civil freezing orders are not directly enforceable in Vietnam. A party seeking asset preservation in support of foreign proceedings must apply independently for Vietnamese interim measures.

Foreign criminal confiscation orders may be enforced through MLA channels via the Supreme People’s Procuracy. The request is reviewed, forwarded for execution, and results transmitted back through treaty or diplomatic channels. MLA requests should be initiated as early as possible.

Under the Law on Recovery and Bankruptcy 2025, insolvency law interacts with fraud and asset recovery through a collective, court-supervised framework. Fraudulent or asset-dissipating transactions may be unwound through statutory clawback mechanisms, with assets recovered into the insolvency estate for distribution to creditors.

Civil and criminal proceedings may run in parallel. Where the debtor’s property obligations are implicated in related criminal or administrative cases, the court must separate and temporarily suspend the civil portion to coordinate proceedings.

A key distinction applies between proprietary and unsecured claims. The position of third parties to whom assets have been onward transferred by the debtor before insolvency turns on the nature of the transfer. A party under a valid contract for value may reclaim an asset transferred to the debtor where the contract has been suspended provided that the asset still exists within the debtor’s asset pool and the party repays any amount received from the debtor. Otherwise, the claimant ranks as an unsecured creditor behind insolvency costs, employee wages, and state obligations.

Yes. Insolvency office holders (quản tài viên) are empowered to prevent unauthorised disposal or transfer of assets; apply to the court to invalidate (claw back) transactions that dissipate assets or prejudice creditors; and recover such assets (or their value) into the estate for distribution. Actions are brought on behalf of the estate for all creditors, not individual claimants. Office holders may also report suspected misconduct to competent authorities and cooperate with investigations.

Yes. Assets dissipated through fraud can be clawed back through statutory avoidance mechanisms. The court, on the office holder’s application, may invalidate pre-insolvency transactions that transfer assets below market value; involve gratuitous transfers; or are conducted with intent to dissipate assets.

Proof of fraudulent intent is not always required; falling within the statutory categories is generally sufficient. Once invalidated, assets are recovered into the estate. Recovery may be limited where assets have passed to good-faith third parties. Where criminal and insolvency proceedings run concurrently, assets seized by criminal authorities take priority.

Yes. Civil claims arising in criminal proceedings are generally resolved with the criminal case. Where civil issues cannot be substantiated or do not affect the criminal resolution, they may be severed into separate civil proceedings. Civil courts frequently stay proceedings pending criminal cases, potentially for several years including appeal.

Lodging civil compensation claims within criminal proceedings (dân sự trong vụ án hình sự) is generally more efficient than separate civil litigation. Early criminal referral also enables investigative asset seizure without court application, making it faster and more powerful than civil provisional measures.

No. Asset recovery requires a criminal conviction. Confiscation of proceeds and instruments of crime is ordered by criminal courts, which is a structural limitation compared to jurisdictions with civil recovery mechanisms such as unexplained wealth orders. The National Action Plan on AML/CTF 2026-2030 (Decision No. 707/QD-TTg, 22 April 2026) envisages introduction of a non-conviction-based framework, but no implementing legislation has yet been enacted.

Yes. Victims have formal status (bị hại) and may lodge civil compensation claims within criminal proceedings. Property unlawfully appropriated by the offender is not confiscated; it must be returned to the lawful owner. Confiscation (to the state) applies only to instrumentalities of crime, proceeds, and prohibited items. Victims benefit only where their specific assets are identified as unlawfully appropriated property eligible for return.

Where identifiable property has been recovered, courts order return. Where assets are converted or dissipated, courts assess the loss value and order compensation; the victim becomes an unsecured creditor. Where assets have been substantially dissipated or moved offshore, enforcement of compensation awards is frequently partial or unsuccessful.

Civil limitation periods under Civil Code 2015 vary by cause of action:

• Proprietary reclamation. No limitation period applies.
• Contractual remedies. For rescission, two years from when the claimant knew or ought to have known of the fraud or misrepresentation. For breach of contract, two years (civil disputes) or three years (commercial disputes) from when the claimant knew or ought to have known that rights were infringed.
• Non-contractual liability (tort). Three years from when the claimant knew or ought to have known of the damage and person liable.
• Unjust enrichment. No limitation period applies.

In criminal proceedings, limitation does not expressly apply to civil claims resolved within the criminal case. Criminal limitation ranges from five to 20 years (20 years for large-scale fraud), running from the date of the offence and suspended where the offender evades investigation.

Vietnamese law does not contain a specific rule that fraudulent concealment suspends limitation until discovery. Instead, the issue is addressed through the rules on when the limitation period begins and which periods are excluded from calculation.

For contract rescission based on fraud or misrepresentation, the two-year period may begin only when the claimant discovered, or ought reasonably to have discovered, the fraud. More generally, under the Civil Code 2015, periods during which the claimant is prevented from bringing a claim by force majeure or an objective obstacle are excluded from the limitation period. Deliberate concealment of fraud may, depending on the facts, be argued to constitute such an objective obstacle.

Defendants in standalone civil proceedings may request application of the relevant limitation period. If accepted, the court may dismiss the case or terminate the time-barred claim without considering the merits.

Substantive defences vary by claim type:

• Ownership/tracing claims. Inability to identify specific property or traceable proceeds; asset no longer represents fraud proceeds; bona fide acquisition for value; dissipation or destruction of the asset (particularly forceful in Vietnamese proceedings given the absence of equitable tracing presumptions).
• Rescission. No fraud, deception, or misleading statement; claimant did not rely; claimant knew the relevant facts.
• Breach of contract. Loss too remote or unproven; set-off or counterclaims.
• Non-contractual liability (tort): No fault, no damage, or no causal link between the alleged fraudulent conduct and the loss.

Civil remedies upon a successful claim include:

• proprietary reclamation;
• compensatory damages for actual loss (no punitive damages are available); and
• restitution, with preference for return of the specific asset and including return of profits from unlawful use.

In criminal proceedings, courts additionally order return of unlawfully appropriated property to the victim and confiscation of proceeds and instrumentalities.

No. Vietnamese law does not recognise constructive trusts or equitable liens.

The Bitcoin Robbery case (Judgment No. 841/2023/HS-PT, Court of Appeal of Ho Chi Minh City, 2023) illustrates where Vietnamese law currently stands. In that case, defendants had stolen Bitcoin, converted it into fiat currency, and used the proceeds to purchase real property. The court ordered each defendant to compensate victims only for the fiat currency they personally received from the conversion; it did not order return of the unconverted Bitcoin remaining in wallets, nor did it treat the land purchased with fraud proceeds as the victims’ traceable property. The court had no doctrinal basis for a proprietary remedy. That position is the current judicial ceiling: a fraud victim in Vietnam can expect a personal compensation order, not a proprietary claim over specific assets or their substitutes.

Enforcement of civil judgments is governed by the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments 2008 (amended 2014). The process is as follows:

• enforcement officers identify and seize the debtor’s assets;
• non-cash assets are realised through public auction; and
• proceeds are distributed according to the judgment.

Enforcement against defendants who have dissipated or transferred assets overseas is difficult; Vietnamese enforcement officers have no extra-territorial jurisdiction.

The Civil Code 2015 provides for interest on overdue monetary obligations at the rate agreed by the parties or, absent agreement, at the rate prescribed by law.

Court costs (án phí) follow the event. Legal costs (attorney fees) are not generally recoverable; each party bears its own legal fees regardless of outcome. There is no indemnity costs regime.

Vietnam is not a claimant-friendly jurisdiction for international fraud recovery by the standards of leading common law centres, but conditions are improving.

Structural advantages include:

• criminal proceedings offer powerful investigative and asset preservation tools unavailable in civil proceedings;
• victim participation in criminal proceedings is well-established and procedurally straightforward;
• the AML Law 2022 has strengthened financial intelligence and suspicious transaction reporting; and
• Vietnamese courts are increasingly experienced with complex financial fraud cases, partly driven by high-profile domestic prosecutions.

Structural limitations include:

• no civil discovery or pre-action disclosure;
• no non-conviction-based forfeiture;
• no developed equitable tracing doctrine;
• limited enforceability of foreign judgments and orders;
• civil proceedings are slow and resource-intensive with uncertain outcomes; and
• asset dissipation offshore is difficult to address without foreign judicial cooperation.

In criminal proceedings, investigative asset seizure can be effected within days of complaint acceptance, without court application, making it the fastest effective route.

In civil proceedings, interim measures are typically obtained within days to weeks, though the security deposit requirement can cause delay.

Court fees are calculated as a percentage of claim value and payable upfront. Legal fees vary by firm and complexity. Contingency fee arrangements are not permitted. Each party bears its own legal costs regardless of outcome. Litigation funding is not regulated and uncommon.

The key pitfalls are:

• court filings and proceedings must be conducted in Vietnamese — foreign documents generally require certified Vietnamese translation and, where applicable, consular legalisation, unless exempt;
• only Vietnamese lawyers can appear before Vietnamese courts; foreign lawyers cannot;
• first-instance proceedings typically take one to two years — appeals add further delay;
• civil courts frequently stay proceedings pending criminal cases, potentially for years; and
• post-judgment enforcement against defendants with dissipated assets is frequently difficult.

The prosecution and conviction of Truong My Lan and co-defendants in the Van Thinh Phat case is the largest fraud prosecution in Vietnamese history, involving misappropriation from Saigon Commercial Bank (SCB) exceeding USD 20 billion. The prosecution and conviction of Trinh Van Quyet, Chairman of FLC Group, for fraud and market manipulation is one of Vietnam’s largest securities fraud cases, involving amounts exceeding USD 160 million.

The practical implications in those criminal cases are significant. Vietnamese courts generally uphold the enforcement rights of bona fide secured creditors over an accused’s assets as long as the security was duly created and perfected. The courts may also respect property rights of third parties who have acquired or hold frozen or distrained assets in good faith and for value, typically before seizure. In practice, however, investigating authorities often still freeze or distrain such assets during criminal investigations, requiring secured creditors and other bona fide third parties to proactively participate in the criminal proceeding as persons with related rights and obligations (người có quyền lợi, nghĩa vụ liên quan) and petition the court to release their assets or affirm their priority. Victims whose specific property is identified as unlawfully appropriated will obtain return in specie, while other claimants must rely on monetary compensation orders enforceable against the offender’s remaining estate alongside other unsecured creditors. Early participation in the criminal proceeding (rather than awaiting separate civil action) is therefore essential both for fraud victims and for bona fide third parties whose assets have been swept into the seizure.

Key legislative reforms include:

• the Law on Recovery and Bankruptcy 2025 shifts from liquidation to rehabilitation, strengthens clawback mechanisms and centralises asset recovery within a court-supervised process;
• the Penal Code 2015, amended 2025 removes the death penalty for embezzlement and certain economic crimes, shifting emphasis toward asset recovery and restitution;
• the Law on Digital Technology Industry 2025 recognises cryptoassets as property, resolving the classification uncertainty and supporting certain civil remedies; however, it does not supply tracing rules and transfer mechanisms;
• the Law on Anti-Money Laundering 2022 enhances detection and reporting of suspicious transactions; and
• the Law on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters 2025 significantly expands MLA scope. The National Action Plan on AML/CTF 2026–2030 targets non-conviction-based recovery and enhanced cross-border cooperation.

Vietnam is expanding its asset tracing and recovery mechanisms, particularly in large-scale corruption, financial fraud, and money laundering. Courts and prosecutors have developed greater familiarity with complex financial structures and cross-border transactions. However, these developments remain concentrated in the criminal and regulatory sphere; civil asset tracing mechanisms continue to be comparatively limited and have not evolved into a standalone doctrine comparable to those in common law jurisdictions. The limitations in sections 3 and 4 remain.

Emerging trends include:

• Cross-border fraud. Recent cases including Van Thinh Phat highlight the growing scale and complexity of fraud in Vietnam, with cross-border fund flows, money laundering, and offshore structures increasing the need for international tracing and cooperation.
• Digital asset and cyber-enabled fraud. Fraud involving cryptocurrency, online investment schemes, and cybercrime remains significant. Illicit proceeds are increasingly converted through P2P transactions and blockchain wallets to obscure transaction trails.
• Shift toward recovery-oriented enforcement. Courts are placing greater emphasis on recovery of misappropriated assets, and a defendant’s ability to repay losses can increasingly influence sentencing. Enforcement activity is increasing, particularly in the digital space.