A draft resolution submitted to the National Assembly would prioritize administrative and civil measures over criminal prosecution in selected economic cases.
Vietnam's government has submitted a draft resolution to the National Assembly proposing special legal mechanisms that would, under specific conditions, allow certain violations related to the state economy, private enterprise, science and technology, innovation and digital transformation to avoid criminal prosecution.
Deputy Minister of Public Security General Luong Tam Quang, speaking on behalf of the government at the National Assembly's first extraordinary session on August 3, presented the draft resolution on special mechanisms for handling legal violations involving state-owned and private economic activities, as well as science, technology, innovation and digital transformation.
Four guiding principles
Minister of Public Security General Luong Tam Quang presents the draft resolution to the National Assembly.
According to Luong Tam Quang, the draft establishes a legal framework for handling violations involving organizations and individuals operating in the above sectors.
The proposal is built around four core principles:
Protect and encourage officials who act proactively and creatively for the public interest.
Apply leniency to violations committed for the common good, taking political, economic and social benefits into account.
Prioritize economic, civil and administrative measures, with criminal prosecution used only as a last resort.
Strictly punish anyone who exploits the resolution to engage in corruption, waste or other misconduct.
Four criminal justice mechanisms
The draft introduces four criminal policy mechanisms:
No criminal prosecution.
Exemption from criminal liability for individuals whose scientific, technological, innovation or digital transformation activities involve accepted risks resulting in damage.
Temporary suspension of criminal prosecution.
Exemption from criminal liability.
Each mechanism would be subject to specific legal conditions, while the draft also establishes corresponding criminal procedure and sentence enforcement rules to implement these policies.
To ensure consistency, the resolution also proposes corresponding disciplinary measures for public officials, civil servants, public employees and members of the armed forces whose conduct falls within the scope of the new criminal policies.
The government proposes that the resolution remain in effect for three years after it takes effect.
If a temporary suspension of criminal prosecution remains in force after the resolution expires, it may continue until the suspension period ends, but for no more than two additional years.
Committee supports proposal with safeguards
Presenting the review report, Phan Van Mai, Chairman of the National Assembly's Committee for Economic and Financial Affairs, said the committee broadly supports issuing the resolution.
However, the committee called for clearer and more measurable criteria governing the classification of violations and eligibility for leniency, alongside strong oversight mechanisms to prevent abuse while maintaining the principle of "no forbidden zones and no exceptions."
The committee stressed that criminal, administrative and civil liabilities should remain clearly separated, as should the responsibilities of individuals and legal entities.
It also recommended distinguishing legal accountability from efforts to resolve problems affecting stalled projects or public works.
According to the committee, leniency should apply only when violations involve no corruption, no personal gain, actions taken in the public interest, full remediation of consequences and compliance with all legal conditions.
Further clarification requested
Chairman of the Committee for Economic and Financial Affairs Phan Van Mai presents the committee's review report.
The committee raised concerns over a provision requiring individuals exempted from criminal liability to receive the maximum administrative penalty, arguing that such an approach may conflict with the principle of individualized administrative sanctions and could reduce both the humanitarian nature and practical effectiveness of the policy.
Most committee members agreed with exempting certain public-interest cases from criminal prosecution where: no corruption occurred; the activity served the public interest; the project has been completed successfully; it generated economic or social benefits; there are no outstanding complaints or accusations; and no losses occurred, or all consequences have been fully remedied.
However, lawmakers suggested reconsidering the requirement that individuals must have actively assisted authorities in detecting and prosecuting crimes, warning that the condition could unnecessarily narrow access to the proposed leniency policy.
Regarding exemptions from criminal liability for risks arising from scientific research, technological innovation and digital transformation, the committee described the proposal as an important new policy intended to encourage innovation by recognizing controlled risk-taking.
It recommended clarifying whether the provision applies to those who cause damage or those who suffer damage, while ensuring consistency with the Penal Code's existing provisions governing risks associated with scientific research and new technologies.
The committee also called for clearer eligibility criteria to ensure transparency and prevent abuse.
Early release proposal also raised
Most committee members supported provisions allowing temporary suspension of prosecution, deferred sentence enforcement, sentence reductions, exemptions from imprisonment and corresponding disciplinary measures.
However, they recommended defining the types of penalties covered, establishing minimum compensation thresholds for damage remediation and aligning legal terminology with the Penal Code and laws governing criminal sentence enforcement.
The committee also cautioned that while compensation for damages should remain an important condition for exemption from criminal liability, authorities should simultaneously assess the seriousness of the offense, the offender's intent, motivation, personal background and risk of reoffending.
Otherwise, lawmakers warned, the policy could create the perception that individuals with greater financial resources can effectively pay to avoid criminal liability, undermining deterrence and equality before the law.
Some lawmakers additionally proposed studying the introduction of a mechanism allowing conditional early release from prison.
Vietnamnet.vn
Podcast
.svg){kind=icon}
