Vietnam and Japan: Anti-bribery and corruption compliance for global companies – Overview of Vietnam's anti-corruption drive and enforcement trends

In brief

In an effort to address Vietnam's historical perception as a high-risk compliance jurisdiction, the Vietnamese government has recently implemented a series of regulatory and practical measures to significantly reduce corrupt practices in the country.

These recent efforts to combat corruption have resulted in a number of measures, including legal reforms, public awareness campaigns, international cooperation efforts, as well as increased enforcement of corruption and bribery laws (including a number of high profile arrests and prosecutions for bribery offences). These trends in Vietnam show no sign of slowing down, and heightened enforcement of corruption-related crimes in Vietnam can be expected to continue and even increase in the months and years to come.


Contents

Regulatory landscape

Criminal bribery, which applies to both private and public entities, is broadly defined under Vietnam's Penal Code to cover the provision of a benefit or interest that meets applicable criminality thresholds. Corresponding criminal liability can apply to all those involved in a bribe, including the offeror, receiver, intermediaries and even those with full knowledge that failed to report it. Depending on the context and severity, bribery-related crimes can result in harsh penalties, including hefty fines and lengthy prison sentences.

Vietnam's Anti-Corruption Laws further provide a legal framework for preventing corruption as well as disciplinary actions for non-compliance. Notably, under these regulations, state organizations and their office holders are not allowed to receive gifts or hospitality from entities related to their work.

Vietnam is also active in international anti-corruption efforts, including by participating in bilateral agreements, such as the 2008 Vietnam-Japan Joint Committee for Preventing Japanese ODA-related Corruption, as well as multinational initiatives, including the UN Convention against Corruption.

Anti-corruption drive and enforcement trends

Vietnam's recent anti-corruption crackdown is the culmination of the "blazing furnace" campaign initiated by its government in 2016 as part of a national drive to combat corruption through stricter laws and the establishment of specialized agencies to investigate and prosecute corruption cases. These initiatives have also seen the utilization of a wide range of tools in addition to criminal prosecution, such as asset recovery and public education campaigns.

The past few years in particular have seen a noticeable uptick in compliance enforcement, with a series of high profile corruption investigations and prosecutions. This has resulted in a growing string of arrests of senior officials on charges of bribery-related crimes in recent years, including several in 2022. These high-profile cases demonstrate the far reaching impact of Vietnam's anti-corruption campaign, which has now reached all levels of government and industry.

Another noticeable recent trend is the increasing focus on private sector bribery by the Vietnamese authorities. Historically, corruption investigations in Vietnam have focused on the public sector. However, the past several months in particular have seen the high-profile arrest and prosecution of a number of individuals in private industry across a range of business sectors (including real estate and healthcare) on commercial corruption charges.

Vietnam's ongoing campaign has produced demonstrable results, including significant improvement in the country's ranking under the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) in recent years. Vietnam — which ranked 113th in the world with a score of 33 in 2016 — has now improved to rank 77th with a score of 42 in the latest CPI from 2022. These figures demonstrate that the anti-corruption drive has made tangible progress and that the time has come for Japanese companies to take a stricter approach to their local ABC compliance in Vietnam.

Key takeaways and conclusions

The above overview shows that companies operating in Vietnam should improve their compliance programs by incorporating the good practices of other global companies. In particular, companies should implement proactive practices to mitigate compliance risks, including the following:

  • Internal compliance policies: Maintaining strong and robust internal compliance policies and procedures is a vital component to mitigating the risk of compliance breaches.
  • Regular compliance training: All company personnel should receive regular training on compliance policies as well as the necessary knowledge to identify and report potential bribery.
  • Third party management: Third party vendors should be thoroughly vetted and monitored through rigorous due diligence, as well as periodic compliance training and audits.
  • Records: Companies should ensure that transparent and accurate books and records are maintained at all times. In this context, cash transactions should be avoided.

****

Please feel free to reach out to Baker McKenzie for further advice on maintaining effective compliance programs in Vietnam.

Contact Information
Thuy Hang Nguyen
Partner at BakerMcKenzie
Ho Chi Minh City
Read my Bio
thuyhang.nguyen@bakermckenzie.com
Boris Hall
Associate at BakerMcKenzie
Ho Chi Minh City
Read my Bio
boris.hall@bakermckenzie.com
Wabi Tanaka
Associate at BakerMcKenzie
Tokyo
Read my Bio
wabi.tanaka@bakermckenzie.com

Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.