Duane Morris Vietnam

The first ever non-Vietnamese speaker to address the National Assembly shares guidance for Vietnam’s reform path
With more than 25 years of experience in Vietnam, Dr. Oliver Massman has not only played a key role in advancing major trade agreements like the EVFTA but also delivered insightful analysis on legal reform, the investment climate, and Vietnam’s integration strategy amid a turbulent global economy.
On a day in June 2016, in the National Assembly Hall in Hanoi, Dr. Oliver Massmann, Partner at Duane Morris Vietnam, stood at the podium, ready for a remarkable moment. He was the first foreigner ever invited to speak before the National Assembly, and even more notably, his speech was delivered entirely in Vietnamese.
Behind this significant occasion lies a long journey of integration, not only in language but also in legal perspectives, with a profound understanding of Vietnamese institutions, culture, and people.
The focus of his speech – the impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) on Vietnam’s economy – demanded not only expertise but also finesse in communication, dialogue, and persuasion.
For Dr. Massmann, this was not merely a personal honor but a testament to the belief that the connection between Vietnam and the global community can begin with mutual respect and be forged through genuine understanding, beyond mere formalities.
Dr. Oliver Massmann is one of the most prominent international legal experts in Vietnam, with over 25 years of experience as a foreign lawyer.
He holds a PhD in International Business Law, is a member of the Berlin Bar Association, holds a Judge’s degree in Germany, and is licensed to practice in Vietnam.
He served as the Chief Advisor to the European Commission during the implementation of the Vietnam – EU Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA). He is also an international arbitrator and an expert in cross-border finance and investment.
01. Unforgettable Moment And Tear At The National Assembly Hall
What brought you to Vietnam? What inspired you to remain in this S-shaped land for so long? After over three decades, how does Vietnam today differ from your initial impression when you first arrived in 1991?
I have a Vietnamese adopted brother named Khoa, who has been living with me in Germany for nearly a decade. During that period, Khoa repeatedly invited me to visit his homeland, Vietnam, but truthfully, I was never intrigued.
Everything shifted when we attended a Vietnamese New Year reunion in Germany. For the first time, I saw Vietnamese women wearing traditional Ao Dai. That moment left a lasting impression on my mind, and at that instant, I knew I had to visit Vietnam.
Indeed, the initial allure came from the gorgeous Vietnamese women. But it was the mindset and the people here that kept me here for so long. The Vietnamese have a quality I particularly admire: They live practically yet with genuine sincerity.
When I first arrived in Vietnam, I felt like a “giant” in the midst of the city. Hailing a taxi was nearly impossible, high-rise buildings were absent, and the infrastructure was quite basic. But what stood out most vividly was a society actively developing, with resilient, diligent people who never ceased their efforts.
“Over three decades have passed, and it feels as though I am living in an entirely different country. Vietnam now boasts skyscrapers, luxury cars cruising along the boulevards, and big corporations achieving regional prominence. As for me – now I am merely a “bald” German, living humbly in the heart of a modern, vibrant, and promising Vietnam.” – Dr. Oliver Massmann
Your address in Vietnamese before the National Assembly and your instruction on European law at the Ministry of Justice demonstrate your profound integration into the Vietnamese legal landscape. Can you share about this memory? Was mastering Vietnamese a challenge for you?
I have countless memorable moments from participating in official events, but one stands out as unforgettable: the moment I received a round of applause in the National Assembly Hall after delivering my speech entirely in Vietnamese.
Many people approached me afterward, offering positive feedback. It was an incredibly special moment, and though I am not easily emotional, I was truly overwhelmed. I shed tears right then.
I have studied numerous languages in my life, and as a German – a language already notorious for its complexity among European tongues – I must confess: Vietnamese is the most challenging language I have ever tackled.
“Vietnamese is completely distinct from other language system that I have ever encountered, and mastering it mastering it for me is like… hitting the jackpot” – Dr. Oliver Massman
For the first time in my life, I needed to hire someone to assist me in learning a language. It was a challenging yet motivating journey. And I treasure every moment of it, as each moment was a memorable experience.
02. “The Golden Key” To Elevating Vietnam’s Role In The Global Value Chain
In your view, what are the strengths and weaknesses of Vietnam’s legal framework compared to the European Union (EU) or the US in the fields of investment and trade? Can you provide specific examples to support your observations?
In my view, Vietnam truly excels in its efforts toward international integration. Over recent years, Vietnam has made remarkable strides in aligning its trade legal framework with global standards.
A notable example is the tariff reduction policy: Vietnam has introduced a clear, binding, and transparent tariff reduction roadmap – something not all Bilateral agreements achieve.
Specifically, under the Vietnam – EU Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), over 99% of tariffs on goods from the European Union will be eliminated within a decade, providing a solid foundation for European companies to develop long-term investment strategies in Vietnam.
However, when compared to well-established legal systems like those of the European Union or the United States, Vietnam’s legal framework still has shortcomings.
In my opinion, certain laws in Vietnam are drafted with overly vague language, or the judicial system lacks the necessary independence.
I believe that if Vietnam aims to enhance its competitiveness in attracting high-quality FDI flows, particularly from developed economies like Europe and the United States, institutional reform must go beyond mere documentation. Vietnam needs to prioritize implementation, increase transparency, reform the judiciary, and standardize legal processes across the system.
Vietnam has recently issued Resolution 68/NQ-TW to foster private economic development and expedite administrative reform. In your view, what tangible changes can this resolution bring to institutional reform?
In my view, Resolution 68/NQ-CP, enacted by the Vietnamese Government in May 2024, reflects the Government’s resolute commitment to bolstering the private economy sector, aiming to transform it into a “growth engine” for the economy.
“Resolution 68/NQ-CP could mark Vietnam’s most significant reform since Doi Moi, aiming to establish a genuinely market-oriented economic framework” – Dr. Oliver Massman
I hope that Resolution 68 will drive systemic changes, anchored by four key pillars.
The first is “Dismantling the entrenched ‘asking-giving’ mechanism”. The Resolution upholds the principle that enterprises are entitled to operate in all sectors not prohibited by law. Any business restrictions or conditions must be transparently regulated, grounded in clear legal foundations, and serve the public interest.
The second is “Streamlining administrative procedures”: The goal is to reduce the time required for processing licenses, approvals, and the delivery of public services.
Next is “Advancing digital government services”: By 2026, I expect all administrative procedures related to business activities to be fully digitized via the National Public Service Portal, helping to minimize direct interactions and accelerate processing.
Finally, “Ensuring equal treatment for private enterprises”: Ministries, agencies, and state-owned enterprises are mandated to eliminate informal discrimination against the private sector, particularly in accessing land, credit, and other resources for development.
From your experience as a Key Advisor in the implementation of the Vietnam – EU Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) for the 2021–2023 period, what do you believe are the critical legal reforms Vietnam should prioritize in the near future?
From my direct experience, I believe Vietnam should focus on three primary legal reform areas: public bidding, dispute resolution mechanisms, and customs – trade procedures.
First, to fully comply with Chapter 9 of the EVFTA on Government Procurement (MSCP), I suggest Vietnam revise and enhance the Law on Bidding, not only to boost transparency but, more crucially, to create meaningful opportunities for EU contractors to access the market – beyond mere formalities.
Second, the commercial arbitration system and law enforcement mechanisms require substantial improvements in efficiency and independence. This is a vital factor in building investor confidence within an increasingly competitive legal landscape.
Finally, despite the EVFTA’s significant tariff reduction benefits, Vietnam’s Law on Customs needs updates to incorporate more streamlined customs processes and fully adopt electronic certification—in alignment with the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) and expectations from the European Union.
In your view, what advantages does Vietnam currently have to attract foreign investment?
In terms of geographic position, Vietnam lies at the crossroads of regional trade routes, bordering China and Southeast Asian countries, with the advantage of accessing deep-water ports in the South China Sea.
Moreover, with an average age under 32 and labor costs significantly lower than those in China or Thailand, Vietnam boasts an abundant and highly trainable workforce.
Last but not least, I believe Vietnam’s stable political system consistently sends positive signals and offers attractive incentives for investors, such as tax exemptions and land use rights.
Given the US’s increasing reciprocal tariffs, Vietnam is facing pressure from global trade dynamics. In your view, what strategy should Vietnam develop to mitigate negative impacts and sustain its role in the international supply chain?
In my view, Vietnam must swiftly implement both defensive and proactive trade strategies to navigate fluctuations in the global trade environment.
First, Vietnam should maximize international integration to diversify its export markets. Vietnam can more effectively leverage the Vietnam – EU Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), the Vietnam-UK Free Trade Agreement (UKVFTA), and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP).
In particular, the European Union, with its $18 trillion economy, represents a promising market for Vietnam’s agricultural and technological products.
In the long term, coordinated investment in strategic infrastructure – such as logistics, seaports, and railways – is a “critical” factor to ensure the supply chain remains resilient against geopolitical risks or international transport disruptions.
Finally, given the US’s explicit concerns about transshipment and violations of rules of origin, I recommend that Vietnam strengthen its traceability system in line with Circular 05/2018/TT-BCT, while enhancing customs inspection and supervision to avoid being labeled a “third transit” point in the global trade chain.
EVFTA is considered a “golden door” helping Vietnam delve further into the EU market. In your view, how can this Agreement assist Vietnam in repositioning itself on the multipolar global trade map? And from your experience, how long does it usually take for such advantages to truly come into effect?
I believe it is difficult to fully assess the strategic significance of the Vietnam – EU Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) in Vietnam’s path of future development.
This is not merely a trade agreement aimed at tariff elimination, but also a framework promoting legal harmonization, sustainable development, intellectual property rights protection, public procurement, and investment protection.
EVFTA may be considered a “reference framework” guiding Vietnam’s global economic integration, particularly with high-standard markets such as the EU.
This Agreement has allowed Vietnam to be seen as a strategic production and export hub for European companies seeking alternatives to China, especially in fields like electronics, textiles, furniture, and green technology.
“If Vietnam focuses on fulfilling its commitments and efficiently executing the EVFTA provisions, it could achieve deep integration into the EU’s value chain within the next five years.” – Dr. Oliver Massmann.
Having accompanied and observed Vietnam’s development journey for over 30 years, Dr. Oliver Massmann is not only a witness but also a contributor to legal reform, economic integration, and international investment promotion in Vietnam.
It can be seen that from the EVFTA’s implementation to Vietnam’s negotiations with international corporations, Dr. Oliver Massmann’s involvement has helped demonstrate Vietnam’s solid foundation for advancing its position in the global value chain.
***
Please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com if you have any questions on the above. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

On 14 June 2025, the National Assembly passed Law No. 71/2025/QH15 on Digital Technology Industry (“Law on Digital Technology Industry”), making Vietnam the first ever country on the planet Earth to pass such a bill and to formally recognize virtual assets. Key highlights of the Law on Digital Technology Industry are as follows:

1. Recognition of virtual assets
Law on Digital Technology Industry recognizes virtual assets as a type of asset as provided under the Civil Code. Virtual assets are described as assets expressed in the form of digital data, created, issued, stored, transferred, and authenticated by digital technology in the electronic environment.
The Law sets out principles to classify virtual assets and provides three forms of virtual assets as below:
(i) Virtual assets – assets in the electronic environment used for exchange or investment purposes. Virtual assets do not comprise securities, digital forms of legal currency, and other financial assets as prescribed by the law on civil and financial matters;
(ii) Crypto assets – type of virtual assets that uses encryption technology or digital technology with similar functions to authenticate assets during the process of creation, issuance, storage, and transfer. Crypto assets do not include securities, digital forms of legal currency, and other financial assets as prescribed by civil and financial laws;
(ii) Other virtual assets.
According to the Law on Digital Technology Industry, virtual assets will be managed in all relevant aspects in Vietnam, including the rights/obligations of involved parties and conditions to provide services relating to crypto assets, while the detailed regulations will be provided by the Government. Compared to one of the latest drafts, the sandbox mechanism for virtual assets service providers was removed from the Law, and it is expected that the Government will provide a detailed guiding document to regulate this matter.

2. Sandbox mechanism for digital technology products and services
The Law stipulates that there will be a sandbox mechanism provided to enterprises applying digital technology for their products and services, including a mechanism to exclude responsibility for participating agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals. Down the line, enterprises will be allowed to conduct controlled trials of products and services applying digital technology in accordance with the provisions of the relevant laws. It is expected that this sandbox mechanism will cover the supply of virtual assets products and services.

3. Priority given to research and development activities
Priority will be given to facilities focusing on esearch and development activities, and digital technology innovation in industries, fields, and localities within the assigned scope, tasks, and powers in accordance with socio-economic development goals and orientations for digital technology industry development in each period. There will be incentives on land, credit, tax and other preferential mechanisms in research, testing, development, production and application of digital technology products and services.

4. Attracting high-quality digital technology human resources
High-quality digital technology expats are granted temporary residence cards with a validity of 05 years and are extended according to the relevant laws. Spouses and children under 18 years of age of high-quality digital technology expats are granted temporary residence cards with a validity corresponding to the validity of such expats, and are supported by local authorities in procedures relating to employment, and enrollment in educational and training institutions in Vietnam.

5. Semiconductor industry
Foreign investment and the mobilization of foreign resources are encouraged in the case of the semiconductor industry in Vietnam. The manufacture of raw materials, materials, equipment, machinery, and tools for the semiconductor industry can be provided with special investment incentives according to the relevant laws. Also, enterprises implementing semiconductor chip design projects are supported with funding for human resource training and development, research and development, trial production, procurement of machinery, equipment, technology, and technological innovation from the local budget, according to the relevant laws.

The Law on Digital Technology Industry will be effective on 1 January 2026.

***
Please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Oliver Massmann at omassmann@duanemorris.com if you have any questions on the above or if you wish to plan your investment in Vietnam in line with the new provisions on digital technology. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

On 17 June 2025, the National Assembly passed Law No. 76/2025/QH15, amending the Law on Enterprises (“Amended LOE”), which took effect on 1 July 2025. The Amended LOE introduces significant changes to promote transparency and accountability for businesses in Vietnam. It includes new concepts and additional provisions to strengthen existing regulations, fostering a more robust and transparent corporate environment. Additionally, Decree No. 168/2025/ND-CP, issued by the Government on 30 June 2025, regarding enterprise registration (“Decree 168”), took effect, replacing Decree No. 01/2021/ND-CP. Decree 168 provides further details on these amendments.
1. The Introduction of the Beneficial Owner Concept
The Amended LOE introduces the concept of a “Beneficial Owner”, under Article 4.35, defined as an individual who directly or indirectly owns charter capital or exercises control over an enterprise. This addition aligns with Vietnam’s obligations as a member of the Asia-Pacific Group on Anti-Money Laundering since 2006, aiming to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and weapons proliferation.
Accordingly, enterprises established before 1 July 2025 shall conduct several relevant obligations regarding beneficial owner details when updating enterprise registration information, alongside notifying registration changes.
Criteria to determine Beneficial Owner
According to Article 17, Decree 168, a beneficial owner is characterized as an individual who satisfies at least one of the following conditions: (i) direct or indirect ownership of a minimum of 25% of an enterprise’s charter capital or voting shares; (ii) having the authority to make pivotal decisions concerning the enterprise. Such decision-making authority encompasses the appointment or dismissal of the majority or all members of the board of directors, chairman, legal representative, director, or general director; amendments to the company’s charter; alterations to the organizational structure; or decisions regarding the reorganization or dissolution of the enterprise. Indirect ownership is further defined as ownership of at least 25% of charter capital or voting shares through an intermediary organization.
Enterprises Registration Obligations
Enterprise registration documents are now required to include lists of beneficial owners, a mandate designed to promote transparency and ensure precise identification of individuals who ultimately control or derive profit from the company.
Collect and Retain Obligations
Under Article 8.5a of the Amended LOE, enterprises are required to collect, update, and retain information regarding Beneficial Owners. Enterprises must retain beneficial ownership information for at least five years following dissolution or bankruptcy (Article 216.1(g), Amended LOE). These obligations ensure that there is a clear record of ownership that can be referred to if any legal issues arise after the company ceases operations.
Disclosure Obligations
Enterprise founders or enterprises are required to notify the provincial business registration authority regarding beneficial owners. For individual investors, under Articles 18.1 and 18.2 of Decree 168, enterprises must independently identify and report beneficial owners. For organizational shareholders, as outlined in Article 18.3 of Decree 168, enterprises must disclose details of organizations holding at least 25% of voting shares, including the organization’s name, enterprise code or establishment decision number, issuance date and place, head office address, and the proportion of voting shares held in the enterprise.
Besides, under Article 52 of Decree 168, it should be noted that competent state authorities are entitled to access information on beneficial owners from the National Business Registration Information System without charge. Such access is exclusively intended to support efforts in preventing and combating money laundering.
2. Prohibited Activities and Accuracy Requirements
The Amended LOE also strictly prohibits the falsification, inaccurate declaration, or dishonest registration of enterprise information. Under Article 16 of the Amended LOE, such prohibition includes fraudulent representations of charter capital, such as overstating capital without full contribution, failing to adjust registered capital as required, or intentionally misvaluing contributed assets. Non-compliance may result in civil and regulatory liabilities for legal representatives. Enterprises are required to ensure the accuracy and truthfulness of all information submitted during registration and throughout their operations to avoid significant penalties.
3. Civil Servants and Public Employees Restricted from Enterprise Establishment and Management
Under Article 17.3(b) of the Amended LOE, it explicitly prohibits civil servants and public employees, as defined by the Law on Cadres, Civil Servants, and the Law on Public Employees, from establishing, contributing capital to, or managing enterprises. Exceptions are permitted in cases aligned with the provisions of laws governing science, technology, innovation, and national digital transformation. This restriction is designed to mitigate conflicts of interest and promote ethical governance within the corporate sector.
4. New Debt-to-Equity Cap for Private Bond Placement
The Amended LOE establishes specific criteria for private placements and operational conditions for businesses under Article 128.3(c). Non-public companies issuing private bonds are required to adhere to a maximum debt-to-equity ratio of 5:1, as determined by audited financial statements. Exemptions are granted to state-owned enterprises, real estate bond issuers, and certain regulated entities, such as banks, insurers, and securities firms. This leverage cap aims to regulate financial risk and enhance investor protection. Enterprises must review their financial statements to ensure compliance prior to issuing new bonds after 1 July 2025. By imposing this leverage limit, the Amended LOE aligns with securities laws and related decrees, fostering transparency and financial discipline in Vietnam’s corporate bond market while adhering to international regulatory standards.
Additionally, private corporate bond offerings disclosed to the Stock Exchange the Amended LOE’s effective date, remain subject to the prior legal framework under the previous Law on Enterprise Law.
5. Market Price Valuation for Capital Contributions or Shares in Vietnam
The Amended LOE establishes clear methodologies for determining the market price of capital contributions and shares, encompassing both listed and non-listed shares under Article 4.14. For shares listed or registered for trading on a securities exchange, the market price is calculated as the average trading price over the 30 consecutive days prior to the valuation date. Alternatively, it may be the price mutually agreed upon by the buyer and seller or the price determined by a licensed valuer. For non-listed or unregistered capital contributions or shares, the market price is defined as the most recent transaction price on the market, the price agreed between the buyer and seller, or the price assessed by a licensed valuer. These methods ensure valuations reflect fair market conditions, providing a reliable foundation for financial and legal purposes.
***
Please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Oliver Massmann at omassmann@duanemorris.com if you have any questions on the above. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

On 24 June 2025, during its 9th Session, the National Assembly passed Law No. 79/2025/QH15, amending and supplementing several provisions of the Vietnamese Nationality Law (“Amended Nationality Law”). Effective from 1 July 2025, the Law introduces significant updates to the legal framework for dual nationality, broadens eligibility for naturalization in Vietnam, and streamlines citizenship application procedures. The notable new provisions of the Amended Nationality Law are:
1. All applications to regain Vietnamese nationality will be considered
Previously, individuals who had lost Vietnamese nationality were required to meet specific conditions to regain it. This point has been changed under Article 23.1, Amended Nationality Law, any individual who has lost Vietnamese nationality can now submit an application and have their case reviewed.

Applicants must resume their former Vietnamese name. If the applicant simultaneously requests to retain their foreign nationality, they may opt for a hybrid name combining their Vietnamese and foreign names. This name must be clearly stated in the decision approving the restoration of nationality.

2. Naturalization standard exemptions
Generally, foreigners and stateless persons can apply for Vietnamese citizenship if they have full civil capacity, comply with Vietnamese laws, respect local culture, know sufficient Vietnamese, residing in Vietnam, have resided in Vietnam for at least 5 years, and can sustain a living.

(1) Applicants married to Vietnamese, or having a biological Vietnamese child are exempted from the requirements of (i) Vietnamese language proficiency, (ii) 5 year minimum residency, and (iii) financial self-sufficiency.

(2) Applicants listed below are exempted from the requirements of (i) Vietnamese language proficiency, (ii) 5 year minimum residency, (iii) residing in Vietnam, and (iv) financial self-sufficiency.
– Having biological Vietnamese parents, or grandparents.
– Having significant contributions to Vietnam, or benefits to the state.
– Being minors with a Vietnamese parent.

3. Dual Nationality Accepted
Individuals applying for Vietnamese nationality may retain their foreign nationality if they:
– Have a Vietnamese spouse, child, parent, or grandparent;
– Have made significant contributions or provide benefits to Vietnam; or
– Are minors with a Vietnamese parent.
However, retention of foreign nationality must comply with the laws of the foreign country and not harm Vietnam’s interests.

If the applicant simultaneously requests to retain their foreign nationality, they may opt for a hybrid name combining their Vietnamese and foreign names. This name must be clearly stated in the decision approving the restoration of nationality.

Further guidance will be provided in forthcoming government legal documents.

4. Naturalization applications can now be submitted abroad
Previously, individuals applying for Vietnamese nationality had to submit their applications to the Department of Justice in the locality where they resided in Vietnam, except for those seeking to regain nationality. This has been changed under Article 1.7, Amended Nationality Law, individuals can now submit applications either to the Department of Justice if residing in Vietnam or to Vietnamese diplomatic missions abroad if residing overseas.

Within 20 days of receiving a complete application, the diplomatic mission must verify the submitted documents and forward the application along with its recommendation to the Ministry of Justice. Simultaneously, it must notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to coordinate in performing state management of nationality.

5. Shortening Naturalization Application Process
In addition to streamlining naturalization applications at Vietnamese diplomatic missions, the process at the Ministry of Justice is also expedited. The overall timeline is reduced to under 10 days, as the Department of Justice now finalizes and submits the dossier to the Provincial People’s Committee Chairman within 5 working days (previously 10) after receiving verification results. The Chairman then reviews and forwards opinions to the Ministry of Justice within 5 working days (down from 10).

Effective 1 July 2025, the Amended Nationality Law mandates that all applications for naturalization, restoration, or renunciation of Vietnamese nationality submitted before such date will be processed under the new law’s provisions, facilitating a smoother and more convenient application process for applicants in line with the updated regulations.

***

Please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Oliver Massmann at omassmann@duanemorris.com if you have any questions on the above or if you wish to regain your Vietnamese nationality. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

On 26 June 2025, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) issued Decision No. 1824/QD-BCT approving the electricity generation price framework for offshore wind power projects in 2025 (“Decision 1824”). Decision 1824 sets out ceiling tariffs for offshore wind power projects in different regions, reflecting the differences in investment and operating conditions. According to Decision 1824, the ceiling tariffs of offshore wind power projects are as below:
Regions North region Southern region South Central region
Ceiling tariffs VND3,975.1/kWh, equivalent VND3,868.5/kWh, equivalent VND3,078.9/kWh, equivalent
to 15.49 US cents/kWh to 15.07 US cents/kWh to 11.99 US cents/kWh
It is worth noting that these ceiling tariffs match the previous proposal of Electricity Vietnam (EVN). According to EVN, the development of the electricity generation price framework is based on the calculation of the average investment rate for offshore wind power development in Vietnam, currently estimated at VND93,565 million per kW, equivalent to VND93 billion per MW, according to the exchange rate of VND25,450/USD. According to Decision 1824, EVN and offshore wind power generators will sign power purchase agreements on the basis of compliance with the price framework as set out by the MOIT.
***
Please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com if you have any questions on the above. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

Am 14. Juni 2025 hat die Nationalversammlung das neue Gesetz über die digitale Technologieindustrie (Digital Technology Industry Law) verabschiedet und Vietnam damit zum ersten Land gemacht, dass ein Gesetz zur Regulierung digitaler Technologien erlässt. Basierend auf unserem Verständnis, werden die folgenden revolutionären Gesetze erlassen:

Virtuelle Vermögenswerte: Virtuelle Vermögenswerte sind nun offiziell legalisiert und werden rechtlich anerkannt durch das „Digital Technology Industry Law“. Das Gesetz regelt Aspekte wie die Entstehung, Ausgabe, Speicherung, Übertragung und die Begründung des Eigentums an virtuellen Vermögenswerten.
Krypto Vermögenswerte vs. Virtuelle Vermögenswerte: Das Gesetz führt zwei separate Konzepte für Krypto Vermögenswerte und virtuelle Vermögenswerte ein. Ferner sind staatliche Stellen verpflichtet, Krypto Vermögenswerte sorgfältig zu verwalten, um Netzwerksicherheit zu gewährleisten und Geldwäsche, Terrorismusfinanzierung und die Finanzierung der Verbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen zu verhindern und zu bekämpfen.
Sandbox-Mechanismus für virtuelle Vermögenswerte und Dienstleister: Das Gesetz „Digital Technology Industry Law„ etabliert ein Pilot-Sandbox- Mechanismus für Produkte und Dienstleitungen im Bereich virtueller Vermögenswerte. Im Rahmen des Mechanismus wird auch eine Regelung zum Haftungsausschluss für teilnehmende staatliche Stellen, Unternehmen und Einzelpersonen eingeführt.

Bleiben Sie auf dem laufenden! Wir werden ausführlich über das „Digital Technology Industry Law“ berichten, sobald dieses offiziell verkündet ist.

***

Wenden Sie sich bei Fragen gerne an Dr. Oliver Massmann unter omassmann@duanemorris.com. Dr. Oliver Massmann ist Generaldirektor von Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

On 14 June 2025, the National Assembly passed the groundbreaking Law on Digital Technology Industry (Digital Technology Industry Law), making Vietnam the first country ever to pass a law regulating digital technology. Based on our understanding, the Digital Technology Industry Law introduces the following revolutionary provisions:
• Virtual assets: Virtual assets are now officially legalized and recognized under the Digital Technology Industry Law. The Law provides relevant aspects of virtual assets like their formation, issuance, storage, transfer, and establishment of their ownership.
• Crypto assets vs. virtual assets: The Law introduces separate concepts for crypto assets and virtual assets. Also, according to the law, State agencies are tasked with the strict management of crypto assets to ensure network safety and security; prevent and combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and financing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
• Sandbox mechanism for virtual assets products and virtual assets service providers: The Digital Technology Industry Law established a pilot sandbox mechanism for virtual assets products and services, including a mechanism to exclude liability for participating State agencies, businesses, and individuals.
Stay alert! We will provide you with a detailed legal alert once the Digital Technology Industry Law is officially published to the public!

***

Please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com if you have any questions on the above. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

Dr. Oliver Massmann ist zugelassener internationaler Schiedsrichter und trägt den deutschen Titel eines Richters. Seit über 25 Jahren ist er als Schiedsrichter bei führenden internationalen Schiedsgerichts- und Mediationsinstitutionen in Asien und Europa tätig.
In seiner langjährigen Laufbahn hat Dr. Massmann zahlreiche internationale Unternehmen aus aller Welt rechtlich begleitet und viele namhafte internationale wie auch vietnamesische Investoren beraten, insbesondere im Rahmen von Schieds- und Mediationsverfahren. Zu seinen wichtigsten Mandaten zählen:
– Vertretung eines vietnamesischen Unternehmens in einem Schiedsverfahren in Vietnam im Zusammenhang mit einem Aktienkaufvertrag.
– Rechtsvertretung eines internationalen Bauunternehmens im Schiedsverfahren gegen ein vietnamesisches Unternehmen vor einem Tribunal in Singapur im Kontext der ersten Ölraffinerie Vietnams.
– Begleitung eines regionalen Schmierstoffhändlers bei der Streitbeilegung mit einem Lieferanten im Rahmen von Mediation und Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit.
– Rechtsberatung bei Fragen im Zusammenhang mit einem U-Bahn-Projekt in Vietnam.
– Vertretung eines ausländischen Mandanten in einem Schiedsverfahren in Singapur.
– Unterstützung eines deutschen Unternehmens bei rechtlichen Fragen betreffend einen Vertrag über die Gründung von Bohrpfählen für ein vietnamesisches Zementwerk.
– Vertretung eines Anbieters im Bereich Eisenbahndienstleistungen in einem Streit über die Auszahlung eines Darlehens.
– Beratung eines führenden japanischen Automobilunternehmens zu Fragen im Zusammenhang mit Händlerverträgen.
– Unterstützung eines japanischen Investors bei einem Streit mit einem vietnamesischen Partner im Zusammenhang mit der Entwicklung eines internationalen Hafens.
– Beratung eines malaysischen Unternehmens in Bezug auf ein mögliches Rechtsproblem mit einem vietnamesischen Vertragspartner.
– Unterstützung eines indischen Unternehmens beim Rechtsstreit mit einem vietnamesischen Unternehmen.
– Rechtsberatung eines niederländischen Unternehmens im Zusammenhang mit einer Auseinandersetzung mit einem vietnamesischen Geschäftspartner.
– Beratung eines führenden vietnamesischen Meeresfrüchteexporteurs in einem Streit mit einer bedeutenden japanischen Handelsgesellschaft.
– Unterstützung einer renommierten europäischen Bank bei der Prüfung eines potenziellen Engagements in einem Rechtsstreit zwischen einem europäischen Bauunternehmen und einem vietnamesischen Vertragspartner.
– Beratung eines polnischen Unternehmens bei Aufträgen mit vietnamesischen Partnern.
1. Warum internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit eine sinnvolle Option ist
Diese Zusammenfassung soll ausländischen Unternehmen darlegen, warum sie in Verträgen mit vietnamesischen Partnern nicht auf eine wirksame Streitbeilegungsklausel verzichten sollten. Außerdem werden praxistaugliche Alternativen zum nationalen vietnamesischen Gerichtssystem aufgezeigt.
– Schwächen des vietnamesischen Justizsystems
Während in Nordamerika und Europa die Vertragsdurchsetzung meist als gesichert gilt, stellen sich bei Verträgen mit vietnamesischen Partnern wesentliche Fragen: Welches Gericht soll im Streitfall entscheiden? In welcher Sprache? Nach welchem Recht?
Fehlt eine ausdrückliche Schiedsklausel, ist regelmäßig ein vietnamesisches Gericht zuständig. Dieses birgt jedoch aus Sicht ausländischer Investoren erhebliche Unsicherheiten: Laut Transparency International besteht weiterhin ein erhebliches Risiko korrupter Entscheidungen – fast 20 % der befragten Vietnamesen gaben an, dass Richter in Korruption verwickelt seien (Global Corruption Barometer 2017). Auch der Vietnam Provincial Competitiveness Index (USAID, 2021) bestätigt, dass viele Unternehmen staatliche Gerichte meiden.
Darüber hinaus bestehen strukturelle Probleme: Viele Richter verfügen nicht über eine fundierte juristische Ausbildung, sondern verdanken ihre Position politischen Loyalitäten oder persönlichen Netzwerken. Kurze Amtszeiten und niedrige Gehälter fördern die Abhängigkeit der Justiz von Parteiinteressen. Die Gewaltenteilung ist de facto ausgesetzt – der Begriff „Rechtsstaatlichkeit“ wird in Vietnam eher im Sinne von „Regelung durch den Staat“, also durch die kommunistische (Ein)Partei, verstanden. Dies erschwert eine unabhängige Justiz erheblich.
Zudem gilt: Schiedsverfahren bieten – wie in anderen Ländern mit funktionierender Justiz – den Vorteil, vertraulich und unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit durchgeführt zu werden. Gerade bei sensiblen wirtschaftlichen Auseinandersetzungen ist dies ein entscheidendes Kriterium.
– Vorteile der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit
Schiedsverfahren ermöglichen eine unabhängige Streitbeilegung. Die Parteien können qualifizierte Schiedsrichter mit Fachkenntnis im jeweiligen Geschäftsbereich benennen, was sowohl das Vertrauen in das Verfahren als auch die Akzeptanz des Ergebnisses erhöht. Internationale Schiedsinstitutionen bieten zudem fachliche Standards, transparente Abläufe und ein hohes Maß an Kompetenz.
2. Auswahl des passenden Schiedsgerichts
Die Wahl der Schiedsinstitution ist für die Wirksamkeit einer Streitbeilegungsklausel entscheidend. Zur Verfügung stehen beispielsweise:
– das Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC),
– oder internationale Institutionen wie das Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC).
 Welche Institution geeignet ist, hängt von verschiedenen Faktoren ab:
(1) Projektvolumen
Bei größeren Investitionsprojekten (ab ca. 5 Mio. USD) empfiehlt sich in der Regel ein internationales Schiedsgericht wie das SIAC. In solchen Fällen überwiegt der Wunsch nach unabhängiger Expertise gegenüber dem höheren Kostenaufwand.
(2) Ort der Vermögenswerte – Durchsetzbarkeit von Schiedssprüchen
Sollen Urteile in Vietnam vollstreckt werden, ist zu beachten: Zwar ist Vietnam Vertragsstaat des New Yorker Übereinkommens, das die Anerkennung ausländischer Schiedssprüche regelt. In der Praxis kommt es aber häufig zu Verzögerungen – etwa durch zusätzliche Prüfungen durch das Justizministerium und gerichtliche Nachverfahren. Vietnamesische Gerichte lehnen ausländische Schiedssprüche nicht selten ab, wenn sie gegen nationale Vorschriften oder die öffentliche Ordnung verstoßen (Art. V NYC). Die Abbruchrate bei inländischen Schiedssprüchen beträgt mehr als 50 %.
Beispiel: In einem bekannten Fall wurde ein Schiedsspruch abgelehnt, weil eine formale Baugenehmigung fehlte (Tyco Services Singapore Pte Ltd gegen Leighton Contractors Vietnam).
(3) Verfahrenskosten
Die Kosten eines Schiedsverfahrens variieren stark: Bei einem Streitwert von 4 Mio. USD belaufen sich die Gebühren beim VIAC auf etwa 62.000 USD (ein Schiedsrichter), beim SIAC dagegen auf rund 117.000 USD. Hinzu kommen bei internationalen Verfahren oft Reise-, Übersetzungs- und Beratungskosten. Gerade für kleinere Unternehmen kann dieser Kostenfaktor ausschlaggebend sein –dies verleitet sie eher dazu ungünstige Vergleiche einzugehen.
(4) Komplexität des Vertragsgegenstands
Zwar verfügen vietnamesische Schiedsgerichte wie das VIAC über juristische Kompetenz, jedoch (noch) nicht über eine vergleichbare internationale Spezialisierung. Dies liegt vor allem an der geringeren Vergütung vietnamesischer Schiedsrichter. Bei besonders branchenspezifischen Streitigkeiten ist ein spezialisiertes ausländisches Tribunal oft die bessere Wahl.
(5) Staatliche oder staatsnahe Vertragspartner
Sind staatliche oder indirekt staatlich kontrollierte Unternehmen Vertragspartei, sollte eine ausländische Schiedsklausel vereinbart werden. Diese schützt vor möglicher staatlicher Einflussnahme auf das Verfahren. Zwar bestehen weiterhin Vollstreckungsrisiken in Vietnam – ein günstiger Schiedsspruch verbessert jedoch die Verhandlungsposition ausschlaggebend.
(6) Beachte Sonderfall: Schutz geistigen Eigentums
Geht es um geistige Eigentumsrechte, sollte die Schiedsklausel durch eine Öffnungsklausel ergänzt werden, die behördliche Maßnahmen – etwa durch das vietnamesische Market Management Bureau – weiterhin zulässt. Zwar können auch Schiedsgerichte einstweilige Maßnahmen anordnen, in der Praxis ist jedoch ein behördliches Einschreiten oft effektiver.
Gerichtsstandswahl
Entscheidungen über die Zuständigkeit/Gerichtsstandswahl
Vietnamese Zuständigkeit Onshore Verfahren beim internationalen Schiedsgerichtszentrum Vietnam (VIAC) Offshore Schiedsverfahren
Generell abgeraten Projekt unter US$5M Projekt > US$5M
Sonderfälle: Geistiges Eigentum – dann kann eine Öffnungsklausel i.B. gezogen werden, die in eine Streitbeilegungsklausel umgewandelt wird (einstweilige Maßnahmen/Zwangsmaßnahmen durch Behörden) Pfändbares Vermögen des Vertr.partners befinden sich in Vietnam Pfändbares Vermögen des Vertr.partners im Ausland
Weniger komplexe Sachverhalte Mehr komplexe jur. Fragen/Sachverhalte
Vertrag betrifft v.a. allg. Rechtsgebiete (KaufR usw) Rechtsgebiete, die nur von erfahrenen spezialisierten Juristen behandelt werden können
Kein (verstecktes) Staatsunternehmen Vertragspartner ist Staatsunternehmen
Finanzstärke geringer, Kostendruck größer Kostendruck geringwertig, da größere Finanzstärke
Streitbeilegungsklausel nicht notwendig Streitbeilegungsklausel (+) Streitbeilegungsklausel (+)
3. Umsetzung
(Schiedsvereinbarungen nach vietnamesischem Recht)
Nach vietnamesischem Recht sind Schiedsvereinbarungen in Handelsverträgen ausdrücklich zulässig. Grundlage hierfür ist das Gesetz Nr. 54/2010/QH12 über die Handelsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit (Law on Commercial Arbitration – „LCA“). Eine wirksam vereinbarte Schiedsklausel bewirkt, dass staatliche Gerichte dann nicht mehr zuständig sind; stattdessen entscheidet das vertraglich festgelegte Schiedsgericht. Das LCA orientiert sich inhaltlich am UNCITRAL-Modellgesetz und ist damit auf internationale Standards angepasst. Die vietnamesische Gesetzgebung gilt insgesamt ,,schiedsfreundlich‘‘
Wenn feststeht, ob und welches Schiedsgericht für mögliche Streitigkeiten zuständig sein soll, sollten insbesondere folgende Aspekte geregelt werden:
– Anwendbares Recht: Bei grenzüberschreitenden Verträgen kann das materielle Recht grundsätzlich frei gewählt werden (Art. 14 Abs. 2 LCA). Die Entscheidung über das anwendbare Recht sollte bei der Auswahl der Schiedsrichter berücksichtigt werden, damit diese mit dem jeweiligen Rechtssystem vertraut sind.
– Verfahrenssprache: Gemäß Art. 10 Abs. 2 LCA kann die Sprache des Schiedsverfahrens vertraglich frei festgelegt werden.
– Zahl der Schiedsrichter: Die Bestellung mehrerer Schiedsrichter ermöglicht eine kollegiale Entscheidungsfindung, was zur Ausgewogenheit beitragen kann. Allerdings ist zu beachten, dass dadurch auch die Verfahrenskosten steigen
– Bestellung eines bestimmten Schiedsrichters: In besonders komplexen oder fachlich anspruchsvollen Fällen kann es sinnvoll sein, bereits im Vorfeld einen geeigneten Schiedsrichter zu suchen
 Eine Schiedsvereinbarung ist wirksam, wenn sie die in den Artikeln 16, 18 und 19 LCA genannten Voraussetzungen erfüllt – insbesondere muss sie schriftlich erfolgen.
Streitbeilegung im Rahmen internationaler Investitionsschutzabkommen
Im Rahmen des Investitionsschutzabkommens zwischen der Europäischen Union und Vietnam (EVIPA) sowie der „Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership“ (CPTPP) besteht die Möglichkeit, investitionsbezogene Streitigkeiten zwischen Investoren und Staaten einem besonderen Streitbeilegungsmechanismus zu unterwerfen.
Bei Konflikten, etwa im Zusammenhang mit Enteignungen ohne Entschädigung oder diskriminierender Behandlung, kann ein Investor die Regierung des jeweils anderen Vertragsstaates vor einem Investitionsgerichtshof verklagen. Ist eine Partei mit der Entscheidung nicht einverstanden, steht ihr ein Rechtsmittel zum Berufungsgericht offen. Dieses Verfahren unterscheidet sich zwar von klassischen Schiedsverfahren, ähnelt jedoch in seiner Struktur dem zweistufigen Streitbeilegungssystem der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO).
Ein Vorteil dieses Mechanismus liegt in der möglichen Zeit- und Kostenersparnis. Der erlassene Schiedsspruch ist bindend und unmittelbar vollstreckbar, ohne dass er durch lokale Gerichte bestätigt werden muss. Vietnam hat sich verpflichtet, das System innerhalb von fünf Jahren nach Inkrafttreten des EVIPA vollständig umzusetzen. Bis Februar 2023 hatten jedoch erst 11 der 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten das Abkommen ratifiziert – es bleibt also abzuwarten, wann es tatsächlich in Kraft tritt und die Umsetzungspflichten für Vietnam beginnen.
Auch das CPTPP sieht einen vergleichbaren Streitbeilegungsmechanismus vor. Anders als im EVIPA gibt es dort jedoch keine Übergangsfrist – die Schiedssprüche wären sofort gemäß dem New Yorker Übereinkommen vollstreckbar. Es ist zu erwarten, dass Vietnam seine nationalen Vorschriften zur Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in absehbarer Zeit an die im EVIPA vorgesehenen Standards anpassen wird. Investoren, die sich auf das CPTPP stützen, könnten ebenfalls von diesen gesetzlichen Änderungen profitieren.
Sowohl im Rahmen des EVIPA als auch des CPTPP kann die Einbeziehung eines Mechanismus zur Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegung (ISDS) dazu beitragen, die Durchsetzbarkeit und Investitionssicherheit von Verträgen erheblich zu verbessern – vorausgesetzt, die Klauseln sind inhaltlich sorgfältig gestaltet.
Schlussfolgerung:
Der Abschluss von Streitbeilegungsklauseln in vietnamesischen Verträgen ist grundsätzlich zu empfehlen. Die Auswahl des geeigneten Streitbeilegungsforums ist jedoch eine komplexe Entscheidung, die sorgfältig vorbereitet werden sollte – insbesondere im Hinblick auf Rechtswahl, Kosten, Sprache, Vollstreckbarkeit und Verfahrenssicherheit.
Investoren müssen nicht abwarten, bis das EVIPA in Kraft tritt oder nationale Schiedsgesetze geändert werden. ISDS-Klauseln können schon jetzt in Verträge aufgenommen werden, um ein hohes Maß an Rechtssicherheit und Investitionsschutz zu gewährleisten. Gerne unterstützen wir Sie bei der Gestaltung und Aufnahme entsprechender Klauseln in Ihre Verträge.
_____________________________
Dr. Oliver Massmann ist Partner der international tätigen Anwaltskanzlei Duane Morris LLP mit Hauptsitz in den Vereinigten Staaten. Zudem leitet er als Generaldirektor die vietnamesische Niederlassung Duane Morris Vietnam LLC. Sein Tätigkeitsschwerpunkt liegt im Bereich des internationalen Steuerrechts sowie in der rechtlichen Begleitung von Energie- und Infrastrukturprojekten. Darüber hinaus berät er multinationale Unternehmen bei Fragen des Investitionsrechts, insbesondere in den Sektoren Öl und Gas, Telekommunikation, Privatisierung, Unternehmensbeteiligungen, Fusionen und Übernahmen sowie allgemeinen handelsrechtlichen Fragestellungen im Zusammenhang mit geschäftlichen Aktivitäten in Vietnam.
Bei Fragen und für weitere Einzelheiten steht Ihnen Dr. Oliver Massmann unter omassmann@duanemorris.com gerne zur Verfügung.

On 4 May 2025, the Political Bureau of Vietnam issued groundbreaking Resolution No. 68-NQ/TW on the development of the private sector (“Resolution 68”). Resolution 68 presents visions and key milestones for the development of the private sector from 2030 to 2045, with the primary aim of rapid, sustainable, and high-quality growth for Vietnam. As clearly stated in Resolution 68, the private sector is positioned as the heart of the national economy and a leader in technological advancement and digital transformation. To support the private sector in achieving its goal as set out in Resolution 68, the following shift in perception, the relationship between the State and private entities, policy frameworks, and interaction mechanisms are introduced in Resolution 68:
The role of the private sector: Resolution 68 formally elevates the role of private enterprise, acknowledging it as a foundational component of Vietnam’s socio-economic development strategy, rather than a supplementary force.
The goal for 2030: Resolution 68 sets out the goal for enterprises by 2030 as follows (i) having two (2) million active enterprises, (ii) having 20 operating enterprises per 1,000 people, (iii) having at least 20 large-scale enterprises integrated into the global chain, and (iv) having the private sector to grow 10–12% on an annual basis, to contribute 55–58% of the GDP and 35–40% of state budget revenue, and to employ 84–85% of the workforce.
Market Access and Business Activities: Enterprises are granted the right to engage in all business sectors not explicitly banned or prohibited by the laws, with any restriction required to be based on legal, transparent, and public interest justifications rather than arbitrarily applied. This new perception should remove the long-rooted “ask-give” mechanism commonly adopted by competent authorities.
Tackling Vietnam’s Talent Bottleneck: Realizing the lack of high-quality operators to run businesses in Vietnam. The training of 10,000 CEOs is outlined in Resolution 68, and it is anticipated that the future growth of Vietnam will no longer be limited by leadership capacity.
Reducing Administrative Burden: Resolution 68 sets a 2025 target to reduce at least 30% of existing licensing procedures. Significant reforms are planned to improve the quality of institutions and policies. Synchronising the enforcement of central laws across all provinces, addressing long-standing disparities in implementation, and ensuring legal predictability regardless of business location will be the next ultimate administrative goal.
Digital Transformation of Governance: Emphasis is placed on modernising public administration through technologies such as AI and big data across various approval and licensing systems, in alignment with Vietnam’s national digital strategy.
Support for Startups and Innovation: Pro-business reforms will improve access to capital for startups, including encouragement of venture capital activity and the introduction of legal mechanisms to support innovation and early-stage investment.
Sustainable Development: Sustainability principles are incorporated throughout Resolution 68, aligning Vietnam’s economic development agenda with evolving global investment standards focused on environmental and social governance. Priority investment areas include technology, green energy, digital services, and logistics. Reforms to State-owned enterprises and PPP frameworks aim to create new opportunities for domestic and foreign investors.
While Resolution 68 itself is not a law, it is provided under Resolution 68 that all relevant competent authorities must work on existing laws, prepare new laws, and undertake reform missions. Resolution 68 introduces groundbreaking and bold commitments to economic development. It reformulates the private sector’s position in Vietnam and promotes the future development of the same. Resolution 68, in a way, offers a whole new world of opportunity, and, without a doubt, there is no better time than now to make your decision.
***
Please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com if you have any questions on the above. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.