Author: Dr. Oliver Massmann

Introduction
Vietnam’s decision to revive its nuclear power programme represents one of the most significant developments in the country’s energy sector in decades.
Important progress has already been made. Nuclear power has returned to Vietnam’s long-term energy strategy. The legal framework has been strengthened. Institutional responsibilities have become clearer. Site preparation activities are advancing and project implementation is moving forward.
However, as Ninh Thuan 2 progresses from policy commitment toward implementation, a different set of questions emerges.
These are not primarily questions about technology.
They are questions about bankability.
The ultimate success of Ninh Thuan 2 will depend not only on reactor technology, licensing procedures or construction schedules. It will depend on whether the project can attract the confidence of international investors, export credit agencies, lenders, insurers, contractors and long-term stakeholders.
In short, the next chapter of Ninh Thuan 2 is not simply about nuclear energy.
It is about creating a framework capable of attracting billions of dollars of long-term investment.
Lessons from Vietnam’s Landmark BOT Power Projects
Vietnam is not entering unknown territory.
Projects such as Phu My 2.2 and Phu My 3 demonstrated that large-scale foreign investment can be mobilized successfully when governments, investors, lenders and project sponsors establish a framework that allocates risks transparently and fairly.
Those projects succeeded because they addressed concerns that international investors and lenders could not manage alone.
These included:
• payment security;
• foreign exchange convertibility and remittance;
• political risk;
• government approvals;
• changes in law;
• dispute resolution;
• termination compensation;
• implementation certainty.
The lesson remains relevant today.
Investors do not commit billions of dollars because a project is important.
They invest when risks are identifiable, understandable and appropriately allocated.
Why Nuclear Projects Raise the Stakes
Nuclear projects differ from conventional power projects in several important respects.
Capital requirements are substantially larger.
Construction periods are longer.
Regulatory oversight is more extensive.
Project lifecycles may extend over several decades.
As a result, investors, lenders and export credit agencies inevitably apply greater scrutiny.
The key questions become:
• Is the regulatory framework stable?
• Is the project implementation pathway realistic?
• How will risks be allocated?
• What protections exist against adverse regulatory changes?
• How will sovereign and political risks be addressed?
• Can the project achieve international bankability standards?
These are not merely legal questions.
They are financing questions.
And financing questions ultimately determine whether a project reaches financial close.
Government Guarantees: Asking the Right Question
Discussion often focuses on whether governments should provide sovereign guarantees.
For Ninh Thuan 2, however, the more useful question is different:
What forms of government support and risk allocation are necessary to create a bankable project structure?
Experience from Vietnam’s BOT power projects provides valuable guidance.
The critical issue was never whether every risk could be eliminated.
The critical issue was whether investors and lenders had confidence that risks had been properly identified and allocated.
The same principle applies today.
Certain risks can be managed by contractors, operators and technology providers.
Other risks remain fundamentally sovereign in nature.
These may include:
• major changes in law;
• regulatory instability;
• restrictions on foreign currency convertibility;
• delays in critical approvals;
• political force majeure events.
Historically, successful infrastructure projects addressed these concerns through carefully structured combinations of:
• government undertakings;
• implementation agreements;
• contractual protections;
• political risk mitigation mechanisms;
• export credit agency support;
• multilateral participation.
Importantly, this does not necessarily require a blanket sovereign guarantee.
Modern project finance increasingly relies on more targeted and sophisticated support mechanisms.
The objective is not to transfer every risk to the government.
The objective is to create a framework that satisfies international bankability standards.
That distinction is fundamental.
Five Bankability Questions Every Nuclear Project Must Answer Before Financial Close
1. Is the Regulatory Framework Stable and Predictable?
Nuclear projects are multi-decade investments.
Investors and lenders require confidence that licensing, permitting and regulatory frameworks will remain transparent, professional and predictable throughout the life of the project.
2. How Are Political and Sovereign Risks Addressed?
Risks such as adverse changes in law, restrictions on currency convertibility and delays in governmental approvals cannot be managed solely by private sector participants.
These risks require credible support mechanisms and clear allocation.
3. Does the Project Meet International Financing Standards?
Projects become bankable when international lenders, insurers and export credit agencies conclude that the risk profile is acceptable.
The relevant test is not whether financing appears theoretically available.
The relevant test is whether financing institutions are prepared to commit capital.
4. Is the Risk Allocation Framework Commercially Balanced?
Governments manage sovereign risks.
Contractors manage construction risks.
Operators manage operational risks.
Financiers manage financing risks.
Balanced risk allocation remains one of the most important determinants of successful project financing.
5. Is There a Credible Path to Financial Close?
For a project of the scale of Ninh Thuan 2, financing is likely to require a combination of government support mechanisms, export credit agency participation, commercial financing and sophisticated risk allocation structures.
Ultimately, the measure of success is simple:
Will investors and lenders commit capital?
Why This Matters for Vietnam
Ninh Thuan 2 is more than an energy project.
It is an opportunity for Vietnam to demonstrate once again that it can attract world-class technology, international capital and sophisticated long-term investment for projects of national importance.
Vietnam’s remarkable economic development over recent decades has been supported by its ability to build confidence among international investors.
Ninh Thuan 2 provides an opportunity to demonstrate those same capabilities on an unprecedented scale.
Conclusion
Vietnam has already answered the question of whether it wishes to return to nuclear energy.
The more important question now is whether a project structure can be established that attracts the world’s leading technology providers, contractors, export credit agencies, financiers and long-term investors.
The experience of landmark projects such as Phu My 2.2 and Phu My 3 demonstrates that this challenge can be successfully addressed.
History shows that when risks are allocated transparently, responsibilities are clearly defined and confidence is established among stakeholders, international capital is prepared to support transformational infrastructure projects.
The challenge for Ninh Thuan 2 is not whether financing exists globally for nuclear projects.
The challenge is whether a framework can be established that gives investors, export credit agencies and lenders sufficient confidence to commit capital on a scale unprecedented in Vietnam’s energy sector.
If that framework is achieved, Ninh Thuan 2 will represent more than the revival of nuclear energy in Vietnam.
It will become the next chapter in Vietnam’s successful journey as a destination for globally significant infrastructure investment
***
For more information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact the author Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

Von Dr. Oliver Massmann (Architekt des Marktzugangs)
Einleitung
Non-Fungible Tokens („NFTs“) haben sich weit über digitale Kunstwerke und Sammlerstücke hinaus entwickelt. Heute werden NFTs in Gaming-Ökosystemen, Mitgliederprogrammen, Treueprogrammen, im Management geistigen Eigentums, bei Ticketlösungen, tokenisierten Erlebnissen, digitalem Handel und zahlreichen weiteren Geschäftsanwendungen eingesetzt.
Über mehrere Jahre hinweg bewegten sich NFTs in Vietnam in einem rechtlichen Graubereich. Dies änderte sich grundlegend mit der Verabschiedung des Gesetzes über die digitale Technologieindustrie (Gesetz Nr. 71/2025/QH15), das am 1. Januar 2026 in Kraft trat und erstmals einen umfassenden Rechtsrahmen zur Anerkennung digitaler Vermögenswerte in Vietnam einführte.
Diese Entwicklung hat für Unternehmen und Investoren größere Rechtssicherheit geschaffen, gleichzeitig jedoch wichtige Compliance-Fragen im Zusammenhang mit der Ausgabe, dem Verkauf, der Vermarktung und der Nutzung von NFTs in Vietnam aufgeworfen.
Dieser Artikel erläutert:
• Was NFTs sind;
• Ob NFTs in Vietnam legal sind;
• Wie NFTs nach vietnamesischem Recht voraussichtlich eingestuft werden;
• Die wesentlichen rechtlichen Risiken im Zusammenhang mit NFT-Projekten;
• Wie ausländische Unternehmen NFTs in Vietnam anbieten können;
• Praktische Implementierungs- und Compliance-Aspekte; und
• Wie Vietnam im Vergleich zu anderen führenden Jurisdiktionen für digitale Vermögenswerte dasteht.

1. Was ist ein NFT?
Ein NFT (Non-Fungible Token) ist ein einzigartiger digitaler Token, der in einer Blockchain aufgezeichnet wird.
Im Gegensatz zu Bitcoin oder anderen Kryptowährungen, die austauschbar und im Wert identisch sind, ist jedes NFT einzigartig und kann spezifische Eigentumsrechte, Zugangsrechte oder andere Interessen repräsentieren.
NFTs können verknüpft sein mit:
• Digitalen Kunstwerken;
• Sammlerstücken;
• Gaming-Vermögenswerten;
• Mitgliederprogrammen;
• Veranstaltungstickets;
• Rechten des geistigen Eigentums;
• Digitalen Identitäten;
• Tokenisierten Erlebnissen; und
• Bestimmten realen Vermögenswerten.
Wichtig ist: Das NFT selbst ist in der Regel nicht das zugrunde liegende Asset. Vielmehr fungiert es als blockchainbasiertes Zertifikat, das Eigentum oder Rechte in Bezug auf ein bestimmtes Asset oder eine Dienstleistung nachweist.
Kurz gesagt:
• Kryptowährung funktioniert wie digitales Geld.
• Ein NFT funktioniert wie ein digitales Eigentums- oder Berechtigungszertifikat.
Hier ist die deutsche Übersetzung Ihres Textes:
2. Sind NFTs in Vietnam legal?
Die kurze Antwort lautet: Ja.
Nach vietnamesischem Recht sind NFTs nicht verboten.
Das Gesetz über die digitale Technologieindustrie erkennt digitale Vermögenswerte nun offiziell an und führt Rechtsbegriffe wie virtuelle Vermögenswerte und Krypto-Vermögenswerte ein.
Obwohl das Gesetz NFTs nicht ausdrücklich definiert, dürften NFTs in die weiter gefasste Kategorie der anerkannten digitalen Vermögenswerte fallen.
Daher genießen NFTs heute einen deutlich klareren Rechtsstatus als in den vergangenen Jahren.
Rechtliche Anerkennung bedeutet jedoch nicht vollständige Deregulierung.
NFT-Projekte müssen weiterhin unter den geltenden Gesetzen zu Verbraucherschutz, geistigem Eigentum, Cybersicherheit, Schutz personenbezogener Daten, Besteuerung, Geldwäschebekämpfung und anderen relevanten Rechtsrahmen geprüft werden.
3. Wie werden NFTs nach vietnamesischem Recht voraussichtlich eingestuft?
Das Gesetz erkennt Kategorien digitaler Vermögenswerte an, darunter virtuelle Vermögenswerte und Krypto-Vermögenswerte.
Die meisten NFTs dürften als digitale Vermögenswerte qualifizieren, da sie:
• elektronisch erstellt werden,
• auf Blockchain-Technologie aufgezeichnet sind,
• digital authentifiziert werden,
• elektronisch übertragbar sind und
• wirtschaftlichen Wert haben können.
Die genaue Einstufung eines NFTs hängt von seinen Eigenschaften und seiner Funktionalität ab.
Die vietnamesischen Regulierungsbehörden werden zunehmend auf die wirtschaftliche Substanz statt auf technologische Bezeichnungen achten.
Daher lautet die entscheidende Rechtsfrage nicht:
„Ist dies ein NFT?“
Sondern vielmehr:
„Welche Rechte gewährt dieses NFT?“
4. Die wichtigste Rechtsfrage: Welche Rechte gewährt das NFT?
Hier beginnt die regulatorische Analyse.
Sammel-NFTs
Beispiele:
• Digitale Kunst,
• Sammlerstücke,
• Gaming-Skins,
• Veranstaltungsandenken.
Diese bergen in der Regel ein vergleichsweise geringeres regulatorisches Risiko.
Utility-NFTs
Beispiele:
• Mitgliederprogramme,
• Zugang zu exklusiven Communities,
• Treueprogramme,
• Premium-Abonnements.
Diese bleiben aus regulatorischer Sicht relativ handhabbar, können jedoch Anforderungen des Verbraucherschutzes und des E-Commerce auslösen.
Investment-NFTs
Beispiele:
• Gewinnbeteiligungsrechte,
• Umsatzbeteiligung,
• Dividendenähnliche Ausschüttungen,
• Investitionspools,
• Ertragsgenerierende Strukturen.
Diese bergen erheblich höhere regulatorische Risiken.
Je stärker ein NFT einem Anlageprodukt ähnelt, desto wahrscheinlicher werden die Behörden prüfen, ob es ähnlich wie ein Wertpapier, ein Investitionsvertrag oder ein anderes reguliertes Finanzprodukt funktioniert.
Das Label „NFT“ wird das rechtliche Ergebnis nicht bestimmen.
Die mit dem NFT verbundenen Rechte hingegen schon.
5. NFTs sind kein gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel
Unternehmen sollten digitale Vermögenswerte klar von gesetzlichem Zahlungsmittel unterscheiden.
NFTs werden in Vietnam nicht als gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel anerkannt und dürfen nicht als offizieller Zahlungsersatz beworben werden.
Diese Unterscheidung bleibt wichtig für Marketingmaterialien, Zahlungsvereinbarungen und den Betrieb von Plattformen.
6. Können ausländische Unternehmen NFTs in Vietnam verkaufen?
In vielen Fällen ja.
Derzeit gibt es kein allgemeines Verbot, das ausländischen Emittenten untersagt, NFTs grenzüberschreitend vietnamesischen Nutzern anzubieten.
Ausländische Emittenten sollten jedoch sorgfältig prüfen:
• NFT-Funktionalität,
• Marketingmaterialien,
• Verbraucherinformationen,
• Zahlungsmechanismen,
• Rechte am geistigen Eigentum,
• Verpflichtungen zum Datenschutz,
• Steuerliche Auswirkungen,
• AML-Aspekte (Geldwäscheprävention).
Je stärker ein NFT einem Anlageprodukt ähnelt, desto größer ist die potenzielle regulatorische Prüfung.
7. Häufig übersehene praktische Rechtsfragen
Geistiges Eigentum
Wichtige Fragen sind:
• Wem gehört das zugrunde liegende Kunstwerk?
• Welche Rechte werden übertragen?
• Erwirbt der NFT-Käufer Urheberrechte?
• Wird nur eine eingeschränkte Lizenz gewährt?
Viele NFT-Streitigkeiten entstehen, weil Käufer fälschlicherweise Eigentum am zugrunde liegenden geistigen Eigentum annehmen.
Verbraucherschutz
NFT-Käufer sollten transparente Informationen erhalten über:
• Risiken,
• Einschränkungen,
• Funktionalität,
• Übertragungsbeschränkungen,
• Rückerstattungsrichtlinien,
• Plattformabhängigkeit.
Datenschutz
NFT-Plattformen, die Informationen von vietnamesischen Nutzern sammeln, müssen möglicherweise berücksichtigen:
• Anforderungen an den Schutz personenbezogener Daten,
• Verpflichtungen zur Cybersicherheit,
• Aspekte des grenzüberschreitenden Datentransfers.
Besteuerung
NFT-Transaktionen können folgende steuerliche Konsequenzen haben:
• Körperschaftsteuer,
• Umsatzsteuer (Mehrwertsteuer),
• Einkommensteuer für Privatpersonen,
• grenzüberschreitende Steuerfragen.
Die steuerliche Behandlung bleibt stark einzelfallabhängig.
8. Praktischer Compliance-Fahrplan für NFT-Projekte
Vor dem Start eines NFT-Projekts in Vietnam sollten Unternehmen folgende Schritte beachten:
Schritt 1 – Klassifizierung des NFT
Feststellen, ob das NFT hauptsächlich:
• ein Sammlerstück,
• nutzungsbasiert oder
• investitionsorientiert ist.
Schritt 2 – Überprüfung der Rechte der Inhaber
Genau identifizieren, welche Rechte NFT-Inhaber erhalten.
Schritt 3 – Überprüfung der Marketingmaterialien
Vermeiden von Formulierungen, die implizieren:
• garantierte Renditen,
• Anlagegewinne,
• Kapitalsteigerung,
• finanzielle Performance.
Schritt 4 – Überprüfung der Verbraucherinformationen
Sicherstellen klarer Offenlegung von:
• Risiken,
• Eigentumsrechten,
• Übertragungsbeschränkungen,
• technischen Abhängigkeiten.
Schritt 5 – Überprüfung der Datenschutz-Compliance
Bewertung von:
• Datenerhebung,
• Datenspeicherung,
• grenzüberschreitenden Transfers,
• Verpflichtungen zum Schutz der Privatsphäre.
Schritt 6 – Überprüfung der AML-Aspekte
Besondere Aufmerksamkeit für:
• hochvolumige Transaktionen,
• Sekundärmarkt-Handel,
• anonyme Wallet-Strukturen.
Schritt 7 – Einholung Vietnam-spezifischer Rechtsberatung
Projekte sollten vor dem Start geprüft werden, nicht erst nach Auftreten regulatorischer Probleme.
9. Zentrale Erkenntnisse für ausländische NFT-Emittenten
Ausländische NFT-Emittenten sollten Folgendes beachten:
• Vietnam verbietet NFTs nicht.
• NFTs sind nach vietnamesischem Recht grundsätzlich zulässig.
• Klassifizierung ist entscheidend: Die rechtliche Behandlung hängt davon ab, was das NFT bewirkt, nicht wie es genannt wird.
• Anlageähnliches Marketing vermeiden: Aussagen zu Gewinnen, Renditen oder Investitionsmöglichkeiten sollten sorgfältig geprüft werden.
• Eigentumsrechte klären: Käufer müssen genau verstehen, welche Rechte sie erwerben.
• Verbraucherschutzpflichten prüfen: Transparente Offenlegung reduziert rechtliche Risiken.
• Cybersicherheits- und Datenschutzpflichten bewerten: NFT-Plattformen sammeln oft umfangreiche Nutzerdaten.
• AML- und Steueraspekte früh berücksichtigen: Compliance sollte von Beginn an integriert sein.
• Auf Substanz fokussieren: Die stärksten NFT-Projekte sind rechtlich auf Transparenz und Funktionalität ausgerichtet, nicht auf Spekulation.
10. Vietnam im Vergleich zu Singapur, Hongkong und den VAE
Vietnam
Vietnam hat digitale Vermögenswerte kürzlich anerkannt und entwickelt einen umfassenden Rechtsrahmen.
Es bestehen erhebliche Chancen, aber die Umsetzungsbestimmungen entwickeln sich noch.
Singapur
Singapur verfolgt einen differenzierten, aktivitätsbasierten Ansatz.
Ein einfaches Sammler-NFT kann außerhalb der Finanzregulierung liegen, während investitionsähnliche NFTs Wertpapier- oder Kapitalmarktregulierung auslösen können.
Hongkong
Hongkong legt großen Fokus auf Anlegerschutz und Regulierung virtueller Vermögenswerte.
NFTs mit Investitionsbezug können unter Wertpapier- oder kollektive Anlage-Regelungen fallen.
Vereinigte Arabische Emirate (VAE)
Die VAE haben eines der weltweit fortschrittlichsten Ökosysteme für virtuelle Vermögenswerte entwickelt.
Regulierungsbehörden in Dubai und Abu Dhabi bieten strukturierte Lizenzierungsrahmen und fördern gleichzeitig Innovation.
Für ernsthafte NFT-Unternehmen, die regulatorische Sicherheit suchen, bieten die VAE derzeit eines der weltweit fortschrittlichsten Umfelder.
Schlussfolgerung
Vietnam hat ein neues Kapitel in der Regulierung digitaler Vermögenswerte aufgeschlagen.
Erstmals bietet das Gesetz über die digitale Technologieindustrie eine formale rechtliche Anerkennung digitaler Vermögenswerte und schafft die Grundlage für ein breiteres digitales Ökosystem.
NFTs sind zwar nicht spezifisch definiert oder als eigene Vermögensklasse reguliert, operieren jedoch nicht mehr in einem vollständigen rechtlichen Vakuum. Stattdessen müssen sie nun innerhalb des entstehenden vietnamesischen Rahmens für virtuelle Vermögenswerte, Krypto-Vermögenswerte und andere digitale Vermögenswerte analysiert werden.
Für Unternehmen, Investoren und NFT-Emittenten ist die wichtigste Lektion klar:
Die rechtliche Analyse beginnt nicht mit der Frage „Ist dies ein NFT?“
Die wichtigere Frage lautet:
„Welche Rechte gewährt dieses NFT seinem Inhaber?“
Ein digitales Kunst-NFT, ein Mitgliedschafts-NFT, ein Gaming-NFT und ein Gewinnbeteiligungs-NFT können alle identische Blockchain-Technologie nutzen, während sie sehr unterschiedliche regulatorische Behandlung erfahren. Vietnamesische Behörden – wie Regulierer in führenden Jurisdiktionen weltweit – konzentrieren sich zunehmend auf die wirtschaftliche Substanz statt auf die technologische Form.
Ausländische Emittenten sollten Vietnam daher nicht nur als technologischen Markt betrachten. Erfolg in Vietnam erfordert sorgfältige Berücksichtigung von Verbraucherschutz, geistigen Eigentumsrechten, Marketingpraktiken, Datenschutzpflichten, steuerlichen Auswirkungen, Anforderungen zur Geldwäscheprävention und dem sich entwickelnden Rahmen für digitale Vermögenswerte.
Gleichzeitig sollten Unternehmen die Chancen erkennen. Vietnam ist eine der dynamischsten digitalen Volkswirtschaften Südostasiens, mit einer jungen, technologieorientierten Bevölkerung, zunehmender Blockchain-Nutzung und einer Regierung, die nun den wichtigen Schritt der formalen Anerkennung digitaler Vermögenswerte unternommen hat. Dies schafft erhebliches Potenzial für NFT-Projekte mit digitalen Sammlerstücken, Gaming-Ökosystemen, Mitgliedschaften, Treueprogrammen, tokenisierten Erlebnissen und anderen innovativen Anwendungsfällen.
Dennoch bleibt Vorsicht geboten. Das Gesetz über die digitale Technologieindustrie ist nur der Beginn des regulatorischen Weges. Zusätzliche Durchführungsverordnungen, Regelungen und Aufsichtsleitlinien werden in den kommenden Jahren erwartet. Unternehmen, die heute in den vietnamesischen Markt eintreten, sollten daher eine Compliance-First-Strategie verfolgen, die Flexibilität ermöglicht, während sich der Rechtsrahmen weiterentwickelt.
Praktisch gesehen bleibt der sicherste Ansatz für NFT-Emittenten:
1. Rechte, die mit dem NFT verbunden sind, klar identifizieren.
2. Keine Erwartungen an Anlageerträge schaffen, es sei denn, dies ist ausdrücklich strukturiert und rechtlich beraten.
3. Robuste Verbraucherinformationen implementieren.
4. Eigentum und Lizenzierung geistigen Eigentums prüfen.
5. Datenschutz- und Cybersicherheitsverpflichtungen bewerten.
6. Steuer- und AML-Aspekte von Beginn an berücksichtigen.
7. Vietnam-spezifische Rechtsberatung vor dem Start einholen.
Der vietnamesische Markt für digitale Vermögenswerte bewegt sich von Unsicherheit hin zu Regulierung. Wer sich auf Transparenz, Compliance und verantwortungsvolle Innovation konzentriert, wird am besten von den Chancen profitieren, die dieser Übergang schafft.
Die Zukunft von NFTs in Vietnam wird letztlich nicht durch die Technologie selbst bestimmt, sondern durch die Frage, wie effektiv Unternehmen Innovation mit rechtlicher Compliance, Verbrauchervertrauen und regulatorischen Erwartungen in Einklang bringen. Für Marktteilnehmer, die diesen Ansatz verfolgen, stellt Vietnam einen der vielversprechendsten aufstrebenden Märkte für digitale Vermögenswerte in Asien dar.
***
Für weitere Informationen wenden Sie sich bitte an den Autor Dr. Oliver Massmann unter omassmann@duanemorris.com. Dr. Oliver Massmann ist Generaldirektor von Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

はじめに
FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 LimitedとVietJet Aviation Joint Stock Companyの間の最近の訴訟は、近年ベトナムが関与した航空機ファイナンス紛争の中で最も重要なものの1つです。英国高等法院およびその後の英国控訴院での手続きでは、航空機リース、ローン譲渡、契約解除権、執行、航空機の回収、および輸出に関する根本的な問題が取り上げられました。

最終的に、貸主および投資家が勝訴しました。彼らは航空機の占有を回復し、1億8,100万米ドルを超える判決を勝ち取りました。しかし、その回収プロセスには、長年にわたる訴訟、広範な執行努力、異なる管轄区域での複数の法的手続き、および多額の追加費用が必要でした。

したがって、最も重要な教訓は、金融業者が最終的に勝訴したということではありません。

最も重要な教訓は、航空機ファイナンス取引は、権利行使（執行）が不要になるように、あるいは必要な場合には迅速かつ予測可能な形で完了できるように構築されるべきであるということです。

航空機ファイナンス取引の目的は、数年後に判決を得ることではありません。

その目的は、債務不履行（デフォルト）の発生直後に航空機を回収し、輸出することです。

ベトナムが関与する航空機取引を検討している金融業者、リース会社、輸出信用機関、銀行、JOLCO（コールオプション付き日本型オペレーティング・リース）投資家、航空ファンド、および機関投資家にとって、FW Aviationの事例は貴重な教訓を提供しています。

教訓1：ベトナムでの権利行使（執行）を独立した取引ワークストリームとして扱う

多くの国際的な金融業者は、英国法またはニューヨーク法に準拠した資金調達の文書化に重点を置いています。
通常、以下の点に注意が向けられます：

• リース契約
• 融資枠（ファシリティ）契約
• 担保譲渡
• 保証
• 信託構造
• 準拠法条項

これらの文書は不可欠ですが、取引の一部にすぎません。ベトナムが関与するすべての航空機ファイナンスには、資金調達文書と同時に策定される、ベトナムでの権利行使（執行）に特化したワークストリームを含める必要があります。

このワークストリームでは、以下に対処する必要があります：

• 航空機の登録
• 登録抹消手続き
• 輸出手続き
• 規制上の承認
• 委任状
• 担保権の承認
• 航空当局との連携
• 実務的な回収ロジスティクス

執行可能性のパッケージは、資金調達パッケージ自体と同等に重要であると見なされるべきです。

教訓2：完全に有効な取消不能の登録抹消および輸出要請委任状を確保する
移動設備における国際的権益に関する条約および航空機設備に特有の事項に関する議定書の下で利用可能な最も重要な保護の1つは、取消不能の登録抹消および輸出要請委任状（IDERA）です。この文書により、指定された債権者または権限を与えられた代理人は、債務不履行後に航空機の登録抹消および輸出を要請することができます。しかし、多くの取引では、この委任状を取得するだけで十分であると誤って想定されています。

ベストプラクティスでは、以下が求められます：

• 適切な締結
• ベトナム民間航空局への適切な提出
• 受理の確認
• 委任状が有効であり続けていることの定期的な確認
• 権限を与えられた当事者の特定
• 取引期間中の定期的な見直し

FW Aviationの紛争は、回収計画を単一の文書に依存することはできないことを示しています。執行プロセス全体が効果的に機能しなければなりません。

教訓3：包括的な委任状を取得する

航空機の回収には、登録抹消よりもはるかに多くの作業が伴います。金融業者は、以下を網羅する包括的かつ永続的な委任状を確保する必要があります：

• 登録抹消申請
• 輸出申請
• 税関手続き
• 整備記録
• 技術文書
• 保険管理
• 空港との調整
• 航空機の保管手配
• フェリーフライト（回送飛行）の承認

これらの権限は、契約解除後も存続し、執行手続き全体を通じて有効である必要があります。多くの回収努力が失敗するのは、法的権利が不明確だからではなく、実務的な実行が困難になるためです。

教訓4：即時的かつ明確な契約解除権を設定する

英国高等法院における主要な争点の1つは、リース契約の解除が有効かどうかでした。裁判所は、支払い遅延（デフォルト）の発生後、金融業者が即時解除権を有していることを確認しました。将来の取引では、デフォルト条項が最大限に明確に起草されるようにする必要があります。文書には以下の事項を規定すべきです：

• 支払いの不履行が即時のデフォルト事由を構成すること
• 解除権が自動的または通知と同時に即座に発生すること
• 不必要な追加の執行事由が求められないこと
• 期限の利益喪失（アクセラレーション）の権利に関していかなる曖昧さも存在しないこと
• 手続き上の不確実性なしに救済措置が利用可能になること
起草が強固であればあるほど、後の紛争の余地は小さくなります。

教訓5：将来の市場状況に備えた譲渡条項を起草する

VietJetが主張した中心的な議論は、FW Aviationが資金調達文書の下で許可された譲受人としての資格を満たしているかどうかに関するものでした。英国の裁判所は最終的にFW Aviationに有利な判決を下しましたが、この紛争は広範な譲渡条項の重要性を浮き彫りにしています。航空機ファイナンス文書では、以下への譲渡を明示的に許可すべきです：

• 銀行
• 金融機関
• 航空機リース会社
• プライベート・クレジット・ファンド
• 不良債権（ディストレス資産）投資家
• スペシャル・シチュエーション・ファンド
• 証券化ビークル
• 投資ファンド
• 関連会社

航空ファイナンス市場は急速に進化し続けています。文書は、狭義の定義に依存するのではなく、将来の資金調達構造を予測したものであるべきです。

教訓6：問題が発生する前に関係当局との関係を構築する

多くの金融業者は、デフォルトが発生した後にのみ、現地当局との連携を開始します。これでは遅すぎることが多々あります。資金提供の前に、金融業者は以下の事項に関して、手続きと期待される対応が理解されていることを確認する必要があります：

• 航空機の登録抹消
• 航空機の輸出
• 税関要件
• 空港へのアクセス
• 保管手配
• 整備記録
• 運航面での調整

目的は優遇措置を得ることではありません。目的は手続きの確実性を保証することです。デフォルトが発生した際、不確実性は権利行使（執行）の敵となります。

教訓7：取引完了（クロージング）前に航空機回収計画を策定する

すべての主要な航空機ファイナンスには、資金が実行される前に準備された回収プロトコルを含める必要があります。プロトコルでは以下を特定すべきです：

• 1日目 – デフォルトの宣言
• 2日目 – 飛行停止の指示
• 3日目 – 保険に関する通知
• 4日目 – 輸出の準備
• 5日目 – 技術検査
• 6日目 – フェリーフライト（回送飛行）の許可
• 7日目 – 航空機の移転

正確なタイムテーブルは異なりますが、原則は変わりません。回収計画はデフォルト後ではなく、デフォルト前に策定されるべきです。

教訓8：実務的な執行可能性に焦点を当てたベトナムの法律意見書を取得する

従来の法律意見書では、多くの場合以下が取り上げられます：

• 法人の権利能力
• 権限
• 有効性
• 執行可能性

これらの意見書は依然として重要ですが、十分ではありません。金融業者は以下の分析も要求する必要があります：

• 実務的な登録抹消手続き
• 輸出の仕組み
• 行政上の課題
• 現地訴訟のリスク
• 差止命令のリスク
• 予想されるタイムライン
• 潜在的な規制上の障害

多くの場合、理論的な法的有効性よりも、実務的な執行可能性が回収の結果を決定づけます。

教訓9：訴訟への依存を最小限に抑えるように取引を構築する

FW Aviationの事例は、重要な現実を示しています。訴訟で勝つことが航空機を回収するわけではありません。実務的な権利行使（執行）が航空機を回収するのです。最適な航空機ファイナンス構造は、以下のようになるよう設計されています：

• 権利が明確である
• 登録抹消が簡潔である
• 輸出手続きが確立されている
• 委任状が利用可能である
• デフォルト後、運航管理の権限を迅速に移譲できる

法的手続きは、あくまでも緊急時の代替計画（コンティンジェンシープラン）であるべきです。決して主要な戦略にするべきではありません。

教訓10：権利行使（執行）のストレステストを定期的に実施する

すべての航空機ファイナンス取引は、定期的な執行レビューの対象とされるべきです。金融業者は以下の問いを立てる必要があります：

• 航空会社が明日支払いを停止した場合、どうなるか？
• デフォルト後も航空機が運航を続けた場合、どうなるか？
• 現地の法的手続きが開始された場合、どうなるか？
• 株主が規制当局の措置に異議を申し立てた場合、どうなるか？
• 輸出手続きが遅延した場合、どうなるか？

明確な答えが存在しない場合、その取引はリスクにさらされたままです。FW Aviationの件は、これらのリスクが理論的なものではないことを示しています。それらは現実的であり、予測可能なものです。

金融業者が避けるべきこと
いくつかの間違いは避けるべきです。

第一に、金融業者は、有利な外国判決を得ることが自動的に執行問題を解決すると想定すべきではありません。判決は権利を確立するものです。執行は資産を回収するものです。

第二に、金融業者は「取消不能の登録抹消および輸出要請委任状」にのみ依存すべきではありません。追加の文書や実務的な運用計画は依然として不可欠です。

第三に、金融業者は執行戦略を策定する前に、デフォルトが発生するのを待つべきではありません。デフォルト前の準備は、デフォルト後の対応よりもはるかに効果的です。

第四に、金融業者は将来の譲渡を制限するような狭義の譲渡条項を避けるべきです。現代の航空ファイナンス市場には、プライベート・クレジット・ファンド、ディストレス資産投資家、代替的資金提供者がますます含まれるようになっています。

最後に、金融業者は、現地の並行訴訟、規制上の課題、または行政上の遅延の可能性を過小評価すべきではありません。これらのリスクは最初から予測しておく必要があります。

結論

FW Aviationの訴訟は、単なる債権者の勝利と見なされるべきではありません。世界の航空機ファイナンス業界にとっての実践的な教訓と見なされるべきです。金融業者は最終的に航空機を回収し、多額の金銭的判決を得ました。それにもかかわらず、回収には長年の訴訟、複数の手続き、そして多大な執行努力が必要でした。

したがって、中心となる教訓は明確です。航空機ファイナンスにおける成功は、判決を得ることによって測定されるものではありません。成功とは、デフォルトが発生した際に、迅速かつ合法的、そして予測可能な形で航空機を回収し、輸出することによって測定されるのです。

ベトナムに投資する金融業者にとって最も効果的な戦略は、訴訟で勝つための準備をすることではありません。それは、訴訟が不必要になるように取引を構築することです。

上記に関する詳細については、著者であるオリバー・マスマン博士（omassmann@duanemorris.com）までご遠慮なくお問い合わせください。オリバー・マスマン博士は、Duane Morris Vietnam LLCの総局長（General Director）を務めています。

For many investors, the announcement that Vietnam is planning new telecommunications satellites may appear to be a niche technology story.
It is not.
The planned VINASAT-3 and VINASAT-4 projects should be viewed as part of a much broader strategic transformation. They are not merely telecommunications investments. They represent Vietnam’s continuing effort to strengthen digital sovereignty, national infrastructure resilience, maritime connectivity, and technological independence in an increasingly competitive geopolitical environment.
For investors, the significance extends far beyond the satellites themselves.
From VINASAT-1 to Vietnam’s Digital Future
Vietnam launched its first communications satellite, VINASAT-1, in 2008. At the time, the project was a powerful symbol of a country moving from infrastructure consumer to infrastructure owner.
The satellite provided Vietnam with independent telecommunications capacity and represented an important step in the country’s modernization.
Nearly two decades later, Vietnam is preparing the next generation of satellite infrastructure.
The Ministry of Science and Technology has confirmed that Vietnam is implementing the VINASAT-3 project while simultaneously planning VINASAT-4 as a replacement for VINASAT-2, whose operational life is expected to conclude around 2030.
This development should not be viewed as a routine asset replacement exercise.
Instead, it reflects a broader national strategy.
Why Satellites Matter in 2026
The world has changed dramatically since VINASAT-1 was launched.
Today, satellites support:
• Digital connectivity;
• Maritime communications;
• Disaster response;
• National security;
• Aviation and logistics;
• Remote industrial operations;
• Energy infrastructure;
• Cross-border data transmission;
• Emerging digital services.
As economies become increasingly digital, satellite infrastructure becomes a strategic asset rather than a purely technical one.
Vietnam understands this reality.
The country’s rapid growth in manufacturing, digital services, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, data centres, renewable energy, and smart infrastructure is creating demand for resilient communications networks capable of supporting long-term economic growth.
Satellites form part of that ecosystem.
A Broader Sovereignty Story
Investors often focus on factories, ports, airports, power plants and industrial parks.
Yet modern economic competitiveness increasingly depends upon less visible infrastructure.
Digital sovereignty has become a strategic priority for governments worldwide.
The ability to maintain independent communications capability during natural disasters, cyber incidents, geopolitical disruptions, or infrastructure failures is now considered a national resilience issue.
Vietnam’s satellite strategy should therefore be understood within the same framework as:
• Power security;
• Data centre development;
• Semiconductor ambitions;
• Digital transformation;
• National cybersecurity initiatives.
These are all components of a broader infrastructure agenda designed to support the country’s next phase of development.
Where the Investment Opportunities May Arise
The most significant opportunities may not necessarily be in satellite manufacturing itself.
Historically, satellite programmes generate substantial secondary opportunities across multiple sectors.
Potential areas include:
Telecommunications
Expansion of telecommunications networks, ground stations, spectrum management, and value-added communications services.
Digital Infrastructure
Integration with cloud infrastructure, data centres, edge computing, and digital services platforms.
Maritime Economy
Improved connectivity for shipping, fisheries, offshore energy operations, and maritime surveillance.
Energy and Infrastructure
Support for offshore wind, remote industrial facilities, logistics networks, and critical infrastructure operations.
Financing and Export Credit
Large satellite programmes often involve international financing structures, export credit support, insurance arrangements, and cross-border contracting opportunities.
Regulatory and Compliance Services
As technology projects become increasingly complex, regulatory, licensing, cybersecurity, procurement, and compliance requirements continue to expand.
For professional service providers, infrastructure developers, technology companies, and institutional investors, these programmes create a wide ecosystem of opportunities.
Vietnam’s Long-Term Direction
The most important takeaway is not whether VINASAT-3 launches in a particular year or whether a specific supplier ultimately wins the contract.
The larger story is that Vietnam continues to invest in strategic infrastructure with increasingly sophisticated objectives.
Over the past three decades, Vietnam has transformed itself through investment in roads, ports, airports, power generation, telecommunications networks, industrial zones, and digital infrastructure.
The next phase of development will increasingly involve technology-intensive sectors requiring higher levels of expertise, financing, regulation, and international cooperation.
The satellite sector is part of that evolution.
What Investors Should Do
Investors should avoid viewing Vietnam’s satellite programme as an isolated government project.
Instead, it should be analysed as an indicator of broader policy direction.
The key questions are:
• Which industries benefit from enhanced digital connectivity?
• Which infrastructure sectors will become increasingly dependent on satellite-enabled services?
• How will digital sovereignty influence future government investment priorities?
• Which international technology and infrastructure partners are best positioned to participate?
The answers to those questions may reveal opportunities extending far beyond the aerospace sector itself.
Conclusion
VINASAT-3 and VINASAT-4 are not simply successor satellites.
They are signals of Vietnam’s continued commitment to building the infrastructure required for a modern, digitally connected, resilient economy.
For investors, the most valuable insight may not be found in the satellite launch itself.
It may be found in understanding what the launch says about where Vietnam intends to go next.
As Vietnam moves further into an era defined by digital infrastructure, technological capability and strategic resilience, satellites will increasingly become part of a larger investment story—one that extends well beyond space and reaches into the future architecture of the Vietnamese economy.
***
For more information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact the author Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

Introduction: A Historic Declaration—Or the Beginning of Something Bigger?
When Vietnam’s Politburo adopted Resolution 68 on private sector development in May 2025, it signaled a major shift in economic thinking. The key question one year later is not whether Resolution 68 was historic, but whether it is working. Has Vietnam truly begun its transformation into a private-sector economy?
Understanding the Bigger Picture
Resolution 68 is part of a broader reform agenda that includes innovation policies, administrative restructuring, digital transformation, capital market modernization, and infrastructure expansion. Together, these initiatives may represent the most ambitious reform effort since Đổi Mới.
What Has Changed During the First Year?
The most significant development has been a change in mindset. Vietnam increasingly views domestic private enterprises as future national champions capable of driving innovation, investment, and productivity growth.
Evidence That the Shift Is Real
Large Vietnamese groups are expanding into energy, logistics, industrial parks, technology, data centers, advanced manufacturing, aviation, and infrastructure. The policy direction increasingly favors stronger private-sector participation.
The Reality Check
The transition remains incomplete. SMEs still face challenges in accessing finance, land, technology, and efficient administrative procedures. The ultimate success of Resolution 68 will depend on whether growth extends beyond large conglomerates.
The Hidden Variable: Administrative Reform
Administrative reform may ultimately be as important as Resolution 68 itself. Faster licensing, reduced bureaucracy, and greater predictability could transform Vietnam’s investment environment.
What Does This Mean for Investors?
Investors should rethink traditional Vietnam strategies and focus on long-term structural changes rather than short-term trends.
Practical Action Plan for Investors
1. Reassess Vietnam beyond the traditional FDI narrative.

2. Identify Strong Vietnamese Strategic Partners. Choosing the right partner requires rigorous due diligence, including governance, financial strength, compliance, management quality, execution capability, and strategic alignment. When foreign investors and Vietnamese partners truly work hand in hand toward a common objective, they are not merely participating in projects—they are often positioned to shape industries, transform markets, and write a small piece of Vietnam’s economic history together.

3. Focus on policy-supported sectors such as AI, data centers, semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, energy transition, and digital infrastructure.

4. Conduct provincial due diligence.

5. Monitor regulatory reform continuously.

6. Prepare for stronger Vietnamese competitors.

7. Position early before opportunities become obvious.
Final Takeaway: Has Vietnam Really Become a Private-Sector Economy?
Not yet. But Resolution 68 has fundamentally changed the direction of travel. Vietnam is increasingly viewing private enterprise as a strategic partner in national development. Resolution 68 should not be viewed as the destination, but as the starting point. The investors who understand this shift early, identify the right partners, and position themselves accordingly may find themselves participating in—and helping to shape—one of Asia’s most important economic transformations of the coming decade.

***
For more information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact the author Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

Introduction
The recent litigation between FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited and VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company is one of the most significant aircraft finance disputes involving Vietnam in recent years. The proceedings before the English High Court and subsequently the English Court of Appeal addressed fundamental issues relating to aircraft leasing, loan assignments, termination rights, enforcement, aircraft repossession and export.
The lenders and investors ultimately prevailed. They recovered possession of the aircraft and obtained judgments exceeding USD 181 million. However, the recovery process required years of litigation, extensive enforcement efforts, multiple court proceedings in different jurisdictions and substantial additional costs.
The most important lesson is therefore not that the financiers eventually won.
The most important lesson is that aircraft finance transactions should be structured so that enforcement becomes unnecessary or, if necessary, can be completed quickly and predictably.
The objective of an aircraft financing transaction is not obtaining a judgment years later.
The objective is recovering and exporting the aircraft immediately after default.
For financiers, lessors, export credit agencies, banks, Japanese Operating Lease with Call Option investors, aviation funds and institutional investors considering aircraft transactions involving Vietnam, the FW Aviation case provides valuable lessons.
Lesson 1: Treat Vietnam Enforcement as a Separate Transaction Workstream
Many international financiers focus heavily on financing documentation governed by English law or New York law.
Typical attention is devoted to:
• lease agreements;
• facility agreements;
• security assignments;
• guarantees;
• trust structures; and
• governing law provisions.
While these documents are essential, they are only part of the transaction.
Every aircraft financing involving Vietnam should contain a dedicated Vietnam enforcement workstream that is developed simultaneously with the financing documents.
This workstream should address:
• aircraft registration;
• deregistration procedures;
• export procedures;
• regulatory approvals;
• powers of attorney;
• recognition of security interests;
• interaction with aviation authorities; and
• practical recovery logistics.
The enforceability package should be viewed as equally important as the financing package itself.
Lesson 2: Ensure a Fully Effective Irrevocable Deregistration and Export Request Authorisation
One of the most important protections available under the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Protocol on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment is the Irrevocable Deregistration and Export Request Authorisation.
This document allows a designated creditor or authorised representative to request deregistration and export of the aircraft following default.
However, many transactions incorrectly assume that merely obtaining the authorisation is sufficient.
Best practice requires:
• proper execution;
• proper filing with the Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam;
• confirmation of acceptance;
• regular verification that the authorisation remains effective;
• identification of the authorised party; and
• periodic review during the life of the transaction.
The FW Aviation dispute demonstrates that recovery planning cannot rely on a single document.
The entire enforcement chain must function effectively.
Lesson 3: Obtain Comprehensive Powers of Attorney
Aircraft recovery involves far more than deregistration.
Financiers should secure comprehensive and durable powers of attorney covering:
• deregistration applications;
• export applications;
• customs procedures;
• maintenance records;
• technical documentation;
• insurance administration;
• airport coordination;
• aircraft storage arrangements; and
• ferry flight approvals.
These powers should survive termination and remain effective throughout enforcement proceedings.
Many recovery efforts fail not because legal rights are unclear but because practical implementation becomes difficult.
Lesson 4: Create Immediate and Unambiguous Termination Rights
One of the key issues before the English High Court was whether lease termination was valid.
The Court confirmed that the financiers possessed immediate termination rights following payment defaults.
Future transactions should ensure that default provisions are drafted with maximum clarity.
Documentation should provide that:
• non-payment constitutes an immediate event of default;
• termination rights arise automatically or immediately upon notice;
• no unnecessary additional enforcement event is required;
• no ambiguity exists regarding acceleration rights; and
• remedies become available without procedural uncertainty.
The stronger the drafting, the smaller the scope for later disputes.
Lesson 5: Draft Assignment Provisions for Future Market Conditions
A central argument advanced by VietJet concerned whether FW Aviation qualified as a permitted transferee under the financing documents.
Although the English courts ultimately ruled in favour of FW Aviation, the dispute highlights the importance of broad assignment language.
Aircraft financing documents should expressly permit transfers to:
• banks;
• financial institutions;
• aircraft lessors;
• private credit funds;
• distressed asset investors;
• special situations funds;
• securitisation vehicles;
• investment funds; and
• affiliates.
The aviation finance market continues to evolve rapidly.
Documentation should anticipate future financing structures rather than relying on narrow definitions.
Lesson 6: Build Relationships with Relevant Authorities Before Problems Arise
Many financiers only begin interacting with local authorities after default occurs.
This is often too late.
Before funding, financiers should ensure that procedures and expectations are understood regarding:
• aircraft deregistration;
• aircraft export;
• customs requirements;
• airport access;
• storage arrangements;
• maintenance records; and
• operational coordination.
The objective is not obtaining preferential treatment.
The objective is ensuring procedural certainty.
When default occurs, uncertainty becomes the enemy of enforcement.
Lesson 7: Establish an Aircraft Recovery Plan Before Closing
Every major aircraft financing should include a recovery protocol prepared before funds are disbursed.
The protocol should identify:
Day 1 – declaration of default;
Day 2 – grounding instructions;
Day 3 – insurance notifications;
Day 4 – export preparations;
Day 5 – technical inspections;
Day 6 – ferry permits;
Day 7 – aircraft relocation.
The precise timetable will vary, but the principle remains constant.
Recovery planning should occur before default, not after default.
Lesson 8: Obtain Vietnam Legal Opinions Focused on Practical Enforceability
Traditional legal opinions often address:
• corporate capacity;
• authority;
• validity; and
• enforceability.
These opinions remain important but are not sufficient.
Financiers should also require analysis of:
• practical deregistration procedures;
• export mechanics;
• administrative challenges;
• local litigation risks;
• injunction risks;
• expected timelines; and
• potential regulatory obstacles.
Practical enforceability often determines recovery outcomes more than theoretical legal validity.
Lesson 9: Structure Transactions to Minimise Dependence on Litigation
The FW Aviation case demonstrates an important reality.
Winning litigation does not recover aircraft.
Operational enforcement recovers aircraft.
The best aircraft financing structures are designed so that:
• rights are clear;
• deregistration is straightforward;
• export procedures are established;
• powers of attorney are available; and
• operational control can shift rapidly after default.
Court proceedings should be the contingency plan.
They should never be the primary strategy.
Lesson 10: Conduct Regular Enforcement Stress Tests
Every aircraft financing transaction should be subjected to periodic enforcement reviews.
Financiers should ask:
What happens if the airline stops paying tomorrow?
What happens if aircraft continue operating after default?
What happens if local proceedings are initiated?
What happens if shareholders challenge regulatory actions?
What happens if export procedures are delayed?
If clear answers do not exist, the transaction remains exposed.
The FW Aviation matter demonstrates that these risks are not theoretical.
They are real and foreseeable.
What Financiers Should Avoid
Several mistakes should be avoided.
First, financiers should not assume that obtaining a favourable foreign judgment automatically resolves enforcement issues.
Judgments establish rights.
Execution recovers assets.
Second, financiers should not rely exclusively on an Irrevocable Deregistration and Export Request Authorisation.
Additional documentation and operational planning remain essential.
Third, financiers should not wait until default occurs before developing enforcement strategies.
Preparation before default is far more effective than reaction after default.
Fourth, financiers should avoid narrow assignment language that restricts future transfers.
The modern aviation finance market increasingly includes private credit funds, distressed asset investors and alternative financing providers.
Finally, financiers should not underestimate the possibility of parallel local proceedings, regulatory challenges or administrative delays.
These risks should be anticipated from the beginning.
Conclusion
The FW Aviation litigation should not simply be viewed as a creditor victory.
It should be viewed as a practical lesson for the global aviation finance community.
The financiers ultimately recovered the aircraft and obtained substantial monetary judgments. Nevertheless, recovery required years of litigation, multiple proceedings and significant enforcement efforts.
The central lesson is therefore clear.
Success in aircraft finance is not measured by obtaining a judgment.
Success is measured by recovering and exporting the aircraft quickly, lawfully and predictably when default occurs.
For financiers investing in Vietnam, the most effective strategy is not preparing to win a lawsuit.
It is structuring the transaction so that a lawsuit becomes unnecessary.
***
For more information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact the author Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

Introduction
Vietnam is no longer simply an emerging market. It is increasingly becoming one of Asia’s most important digital growth stories.
With a population exceeding 100 million, a rapidly expanding middle class, strong economic growth, increasing foreign direct investment, and one of Southeast Asia’s fastest-growing digital economies, Vietnam has become a strategic destination for international companies seeking long-term growth opportunities.
While much attention focuses on manufacturing, semiconductors, renewable energy, and infrastructure, a quieter transformation is taking place in the country’s digital economy. International companies involved in digital entertainment, gaming technology, software services, market intelligence, consulting, digital marketing, customer acquisition, content management, and technology platforms are increasingly evaluating Vietnam as both a market and an operational hub.
The critical question is no longer whether Vietnam is attractive. The question is how international businesses can establish a legally compliant, commercially effective, and scalable presence.
Vietnam’s Digital Economy Is Entering a New Phase
Vietnam’s digital transformation is accelerating.
The country combines several characteristics rarely found together in a single market:
• A large and youthful population;
• Strong internet and smartphone penetration;
• Rapid adoption of digital services;
• A growing technology workforce;
• Competitive operating costs;
• Increasing integration into global supply chains;
• Extensive participation in international trade agreements.
For international investors, Vietnam offers significantly more than access to domestic consumers.
Many companies increasingly view Vietnam as a platform for:
• Regional business development;
• Customer acquisition;
• Market intelligence gathering;
• Technology support functions;
• Content localization;
• Digital marketing operations;
• Software development support;
• ASEAN expansion strategies.
The result is growing demand for foreign-invested entities capable of serving both local and regional functions.
Market Access Is Often Simpler Than Investors Expect
Many foreign investors assume that establishing operations in Vietnam is a complex undertaking reserved for large multinational corporations.
In reality, Vietnam’s foreign investment framework allows wholly foreign-owned enterprises in numerous service sectors, including marketing services, business consulting, market research, management consulting, and various technology-related activities.
For many international companies, the most effective first step is not a major capital investment but the establishment of a local operating platform capable of supporting market entry, relationship development, and long-term expansion.
Such structures allow investors to build a local presence, recruit talent, engage with customers and partners, and develop market intelligence while maintaining strategic flexibility.
Understanding Vietnam’s Regulatory Approach
One of the most common mistakes foreign investors make is assuming that all digital activities are regulated in the same way.
Vietnam’s regulatory framework is increasingly sophisticated and distinguishes between numerous categories of activities.
Marketing services, consulting services, market research, software development, technology support, and digital business services are generally treated differently from regulated sectors such as financial services, telecommunications, gambling, betting, or other highly regulated industries.
For companies operating internationally in digital entertainment or gaming-related sectors, this distinction is particularly important.
A company may establish a legal presence in Vietnam for marketing, consulting, software development support, business development, or market research purposes while remaining subject to entirely different regulatory considerations if it later seeks to conduct regulated gaming or gambling activities.
Successful market entry therefore begins with correctly defining the intended business model and aligning it with the appropriate licensing framework.
The Importance of Corporate Structuring
Corporate structuring is often overlooked during market entry planning.
Many investors focus primarily on incorporation, while insufficient attention is given to governance, compliance, capital flows, management responsibilities, tax considerations, and future scalability.
The most successful market-entry projects typically begin by asking several strategic questions:
• What functions will be performed in Vietnam?
• Will Vietnam serve only the domestic market or support regional operations?
• How will intellectual property be managed?
• Where will revenue be generated?
• How will personnel be deployed?
• What future expansion opportunities may be contemplated?
The answers to these questions frequently determine whether a structure remains effective over the long term.
A structure designed only for today’s objectives may become inefficient when the business expands.
Digital Infrastructure and Regulatory Modernization
Vietnam’s administrative environment is becoming increasingly digital.
Tax administration, invoicing, corporate reporting, labor compliance, and regulatory filings are progressively transitioning to electronic platforms.
This evolution creates both opportunities and obligations.
Companies that establish appropriate compliance systems from the outset often find Vietnam considerably easier to navigate than expected.
At the same time, investors must appreciate that digitalization does not eliminate compliance requirements. Instead, it increases expectations regarding transparency, reporting accuracy, and corporate governance.
As Vietnam’s regulatory environment matures, compliance capability is increasingly becoming a competitive advantage rather than merely a legal obligation.
Human Capital: Vietnam’s Underappreciated Advantage
While market size often attracts initial attention, many investors ultimately discover that Vietnam’s greatest strength lies elsewhere.
The country possesses a large and increasingly sophisticated workforce with growing expertise in technology, software development, digital marketing, data analytics, customer engagement, and business services.
For international companies, this creates opportunities not only to enter the Vietnamese market but also to establish operational capabilities supporting broader regional activities.
As labor markets tighten in many traditional business centers, Vietnam’s talent pool continues to become an increasingly important strategic asset.
A Phased Approach to Market Entry
Experience consistently demonstrates that the most successful investors rarely attempt to do everything at once.
A phased approach often produces better results.
The first phase focuses on establishing a compliant local platform and building market knowledge.
The second phase emphasizes operational growth, recruitment, business development, and local relationship building.
The third phase involves expansion into additional products, services, technologies, or business lines based upon actual market experience rather than assumptions.
This staged approach allows investors to manage regulatory risk, allocate capital efficiently, and adapt to evolving market conditions.
Looking Beyond Incorporation
Many investors view company establishment as the final objective.
In reality, incorporation is only the beginning.
The true challenge is transforming a legal entity into a functioning business platform capable of supporting growth, compliance, talent development, customer relationships, and long-term investment objectives.
Companies that approach Vietnam strategically tend to focus less on obtaining a registration certificate and more on creating sustainable operational foundations.
Those foundations ultimately determine whether market entry becomes a successful business expansion or merely an administrative exercise.
Conclusion
Vietnam’s attractiveness extends far beyond its economic growth statistics.
The country is increasingly positioning itself as a regional hub for technology, digital services, consulting, business development, marketing, and innovation-driven industries.
For international companies seeking expansion opportunities in Asia, Vietnam offers a compelling combination of market potential, operational capability, digital transformation, and long-term growth prospects.
The companies most likely to succeed are not necessarily those that move the fastest. They are those that understand that market access is not a single regulatory event but a strategic process involving structure, compliance, talent, relationships, and execution.
In that respect, Vietnam’s greatest opportunity may not simply be access to a growing market. It may be the ability to build a platform for growth across an increasingly interconnected region.

***
For more information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact the author Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

Introduction
Non-Fungible Tokens (“NFTs”) have evolved far beyond digital artwork and collectibles. Today, NFTs are used in gaming ecosystems, membership programs, loyalty schemes, intellectual property management, ticketing solutions, tokenized experiences, digital commerce and numerous other business applications.
For several years, NFTs operated in a legal grey area in Vietnam. This changed significantly with the adoption of the Law on Digital Technology Industry (Law No. 71/2025/QH15), which entered into force on 1 January 2026 and introduced Vietnam’s first comprehensive framework recognizing digital assets.
This development has created greater legal certainty for businesses and investors, while simultaneously raising important compliance questions regarding the issuance, sale, marketing and use of NFTs in Vietnam.
This article explains:
• What NFTs are;
• Whether NFTs are legal in Vietnam;
• How NFTs are likely to be classified under Vietnamese law;
• The principal legal risks associated with NFT projects;
• How foreign companies can offer NFTs into Vietnam;
• Practical implementation and compliance considerations; and
• How Vietnam compares with other leading digital asset jurisdictions.

1. What Is an NFT?
An NFT (Non-Fungible Token) is a unique digital token recorded on a blockchain.
Unlike Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, which are interchangeable and identical in value, each NFT is unique and can represent specific ownership rights, access rights or other interests.
NFTs may be linked to:
• Digital artwork;
• Collectibles;
• Gaming assets;
• Membership programs;
• Event tickets;
• Intellectual property rights;
• Digital identities;
• Tokenized experiences; and
• Certain real-world assets.
Importantly, the NFT itself is usually not the underlying asset. Rather, it functions as a blockchain-based certificate evidencing ownership or rights relating to a particular asset or service.
Simply put:
Cryptocurrency functions like digital money.
An NFT functions like a digital certificate of ownership or entitlement.

2. Are NFTs Legal in Vietnam?
The short answer is yes.
Vietnamese law does not prohibit NFTs.
The Law on Digital Technology Industry now formally recognizes digital assets and introduces legal concepts including virtual assets and crypto assets.
Although the law does not specifically define NFTs, NFTs are likely to fall within the broader category of recognized digital assets.
As a result, NFTs today enjoy a significantly clearer legal status than in previous years.
However, legal recognition does not mean complete deregulation.
NFT projects must still be assessed under applicable laws relating to consumer protection, intellectual property, cybersecurity, personal data protection, taxation, anti-money laundering and other relevant legal frameworks.

3. How Are NFTs Likely Classified Under Vietnamese Law?
The law recognizes categories of digital assets, including virtual assets and crypto assets.
Most NFTs are likely to qualify as digital assets because they are:
• Created electronically;
• Recorded on blockchain technology;
• Digitally authenticated;
• Capable of being transferred electronically; and
• Capable of holding economic value.
The exact classification of an NFT will depend on its characteristics and functionality.
Vietnamese regulators are increasingly likely to focus on economic substance rather than technological labels.
Accordingly, the critical legal question is not:
“Is this an NFT?”
The more important question is:
“What rights does this NFT provide?”

4. The Most Important Legal Question: What Rights Does the NFT Grant?
This is where the regulatory analysis begins.
Collectible NFTs
Examples include:
• Digital art;
• Collectibles;
• Gaming skins;
• Event memorabilia.
These generally present relatively lower regulatory risk.
Utility NFTs
Examples include:
• Membership programs;
• Access to exclusive communities;
• Loyalty programs;
• Premium subscriptions.
These remain relatively manageable from a regulatory perspective but may trigger consumer protection and e-commerce requirements.
Investment NFTs
Examples include:
• Profit-sharing rights;
• Revenue participation;
• Dividend-like distributions;
• Investment pooling structures;
• Yield-generating arrangements.
These present substantially higher regulatory risks.
The more an NFT resembles an investment product, the more likely regulators will examine whether it functions similarly to a security, investment contract or other regulated financial product.
The label “NFT” will not determine the legal outcome.
The rights attached to the NFT will.

5. NFTs Are Not Legal Tender
Businesses should clearly distinguish between digital assets and legal tender.
NFTs are not recognized as legal tender in Vietnam and cannot be promoted as official payment substitutes.
This distinction remains important for marketing materials, payment arrangements and platform operations.

6. Can Foreign Companies Sell NFTs into Vietnam?
In many cases, yes.
There is currently no general prohibition preventing foreign issuers from offering NFTs to Vietnamese users on a cross-border basis.
However, foreign issuers should carefully assess:
• NFT functionality;
• Marketing materials;
• Consumer disclosures;
• Payment mechanisms;
• Intellectual property rights;
• Data protection obligations;
• Tax implications; and
• AML considerations.
The more investment-like the NFT becomes, the greater the potential regulatory scrutiny.

7. Practical Legal Issues Frequently Overlooked
Intellectual Property
Key questions include:
• Who owns the underlying artwork?
• What rights are transferred?
• Does the NFT purchaser acquire copyright ownership?
• Is only a limited licence granted?
Many NFT disputes arise because buyers incorrectly assume ownership of the underlying intellectual property.
Consumer Protection
NFT purchasers should receive transparent information regarding:
• Risks;
• Limitations;
• Functionality;
• Transfer restrictions;
• Refund policies;
• Platform dependency.
Data Protection
NFT platforms collecting information from Vietnamese users may need to consider:
• Personal data protection requirements;
• Cybersecurity obligations;
• Cross-border data transfer considerations.
Taxation
NFT transactions may create:
• Corporate income tax implications;
• Value-added tax issues;
• Personal income tax consequences;
• Cross-border tax considerations.
Tax treatment remains highly fact-specific.

8. Practical Compliance Roadmap for NFT Projects
Before launching an NFT project targeting Vietnam, businesses should consider the following steps:
Step 1 – Classify the NFT
Determine whether the NFT is primarily:
• Collectible;
• Utility-based; or
• Investment-oriented.
Step 2 – Review Holder Rights
Identify exactly what NFT holders receive.
Step 3 – Review Marketing Materials
Avoid language implying:
• Guaranteed returns;
• Investment profits;
• Capital appreciation;
• Financial performance.
Step 4 – Review Consumer Disclosures
Ensure clear disclosure of:
• Risks;
• Ownership rights;
• Transfer limitations;
• Technical dependencies.
Step 5 – Review Data Protection Compliance
Assess:
• Data collection;
• Data storage;
• Cross-border transfers;
• User privacy obligations.
Step 6 – Review AML Considerations
Particular attention should be given to:
• High-value transactions;
• Secondary-market trading;
• Anonymous wallet structures.
Step 7 – Obtain Vietnam-Specific Legal Advice
Projects should be reviewed before launch rather than after regulatory issues arise.

9. Key Takeaways for Foreign NFT Issuers
Foreign NFT issuers should remember the following:
Vietnam does not prohibit NFTs
NFTs are generally permissible under Vietnamese law.
Classification matters
The legal treatment depends on what the NFT does, not what it is called.
Avoid investment-style marketing
Statements regarding profits, returns or investment opportunities should be carefully reviewed.
Clarify ownership rights
Buyers should clearly understand what rights are acquired.
Review consumer protection obligations
Transparent disclosures reduce legal risk.
Assess cybersecurity and data protection obligations
NFT platforms often collect substantial user information.
Consider AML and tax implications early
Compliance should be integrated from the start.
Focus on substance
The strongest NFT projects are legally structured around transparency and functionality rather than speculation.

10. Vietnam Compared with Singapore, Hong Kong and the UAE
Vietnam
Vietnam has recently recognized digital assets and is developing a comprehensive regulatory framework.
Significant opportunities exist, but implementation regulations are still evolving.
Singapore
Singapore adopts a sophisticated activity-based approach.
A simple collectible NFT may fall outside financial regulation, while investment-style NFTs may trigger securities or capital markets regulation.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong focuses heavily on investor protection and virtual asset regulation.
NFTs linked to investment activities may fall within securities or collective investment scheme frameworks.
United Arab Emirates
The UAE has developed one of the world’s most sophisticated virtual asset ecosystems.
Regulators in Dubai and Abu Dhabi provide structured licensing frameworks while encouraging innovation.
For serious NFT businesses seeking regulatory certainty, the UAE currently offers one of the most advanced environments globally.

Conclusion
Vietnam has entered a new chapter in the regulation of digital assets.
For the first time, the Law on Digital Technology Industry provides formal legal recognition of digital assets and establishes the foundation for a broader digital asset ecosystem. While NFTs are not specifically defined or regulated as a separate asset class, they are no longer operating in a complete legal vacuum. Instead, they must now be analyzed within Vietnam’s emerging framework governing virtual assets, crypto assets and other digital assets.
For businesses, investors and NFT issuers, the most important lesson is straightforward:
The legal analysis does not begin with the question “Is this an NFT?”
The more important question is:
“What rights does this NFT provide to its holder?”
A digital artwork NFT, a membership NFT, a gaming NFT and a profit-sharing NFT may all use identical blockchain technology while attracting very different regulatory treatment. Vietnamese authorities, like regulators in leading jurisdictions around the world, are increasingly focusing on economic substance rather than technological form.
Foreign issuers should therefore avoid viewing Vietnam merely as a technological market. Success in Vietnam requires careful consideration of consumer protection, intellectual property rights, marketing practices, data protection obligations, tax implications, anti-money laundering requirements and the evolving digital asset framework.
At the same time, businesses should recognize the opportunities. Vietnam is one of Southeast Asia’s most dynamic digital economies, with a young technology-oriented population, increasing blockchain adoption and a government that has now taken the important step of formally recognizing digital assets. This creates significant potential for NFT projects involving digital collectibles, gaming ecosystems, memberships, loyalty programs, tokenized experiences and other innovative use cases.
Nevertheless, caution remains essential. The Digital Technology Industry Law is only the beginning of the regulatory journey. Additional implementing decrees, regulations and supervisory guidance are expected over the coming years. Businesses entering the Vietnamese market today should therefore adopt a compliance-first strategy that allows flexibility as the regulatory framework continues to evolve.
In practical terms, the safest approach for NFT issuers remains:
1. Clearly identify the rights attached to the NFT.
2. Avoid creating investment-return expectations unless specifically structured and advised upon.
3. Implement robust consumer disclosures.
4. Review intellectual property ownership and licensing arrangements.
5. Assess data protection and cybersecurity obligations.
6. Consider tax and AML implications from the outset.
7. Obtain Vietnam-specific legal advice before launch.
Vietnam’s digital asset market is moving from uncertainty toward regulation. Those who focus on transparency, compliance and responsible innovation will be best positioned to benefit from the opportunities created by this transition.
The future of NFTs in Vietnam will ultimately be shaped not by the technology itself, but by how effectively businesses align innovation with legal compliance, consumer trust and regulatory expectations. For market participants willing to take that approach, Vietnam represents one of the most promising emerging digital asset markets in Asia.

***
For more information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact the author Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

Mehr als 50 Geschäftssektoren erfordern keine vorherige Genehmigung mehr – eine der bedeutendsten Reformen des Marktzugangs in Vietnam seit Jahren.
Am 15. Mai 2026 erließ die vietnamesische Regierung die Resolution Nr. 66.17/2026/NQ-CP („Resolution 66.17“), die eine umfassende Reform des Investitions- und Geschäftslizenzierungsrahmens einführt. Wirksam vom 1. Juli 2026 bis zum 28. Februar 2027 reduziert die Resolution die Zahl der Geschäftssektoren mit bedingten Investitions- und Geschäftsvoraussetzungen von 198 auf 142.
Das bedeutet, dass 56 Geschäftssektoren von der Liste der bedingten Geschäftsfelder gestrichen wurden – ein wesentlicher Schritt hin zu einem offeneren, transparenteren und investorenfreundlicheren Geschäftsumfeld.
Die wichtigste Veränderung: Größere Rechtssicherheit für Investoren
Während die Reduzierung der Lizenzverfahren begrüßenswert ist, liegt der bedeutendste Vorteil für Investoren in etwas noch Wertvollerem: Rechtssicherheit.
Im traditionellen System der bedingten Geschäftsfelder mussten Investoren häufig Genehmigungen, Erlaubnisse oder Lizenzen einholen, bevor sie ihre Tätigkeit aufnehmen konnten. In der Praxis führte dies oft zu langwierigen Prüfverfahren und unterschiedlichen Auslegungen durch verschiedene Behörden.
Mit der Streichung dieser Sektoren von der Liste der bedingten Geschäftsfelder verändert Vietnam seinen regulatorischen Ansatz grundlegend.
Das neue Prinzip ist einfach:
• Bleibt eine Geschäftstätigkeit bedingt, prüfen die Behörden, ob alle gesetzlichen Voraussetzungen erfüllt sind, bevor eine Lizenz erteilt wird.
• Wurde eine Geschäftstätigkeit von der Liste gestrichen, müssen Investoren keine vorherige Genehmigung mehr auf Grundlage besonderer Geschäftsvoraussetzungen einholen.
• Behörden können keinen weitreichenden Ermessensspielraum mehr bei der Marktzulassung dieser Sektoren ausüben.
• Investoren können ihre Geschäftstätigkeit aufnehmen, sofern sie die geltenden Gesetze, technischen Standards und Vorschriften einhalten.
Mit anderen Worten: Die Reform verschiebt Vietnam von einem System der administrativen Genehmigung hin zu einem System, das auf Rechtskonformität und nachträglicher Kontrolle basiert.
Für Investoren bedeutet dies ein sehr hohes Maß an Rechtssicherheit. Unternehmen können Investitionen, Budgets, Personalplanung und Markteintrittsstrategien mit größerem Vertrauen planen, da kommerzielle Aktivitäten nun primär durch transparente gesetzliche Anforderungen und nicht durch Ermessensentscheidungen bei der Lizenzvergabe geregelt sind.
Vietnam bewegt sich von „Vorabgenehmigung“ zu „Nachkontrolle“
Resolution 66.17 spiegelt das übergeordnete Ziel der Regierung wider, den regulatorischen Rahmen Vietnams zu modernisieren.
Das traditionelle Modell beruhte stark auf:
• Vorabregistrierung,
• vorherigen Genehmigungen,
• Lizenzverfahren und
• administrativer Prüfung vor Aufnahme der Geschäftstätigkeit.
Der neue Ansatz betont zunehmend:
• Selbstkonformität der Unternehmen,
• Marktzugang ohne unnötige Genehmigungen,
• nachträgliche Kontrolle und Prüfung sowie
• Durchsetzung über technische Vorschriften und Standards.
Dieses Modell ist in reiferen Marktwirtschaften üblich und wird von internationalen Investoren allgemein als vorhersehbarer, effizienter und unternehmensfreundlicher angesehen.
Wichtige Geschäftssektoren, die von der Liste der bedingten Geschäftsfelder gestrichen wurden
Unter den 56 Sektoren, die von der Regulierung bedingter Geschäftsfelder entfernt wurden, befinden sich:
• Betrieb und Management von Seehäfen;
• Seetransportdienste;
• Alkoholische Getränke;
• Versicherungsagentur, Versicherungsbrokerage und Rückversicherungsaktivitäten;
• Buchhaltungsdienste;
• Devisendienstleistungen durch Nicht-Kreditinstitute;
• Beratungsdienste zur Flächennutzungsplanung;
• Elektronische Spieleaktivitäten (ausgenommen Gewinnspiele für Ausländer und bestimmte Online-Spiele);
• Produktion und Vertrieb von Ton- und Videoaufnahmen von Musik-, Tanz- und Theateraufführungen;
• Handel mit bestimmten Chemikalien sowie Haushalts-/medizinischen Insektiziden und Bakteriziden;
• Bau und Modifikation von Fischereifahrzeugen;
• Handel mit Geräten zur Störung mobiler Kommunikationssignale;
• Bereitstellung von Informationsinhalten über Telekommunikationsnetze und das Internet;
• Handel mit unbemannten Fluggeräten, Flugzeugmotoren, Propellern und zugehöriger Ausrüstung.
Die Streichung dieser Sektoren von der Liste der bedingten Geschäftsfelder wird voraussichtlich den Marktzugang erheblich verbessern und die administrativen Belastungen sowohl für inländische als auch für ausländische Investoren reduzieren.
Reduzierte Kosten und schnellerer Markteintritt
Investoren, die in diesen Sektoren tätig sind, können erwarten:
• Schnellere Projektumsetzung;
• Geringere Lizenzierungs- und Compliance-Kosten;
• Kürzere Zeiträume für den Markteintritt;
• Größere Vorhersehbarkeit in der Geschäftsplanung;
• Weniger administrative Interaktionen mit Behörden;
• Verbesserte Investitionssicherheit.
Diese Vorteile sind besonders wichtig für ausländische Investoren, die Lizenzierungsverzögerungen und behördliches Ermessen häufig als zentrale Herausforderungen beim Eintritt in Schwellenmärkte identifiziert haben.
Einhaltung bleibt wesentlich
Die Reform bedeutet keine Deregulierung.
Unternehmen müssen weiterhin alle geltenden:
• Gesetze und Vorschriften,
• technischen Standards,
• branchenspezifischen Anforderungen,
• Sicherheitsvorschriften sowie
• umwelt- und betriebsbezogenen Verpflichtungen einhalten.
Die Behörden werden zunehmend auf nachträgliche Kontrollen und Prüfmechanismen zurückgreifen, um die Einhaltung zu überwachen. Die zuständigen Ministerien und Regierungsbehörden werden voraussichtlich zusätzliche technische Vorschriften und Standards für die neu liberalisierten Sektoren erlassen. Unternehmen, die diese Anforderungen nicht erfüllen, können weiterhin mit erheblichen Verwaltungsstrafen, Betriebsaussetzungen oder anderen Durchsetzungsmaßnahmen rechnen.
Ein starkes Signal an internationale Investoren
Resolution 66.17 sendet eine klare Botschaft: Vietnam verpflichtet sich, das Investitionsklima zu verbessern und unnötige administrative Hürden abzubauen.
Noch wichtiger ist, dass die Reform einen der von internationalen Investoren am meisten geschätzten Faktoren stärkt: Rechtssicherheit.
Wenn regulatorische Anforderungen klar und objektiv sind und die Behörden nur begrenzten Ermessensspielraum haben, sobald diese Anforderungen erfüllt sind, können Investoren Entscheidungen mit größerem Vertrauen und geringerem regulatorischen Risiko treffen.
Die Reduzierung der bedingten Geschäftsfelder von 198 auf 142 ist daher nicht nur eine Übung zur administrativen Vereinfachung. Sie stellt einen bedeutenden Schritt hin zu einem transparenteren, vorhersehbareren und regelbasierten Geschäftsumfeld dar – eines, das Vietnams Attraktivität als regionales Investitionsziel weiter stärken dürfte.
***
Für weitere Informationen wenden Sie sich bitte an den Autor Dr. Oliver Massmann unter omassmann@duanemorris.com. Dr. Oliver Massmann ist Generaldirektor von Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.

More Than 50 Business Sectors No Longer Require Prior Licensing Approval – One of Vietnam’s Most Significant Market Access Reforms in Years
On 15 May 2026, the Government of Vietnam issued Resolution No. 66.17/2026/NQ-CP (“Resolution 66.17”), introducing a major reform of Vietnam’s investment and business licensing framework. Effective from 1 July 2026 until 28 February 2027, the Resolution significantly reduces the number of business sectors subject to conditional investment and business requirements from 198 sectors to 142 sectors.
This means that 56 business sectors have been removed from the list of conditional business lines, marking a substantial step towards a more open, transparent and investor-friendly business environment.
The Most Important Change: Greater Legal Certainty for Investors
While the reduction in licensing procedures is welcome, the most significant benefit for investors is something even more valuable:
Legal Certainty.
Under Vietnam’s traditional conditional business regime, investors frequently had to obtain approvals, permits or licenses before commencing operations. In practice, this often resulted in lengthy review processes and varying interpretations by different authorities.
By removing these sectors from the list of conditional business lines, Vietnam is fundamentally changing the regulatory approach.
The new principle is simple:
• If a business activity remains conditional, authorities may review whether all statutory conditions have been satisfied before issuing a license.
• If a business activity has been removed from the conditional business list, investors no longer need to seek prior approval based on special business conditions.
• Authorities can no longer exercise broad administrative discretion over market entry for these sectors.
• Investors can proceed with their business activities provided they comply with applicable laws, technical standards and regulations.
In other words, the reform shifts Vietnam from a system of administrative permission to a system based on legal compliance and post-inspection.
For investors, this represents a very high level of legal certainty. Businesses can now plan investments, budgets, staffing and market entry strategies with greater confidence, knowing that commercial activities are governed primarily by transparent legal requirements rather than discretionary licensing decisions.
Vietnam Moves from “Pre-Approval” to “Post-Inspection”
Resolution 66.17 reflects the Government’s broader objective of modernizing Vietnam’s regulatory framework.
The traditional model relied heavily on:
• Pre-registration;
• Prior approvals;
• Licensing procedures; and
• Administrative review before business commencement.
The new approach increasingly emphasizes:
• Self-compliance by businesses;
• Market access without unnecessary approvals;
• Post-inspection and post-audit supervision; and
• Enforcement through technical regulations and standards.
This model is commonly found in more mature market economies and is generally viewed by international investors as more predictable, efficient and business-friendly.
Key Business Sectors Removed from the Conditional Business List
Among the 56 sectors removed from conditional business regulation are:
• Seaport operation and management services;
• Sea transportation services;
• Alcoholic beverage business;
• Insurance agency, insurance brokerage and reinsurance activities;
• Accounting services;
• Foreign exchange services provided by non-credit institutions;
• Land-use planning consultancy services;
• Electronic gaming activities (excluding prize-winning games for foreigners and certain online gaming activities);
• Production and distribution of audio and video recordings of music, dance and theatrical performances;
• Trading in certain chemicals and household/medical insecticides and bactericides;
• Construction and modification of fishing vessels;
• Trading in mobile communication signal jamming devices;
• Information content services provided through telecommunications networks and the internet;
• Trading in unmanned aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers and related equipment.
The removal of these sectors from the conditional business list is expected to significantly improve market accessibility and reduce administrative burdens for both domestic and foreign investors.
Reduced Costs and Faster Market Entry
Investors operating in these sectors can expect:
• Faster project implementation;
• Reduced licensing and compliance costs;
• Shorter timelines for market entry;
• Greater predictability in business planning;
• Reduced administrative interactions with authorities; and
• Improved investment certainty.
These benefits are particularly important for foreign investors, who have often identified licensing delays and administrative discretion as key challenges when entering emerging markets.
Compliance Remains Essential
The reform does not mean deregulation.
Businesses must continue to comply with all applicable:
• Laws and regulations;
• Technical standards;
• Industry-specific requirements;
• Safety regulations; and
• Environmental and operational obligations.
Authorities will increasingly rely on post-inspection and post-audit mechanisms to monitor compliance.
Relevant ministries and government agencies are expected to issue additional technical regulations and standards governing the newly liberalized sectors. Businesses that fail to comply with these requirements may still face substantial administrative penalties, suspension of operations or other enforcement measures.
A Strong Signal to International Investors
Resolution 66.17 sends a clear message that Vietnam is committed to improving its investment climate and reducing unnecessary administrative barriers.
More importantly, the reform enhances one of the factors most valued by international investors: legal certainty.
When regulatory requirements are clear and objective, and when authorities have limited discretion once those requirements are met, investors can make decisions with greater confidence and lower regulatory risk.
The reduction of conditional business sectors from 198 to 142 is therefore not merely an administrative simplification exercise. It represents a meaningful shift towards a more transparent, predictable and rules-based business environment—one that should further strengthen Vietnam’s attractiveness as a regional investment destination.
***
For more information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact the author Dr. Oliver Massmann under omassmann@duanemorris.com. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.