This is one of several new provisions in Decree 296/2025, which governs the enforcement of administrative penalty decisions. It will take effect on 1/1/2026, replacing Decree 166/2013 after 12 years of application.

With significant changes, the new decree aims to remove bottlenecks in enforcement, ensuring fairness and financial transparency.

The new decree permits the flexible and simultaneous application of enforcement measures, departing from the rigid sequence mandated by current regulations.

Under Decree 166, enforcement agencies had to strictly follow a specific order of measures: first, deducting wages, income, or funds from accounts; only if these were insufficient could assets be seized, followed by other measures. This sequential approach inadvertently created loopholes, allowing violators to dissipate assets while awaiting enforcement.

Decree 296 eliminates this barrier. Starting in 2026, authorized individuals may apply one or more enforcement measures concurrently if a single measure is deemed insufficient.

Specifically, four enforcement measures remain, but without the need for sequential execution. These include: deducting a portion of wages or income; deducting funds from accounts; seizing assets equivalent to the fine amount for auction; and recovering funds or assets from the penalized party held by other individuals or organizations, particularly when the violator intentionally dissipates assets after the violation.

Seizing assets, deducting funds from family members if common assets are insufficient

Compared to current regulations, Decree 296 adds four new groups subject to enforcement measures: households, business households, cooperative groups, and residential communities. Previous regulations lacked clear provisions for handling members' assets when the common assets of a group (such as cooperative groups or households) were insufficient to fulfill an enforcement decision. This ambiguity could lead to members transferring common assets into their private accounts, then declaring the household or business household devoid of assets to evade fines.

The new regulation establishes a clear principle: common assets are prioritized for enforcement; if these are insufficient, the private assets of individual members will be pursued. This provision reinforces the responsibility of members for collective violations.

For business households and households, if assets used for business or common household assets are insufficient, the head of the household and its members are personally liable with their private assets.

For cooperative groups, members are jointly liable with their private assets, either in proportion to their contributions or as stipulated in their cooperation agreement.

Notably, the new decree imposes strict rules on state agencies, armed forces units, political organizations, or armed units subject to enforcement measures: the use of state budgets to pay fines is absolutely prohibited.

These units must secure funds from other legal revenue sources to comply with enforcement decisions. This aims to prevent "money shifting" between state accounts and enhance accountability for leaders of violating agencies.

Decree 166 currently only stipulates that if such agencies or units are subject to asset deduction or seizure, the funds are to be deducted from the agency's, unit's, or organization's own budget.

Recovering funds from foreign bank accounts to limit asset dissipation

Decree 166 provided a general regulation stating that if a violator fails to pay fines, remedy consequences, or fully settle enforcement fees, funds deposited "at credit institutions in Vietnam" would be deducted.

The lack of specific mention of particular types of financial organizations could limit the effectiveness of this measure, especially when violators move funds through international financial channels or deposit them with state agencies.

Decree 296 provides a clearer definition, specifying that deductible deposits include funds "in accounts or deposits at credit institutions, the State Treasury, and foreign bank branches in Vietnam."

This ensures that authorities have a comprehensive legal basis for enforcement, even if the violating party holds accounts with foreign banks or if units and organizations have deposit accounts with the State Treasury, thereby preventing evasion through specific account types.

Under this enforcement measure, the party subject to enforcement is generally responsible for providing account information for fund deduction. However, Decree 166 lacked strict deadlines to compel relevant parties to promptly respond with this information.

This omission inadvertently led to delays in information provision, allowing violators to exploit this loophole by withdrawing or transferring funds to other accounts to dissipate assets before an enforcement order could be issued.

The new regulation introduces strict "time discipline" to prevent such actions. Specifically, individuals or organizations subject to account fund deduction must provide account information within three days of a request from authorities.

Decree 296 further stipulates that if account information for the penalized party is unavailable, authorities have the right to request this information from credit institutions (banks) or the State Treasury.

Quantifying this requirement with a specific "three working days" deadline, instead of vague qualitative phrases, accelerates the processing time. It transforms the responsibility to cooperate into a time-bound administrative obligation, enabling law enforcement agencies to "block" fund flows promptly and increase the rate of fine recovery for the state budget.

An administrative violation is a culpable act committed by an individual or organization that breaches state management laws, is not a criminal offense, and is subject to administrative penalties as prescribed by law.

Individuals aged 14 to under 16 years are subject to administrative penalties for intentional violations. Individuals aged 16 years and older are subject to administrative penalties for all administrative violations (both unintentional and intentional).

Members of the People's Army and People's Public Security forces who commit administrative violations are treated the same as other citizens.

Organizations are subject to administrative penalties for all administrative violations they cause.

Foreign individuals and organizations committing administrative violations within Vietnam's territory are subject to administrative penalties under Vietnamese law.

The forms of administrative penalties are: warning; fines; temporary revocation of licenses or practice certificates or temporary suspension of operations; confiscation of exhibits and means used for administrative violations; expulsion.

Law on Handling Administrative Violations

Hai Thu