Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security has prepared a draft amended Criminal Code (“Draft”), expected to move through an accelerated legislative process in 2026. For rights holders and IPR owners, the Draft is notable because it may reshape criminal enforcement against counterfeiting, copyright piracy and other serious IP infringement, especially where conduct is organized, online, cross-border or commercially significant.

For IP owners and businesses exposed to infringement risk, the Draft is most relevant in four respects:

Higher thresholds and penalties: The Draft raises monetary thresholds and sanctions across many economic and IP-related offenses, including thresholds based on counterfeit goods value, illicit gains and damage caused. This may narrow criminal enforcement in smaller matters, but support stronger action in serious, organized or high-value cases.

Clearer focus on online infringement: The Draft expressly recognizes conduct involving computer networks, telecommunications networks, electronic means, e-commerce platforms, online accounts and cross-border activity. This is important for rights holders dealing with social commerce, livestreaming, marketplace accounts, streaming piracy and other digital channels.

Greater importance of evidence: Criminal cases are likely to require stronger proof of scale, value, illicit gains, damage, digital reach, repeat conduct and corporate involvement. Rights holders should prepare evidence packages that go beyond screenshots and include valuation, traffic, payment, logistics and account data where available.

Broader coverage of industrial property infringement: Proposed changes to Article 226 may extend criminal exposure beyond counterfeit trademark and geographical indication goods to certain conduct involving patents, utility solutions, industrial designs, technical data, industrial design files, technical drawings and trade secrets.

1. Thresholds may rise, making case selection more important

• The Draft reflects a policy choice to reserve criminal liability for more serious economic misconduct. For IP owners, this means smaller or evidentially weak cases may be harder to criminalize, while cases involving significant value, organized activity, repeat conduct or public health risk may attract stronger enforcement attention.
• The Draft also proposes new general principles: (i) where practical application of the law could lead either to criminal or non-criminal treatment, criminal liability should not be applied; and (ii) where criminal treatment is necessary, priority should be given to economic remediation before further sanctions are considered.

2. Companies and online operators may face clearer criminal exposure

• The Draft maintains criminal liability for commercial legal entities for key IP-related offenses and raises the minimum fine for such entities. This is relevant where counterfeiting or piracy is conducted through companies, distributors, logistics providers, online shops or other business vehicles.
• Available sanctions may include fines, temporary or permanent suspension, business restrictions, fundraising bans and judicial measures. The Draft also reinforces economic remediation, including possible exemption from punishment where a commercial legal entity fully remedies consequences and compensates damage.

3. Online and platform-based infringement receives stronger treatment

• A practical development is the Draft’s express treatment of infringement using computer networks, telecommunications networks, electronic means, e-commerce platforms, online accounts and cross-border channels. This may help authorities treat sophisticated online infringement as serious criminal conduct, rather than only as a support fact for offline infringement.

4. Earlier intervention may be possible in health-sensitive counterfeit cases

• The Draft appears to expand criminal liability for preparation to commit certain counterfeit food and counterfeit medicine offenses. This could allow earlier intervention where counterfeit packaging, labels, ingredients, molds, production equipment or distribution arrangements are discovered before products reach consumers.

5. Copyright piracy provisions may better capture digital conduct

• Article 225 remains the main criminal offense for copyright and related rights infringement. The Draft appears to better capture digital piracy, including unauthorized copying, electronic distribution, public performance, broadcasting, transmission and communication of works to the public through technical means and online environments.
• This is particularly relevant to media, entertainment, software, publishing, gaming, sports broadcasting and streaming businesses. Rights holders should build evidence around traffic, downloads, streams, subscription revenue, advertising revenue, server and domain data, payment flows and platform monetization.
• The Draft retains criminal thresholds based on commercial scale, illicit gains, damages and infringing goods value, with relevant monetary thresholds ranging from VND 50 million to VND 500 million depending on the applicable criterion and tier. It also increases exposure for individuals and commercial legal entities, including higher fines.

6. Industrial property enforcement may broaden beyond counterfeit marks

• The proposed amendment to Article 226 is one of the most significant IP-related changes. It may move the provision closer to a broader industrial property crime framework by covering not only counterfeit trademark and geographical indication goods, but also certain conduct involving patents, utility solutions, industrial designs, technical data, industrial design files, technical drawings and trade secrets.
• The Draft also expressly targets online sales, social media and e-commerce activity, as well as websites, domain names and social media accounts that cause confusion with protected trademarks or geographical indications. This could help rights holders act against brand-confusing digital infrastructure used to advertise or monetize infringing goods.

The Draft signals a practical recalibration of Vietnam’s criminal IP enforcement regime: less emphasis on minor or ambiguous economic conduct, and stronger tools for serious, organized, large-scale, digital and health-sensitive infringement.

For rights holders and IPR owners, the main takeaway is that criminal enforcement may remain powerful, but will require better preparation. Evidence of scale, value, illicit gains, damage, online reach, repeat conduct and corporate involvement will be critical.

Businesses should monitor the legislative process and review their enforcement strategies, evidence collection practices and online monitoring programs once the final text is adopted.

Hoa Tran, Partner, Dung Pham, Special Counsel, Son Tuan Do, Senior Associate, Alison Nguyen, Associate, have co-authored this legal update.

© 2026 BMVN International LLC. All rights reserved. BMVN International LLC is in strategic alliance with Baker & McKenzie (Vietnam) Ltd., a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a “partner” means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an “office” means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.