Scenario: the internet still carries adverts for «professional debt collection companies, guaranteed recovery, fee by percentage». But since 1 January 2021 one legal fact has changed this entire market: debt collection services are a prohibited business line in Vietnam. A company hiring such a service does not just waste the fee — it can inherit liability from the collector’s conduct.
The prohibition from 1 January 2021 — and its current status
The Law on Investment 61/2020/QH14 placed «debt collection services» on the list of prohibited business lines with effect from 1 January 2021; companies previously registered for this line had to cease hired collection activity. The result: since 2021 there has been no lawful model of a «debt collection agency» charging recovery-percentage fees as a standalone service industry.
A currency note at the writing date of 20 October 2026: Law 61/2020 has been replaced by the Law on Investment 143/2025/QH15 from 1 March 2026. Before signing any «debt recovery support» arrangement, a business must check the prohibited list under the new law rather than rely on old web articles — but the consistent policy direction is that commercial hired collection remains outside the legal perimeter, and every «guaranteed recovery» pitch deserves suspicion.
Who may lawfully collect on a creditor’s behalf?
- Lawyers and law-practising organisations: acting under authorisation to negotiate, send demand letters, sue and join enforcement — the mainstream lawful replacement for «hired collection»;
- Authorised persons under an authorisation contract (Article 562 Civil Code 2015): the creditor’s staff or partners may deal with the debtor within the law — authorisation for lawful acts, not a blank cheque for results;
- Assignment of the claim (Article 365 Civil Code 2015): selling the debt outright — the buyer collects as the new creditor, entirely different from hiring a service;
- Competent State bodies: courts, arbitration and enforcement agencies — the only lawful coercive channel.
The red line: when collection becomes a crime
Whether the creditor collects itself or through an authorised person, threats of violence, intimidation, invading a home, detaining persons or seizing property unlawfully to force payment all leave civil territory — the classic exposure is extortion under Article 170 of the Penal Code 100/2015/QH13, plus offences against health and honour. A creditor hiring a third party to do these things is not outside the picture: a «recovery khoan» arrangement coupled with unlawful methods can draw the creditor into the investigation as an accomplice or organiser.
Safety rules for working with any «recovery support» provider: the contract must specify lawful methods only (letters, negotiation, litigation), prohibit threats, surveillance and extra-legal pressure — and verify the provider’s practising status (lawyer’s card, law firm’s operation registration) before handing over any file.
Frequently asked questions
Is hiring a debt collection agency lawful today?
There is no lawful model left for that service: debt collection business has been prohibited since 1 January 2021 under the Law on Investment 2020. Law 143/2025/QH15 replaced the old law from 1 March 2026 — check the current prohibited list, but «guaranteed hired recovery» pitches remain outside the lawful frame.
Can a creditor authorise someone else to collect?
Yes, by an authorisation contract under Article 562 Civil Code 2015, for lawful tasks: sending notices, negotiating, dealing with authorities and litigating as representative. Authorisation does not launder threats or extra-legal coercion.
What replaces hired collection effectively?
Three mainstream channels: instruct lawyers or a law firm to represent you in recovery and litigation; assign the claim under Article 365 Civil Code to a buyer who collects as creditor; and go straight into process — sue, seek interim measures, enforce.
If the collector uses threats, is the creditor liable too?
There is real risk. If the creditor knew, agreed to, or benefited from unlawful collection methods (threats and intimidation — extortion territory under Article 170 Penal Code), the creditor can face criminal scrutiny in its own role, besides civil damage and reputational harm.
Related articles
- Scenario: If Sued in Vietnam, What Should FDI Enterprises Do?
- Scenario: If a Partner Defaults, How to Recover Debts?
- Robbery or Assault in Vietnam: Reporting and Compensation
- Scammed by a Business Partner (Personal Deals): Gathering Evidence
- Defamation on Social Media in Vietnam
This legal analysis has been verified against current Vietnamese regulations and cross-border FDI transaction practices by the attorneys at FLAT LAW FIRM.
