Criminal Handling of Counterfeit Goods in Vietnam: Prosecution Thresholds and Crime Reporting usually arises against the background where an organised network manufactures and trades counterfeits of the company’s mark at scale, and its operators treat administrative fines simply as a cost of doing business.
Rather than a generic overview, the content below follows criminal handling of counterfeit goods across four layers: the governing instruments, their application to a real file, an implementation sequence that does not get sent back, and answers to the questions clients ask most about criminal handling of counterfeit goods.
The legal framework governing criminal handling of counterfeit goods
The criminal red line of criminal handling of counterfeit goods is drawn by Article 226 of the Penal Code 100/2015/QH13 (as amended in 2017) on commercial-scale infringement of industrial property rights, and every calculation about criminal handling of counterfeit goods must sit beside that line because Article 226 of the Penal Code imposes criminal liability for infringing industrial property rights in trademarks and geographical indications where the act is on a commercial scale with counterfeit goods reaching the statutory value threshold, so a criminal report must prove forgery, commercial scale and shipment value together rather than merely showing imitations were sold Experience with criminal handling of counterfeit goods shows real time is lost not at signing but at clarifying the issue of when does producing or trading counterfeit goods attract criminal liability after filing, so investing in clarifying it at the start is always cheaper than repairing it later.
When rights are infringed, the holder has three tiers of tools: self-protection under Article 198, civil action under Article 202 and border control under Articles 216 to 218 of the Law on Intellectual Property, plus the ten-day suspension of clearance extendable by up to twenty more under Articles 73 and 76 of the Law on Customs 54/2014/QH13, and criminal handling of counterfeit goods is built on that toolkit where an organised network manufactures and trades counterfeits of the company’s mark at scale, and its operators treat administrative fines simply as a cost of doing business A quick test for criminal handling of counterfeit goods is placing the draft document beside the current licence and asking what in the issue of what is the value threshold of counterfeit goods for prosecution that licence does not yet cover, because every gap will be pointed out by the receiving authority.
The Law on Intellectual Property No. 50/2005/QH11 (as amended in 2009, 2019, 2022 and by Law 131/2025/QH15) together with Decree 65/2023/ND-CP is the framework for establishing and enforcing rights in criminal handling of counterfeit goods, and within it the principle to hold is that filing a criminal report when the file covers only a few small retail points leads investigators to find the commercial-scale element unmet and return the case to administrative handling, while tipping off the main network to disperse its warehouse Partners and banks usually read criminal handling of counterfeit goods through their own lens before the state authority does, and their first question almost always circles around to which authority is a counterfeit-goods crime reported, and what must the dossier contain, so a written answer prepared in advance is not optional.
Analysing the questions investors ask around criminal handling of counterfeit goods
The question of when does producing or trading counterfeit goods attract criminal liability is where the hidden cost of criminal handling of counterfeit goods usually sits, because handling it superficially spawns another round of registration amendments and explanations that no project team budgeted for at the start. Analysing the question of what is the value threshold of counterfeit goods for prosecution requires separating what the law states clearly from what still depends on the local handling authority’s practice, because mixing the two is the source of most wrong decisions around criminal handling of counterfeit goods.
The question of to which authority is a counterfeit-goods crime reported, and what must the dossier contain deserves its own internal paper for criminal handling of counterfeit goods, stating the basis, the responsible owner and the completion mark, instead of an oral answer in a meeting that each person remembers differently. On the question of how long does the process from report to prosecution take, the answer cannot be separated from the specific file of criminal handling of counterfeit goods, because the same issue placed in two companies with different licences and tax histories yields two different handling conclusions.
Placing criminal handling of counterfeit goods beside a similar completed deal shows the decisive difference rarely lies in the parties’ will, but in whether the core handling principle, namely that Article 226 of the Penal Code imposes criminal liability for infringing industrial property rights in trademarks and geographical indications where the act is on a commercial scale with counterfeit goods reaching the statutory value threshold, so a criminal report must prove forgery, commercial scale and shipment value together rather than merely showing imitations were sold, was respected or skipped from the start.
A safe implementation sequence for criminal handling of counterfeit goods
- Review the complete original file relating to criminal handling of counterfeit goods, including signed contracts, licences in force, accounting books and obligations still open, to fix the legal picture before committing to anything towards a third party.
- Test the plan for criminal handling of counterfeit goods against the company charter, the current enterprise registration certificate and investment registration certificate, recording clearly which contents need internal approval or registration adjustment before implementation.
- Settle in advance the open issues clients ask about most around criminal handling of counterfeit goods, in particular to which authority is a counterfeit-goods crime reported, and what must the dossier contain, through a clear written agreement or resolution instead of leaving them to each party’s default reading when a dispute erupts.
- Carry out the registrations and change notifications relating to criminal handling of counterfeit goods at the correct authority in their proper dependent order, and update the bank holding the investment capital account if the deal’s cash flows pass through it.
- Close out criminal handling of counterfeit goods with a completion file under a handover record, containing the approved registration documents, tax vouchers and a list of obligations surviving the transaction, retained for the statutory period for later inspections.
Risks to anticipate in criminal handling of counterfeit goods
The most distinctive risk of criminal handling of counterfeit goods lies in the following point. Filing a criminal report when the file covers only a few small retail points leads investigators to find the commercial-scale element unmet and return the case to administrative handling, while tipping off the main network to disperse its warehouse. Another layer of risk in criminal handling of counterfeit goods comes from time: state procedures keep their own rhythm that a deal timetable cannot command, and a company forcing criminal handling of counterfeit goods faster than that rhythm usually pays with returned files or commitments signed before the basis was ready. A further risk of criminal handling of counterfeit goods is the chain effect from the issue of what is the value threshold of counterfeit goods for prosecution: one unsettled point at the head of the chain amplifies into registration delay, tax figure discrepancies and lost partner confidence at its end.
criminal handling of counterfeit goods does not end on the signing date or the date an amended certificate issues, but only when the last tax, labour and reporting duty arising from it has been closed with vouchers. The investor should therefore keep one accountable owner for criminal handling of counterfeit goods until that final closing point is confirmed, instead of disbanding the project team right after formal completion.
Frequently asked questions: criminal handling of counterfeit goods
When does producing or trading counterfeit goods attract criminal liability?
The question of when does producing or trading counterfeit goods attract criminal liability is usually asked by clients at the end of preparing criminal handling of counterfeit goods, yet experience shows it should be answered at the beginning, because its answer changes how every remaining step is arranged. More specifically, Article 226 of the Penal Code imposes criminal liability for infringing industrial property rights in trademarks and geographical indications where the act is on a commercial scale with counterfeit goods reaching the statutory value threshold, so a criminal report must prove forgery, commercial scale and shipment value together rather than merely showing imitations were sold.
What is the value threshold of counterfeit goods for prosecution?
Answering directly the question of what is the value threshold of counterfeit goods for prosecution: in criminal handling of counterfeit goods, the first point to lock is the legal basis and original file of this very case, because conclusions drawn from another deal are reference only and cannot replace checking the instruments currently in force. More specifically, an organised network manufactures and trades counterfeits of the company’s mark at scale, and its operators treat administrative fines simply as a cost of doing business.
To which authority is a counterfeit-goods crime reported, and what must the dossier contain?
On the question of to which authority is a counterfeit-goods crime reported, and what must the dossier contain, practice in Vietnam shows the outcome of criminal handling of counterfeit goods depends more on the quality of preparation before filing than on filing speed, because a file consistent across the relevant authorities is rarely sent back for amendment. More specifically, filing a criminal report when the file covers only a few small retail points leads investigators to find the commercial-scale element unmet and return the case to administrative handling, while tipping off the main network to disperse its warehouse.
How long does the process from report to prosecution take?
The question of how long does the process from report to prosecution take must be answered against the specific position of criminal handling of counterfeit goods: the company should check its charter, licences and compliance history together before choosing an option, rather than deciding on a single factor. More specifically, procedurally, the company must close out the whole file chain of criminal handling of counterfeit goods, from the written agreement and registration with the competent authority to document retention, because a single missing link is enough to have the entire plan sent back to the start.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council
