In Vietnam’s justice system, “winning the case is only the beginning” is truest at the enforcement stage: an effective judgment does not turn into money by itself, but must pass through the civil judgment enforcement agency with asset verification, seizure and sale steps. The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 26/2008/QH12 (amended in 2014) is proposed for amendment; as at the date of writing (20 October 2026) the amendment has not been passed, so this article analyses the draft directions while keeping its focus on an effective strategy under current law.
Today’s difficulties: where backlogs form
Three bottlenecks recur in practice: judgment debtors dissipate or conceal assets before seizure because the gap between the judgment taking effect and coercive measures is long enough to move assets; seized assets are hard to sell — real estate valued above the market, auctions failing repeatedly, burying money in assets; and asset information is fragmented across banks, land registries and vehicle registries, making verification of enforcement conditions depend heavily on leads supplied by the judgment creditor itself.
Draft directions: what is under discussion
According to information published during drafting, the major directions include: strengthening asset verification and data sharing between enforcement agencies, banks and registries; expanding online auctions of seized assets to widen the buyer pool and price transparency; refining enforcement on request and incentivised voluntary compliance; and increasing liability and sanctions for asset dissipation and evasion of enforcement duties. These directions are not yet law at the date of writing — businesses should not postpone a current enforcement strategy waiting for a mechanism that is not in force.
Strategy for judgment creditors under current law
Enforcement effectiveness is largely decided before the enforcement request is filed: seek security measures such as account freezing or asset detention during litigation when dissipation signs appear; when the judgment takes effect, file the enforcement request early with an asset map of the losing party (accounts, real estate, vehicles, shares, receivables from third parties) so the enforcement officer can verify fast; and monitor valuation and auction closely to complain in time if the starting price is set unrealistically. A passive creditor who waits for the agency to find assets on its own is usually the creditor who recovers least.
Frequently asked questions
Where is civil judgment enforcement difficult today?
At three points: verifying the debtor’s assets amid fragmented information; the risk of asset dissipation in the gap before coercion; and seized assets failing to sell at auction at realistic prices, stretching recovery over years.
What does the draft amendment to the enforcement law contain?
Published directions include stronger asset data sharing for verification, wider online auctions, refined enforcement-on-request and voluntary compliance incentives, and tighter sanctions for asset dissipation. As at the date of writing, it remains an unpassed draft.
How would seizure and auction change under the draft?
The discussed direction is transparency and a wider market for enforcement assets through online auctions and more market-true valuation. For now, seizure and auction still run under the current enforcement law and the Law on Asset Auctions 01/2016/QH14.
What should a judgment creditor do for effective enforcement?
Preserve assets from the litigation stage with security measures when dissipation signs appear; file the enforcement request early with a detailed asset map; monitor and complain promptly on valuation and auction; and keep continuous legal pressure instead of filing and waiting.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council