Short answer: it depends on two factors — whether the bribe-giver acted under coercion, and whether the disclosure was made before detection. Article 364(7) of Vietnam’s 2015 Penal Code sets out two distinct scenarios with different legal consequences: a coerced giver who voluntarily discloses before detection is deemed not guilty; a voluntary giver who discloses before detection may be exempted from criminal liability.
Background: the basic penalty frame for bribe-giving
Before examining the exemption, the baseline must be set. Under Article 364(1), anyone who gives a benefit (money, property, or material benefits from VND 2 million to under VND 100 million, or non-material benefits) to a person holding an official position or authority so that the person performs or refrains from performing an act for the giver’s benefit faces a fine of VND 20–200 million, non-custodial reform of up to 3 years, or imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years.
Aggravated frames: paragraph 2 (2–7 years’ imprisonment), paragraph 3 (7–12 years where the bribe is VND 500 million to under VND 1 billion), paragraph 4 (12–20 years where the bribe is VND 1 billion or more).
Article 364(7) is an exception to this penalty frame — available only to bribe-givers who fully satisfy the statutory conditions.
The verbatim text of Article 364(7)
“A person who was coerced into giving a bribe but voluntarily discloses before detection is deemed not guilty and shall have all property used to give the bribe returned. A bribe-giver who was not coerced but voluntarily discloses before detection may be exempted from criminal liability and shall have part or all of the property used to give the bribe returned.”
This text is quoted from Consolidated Document 135/VBHN-VPQH dated 5 September 2025 of the National Assembly Office (consolidating the 2015 Penal Code with Law 12/2017/QH14, Law 59/2024/QH15 and Law 86/2025/QH15). Article 364 has never been amended and retains its original 2015 wording — Law 86/2025/QH15 (effective 1 July 2025) did not amend Article 364.
Two scenarios that must be kept distinct
Scenario 1: Coerced bribe-giving + voluntary disclosure before detection
Legal consequence: deemed not guilty and full return of the property used to give the bribe.
“Deemed not guilty” is stronger than an exemption from criminal liability: the law determines that the act does not constitute a crime. This is the highest protection paragraph 7 offers — for a person who acted under threat or coercion (in practice) and proactively reported before the matter was detected.
Scenario 2: Voluntary bribe-giving (no coercion) + voluntary disclosure before detection
Legal consequence: only “may” be exempted from criminal liability and part or all of the property used to give the bribe is returned.
The word “may” is the crux: exemption is not automatic — it is decided by the Court in each specific case. A voluntary bribe-giver has no guarantee of exemption, and the returned property may be only partial, at the competent authority’s discretion.
The common mandatory condition: “before detection”
This condition applies to both scenarios. Under Resolution 03/2020/NQ-HDTP, “before detection” means: the act has not yet been discovered by a competent authority and has not been denounced by anyone, while the violator voluntarily discloses everything on their own.
Conversely, disclosure after detection does not qualify for paragraph 7. In that case, the disclosure can only be considered a mitigating circumstance (candid confession under Article 51 of the Penal Code) at sentencing — not a basis for non-prosecution or a finding of no guilt.
Boundary: paragraph 7 applies only to the bribe-GIVER
A common confusion: Article 364(7) covers only the giver of the bribe. A bribe-taker (Article 354, bribe-taking) cannot benefit from this provision. Bribery brokers are likewise outside its scope — brokering is separately regulated in Article 365(6).
FAQ
1. Is there an exemption if I disclose after investigators have already found out?
No. The precondition of paragraph 7 is voluntary disclosure before detection. Post-detection disclosure can only count as a mitigating circumstance (Article 51).
2. What counts as “coerced”?
In practice, this means the giver was threatened or compelled. Avoid inventing an expanded definition beyond what the law and practice recognize.
3. Does a voluntary giver who discloses get a guaranteed exemption?
No. The law says “may” — exemption is at the Court’s discretion, not an automatic right.
4. Is the bribe property returned?
A coerced giver gets all of it back; a voluntary discloser gets part or all, at the competent authority’s discretion.
5. Does this apply to bribe-takers?
No. Article 364(7) applies only to bribe-givers. Bribe-takers (Article 354) fall outside this provision.
Practical recommendations
- If coerced into giving a bribe, disclose as early as possible — before the matter is detected from any source.
- Do not rely on a gut feeling about whether detection has occurred: the moment of detection is determined by when a competent authority actually learns of the matter.
- Disclosure must be truthful and complete — the law requires disclosure of everything.
- Because the consequences differ sharply between the two scenarios (“not guilty” vs. “may be exempted”), establishing whether coercion existed is the pivotal point that should be carefully assessed with a lawyer’s assistance.
Legal basis (verified 14/10/2026)
- 2015 Penal Code (Law 100/2015/QH13, promulgated 27/11/2015; effective 01/01/2018) — Article 364 (paragraphs 1, 7), Article 51; per Consolidated Document 135/VBHN-VPQH dated 05/9/2025 of the National Assembly Office.
- Resolution 03/2020/NQ-HDTP — interpretation of “before detection”.
- Validity note: Law 86/2025/QH15 (effective 01/7/2025) did not amend Article 364. The 2026 draft Penal Code amendments are only a draft, not current law.
Suggested internal links: article on tax evasion under Article 200 (FLAW-P0027), article distinguishing criminal tax evasion from administrative tax violations (FLAW-P0028).
Need advice on a bribery matter? Contact FLAT Law Firm for an assessment of your specific situation.
For reference only, not legal advice. Content quality-checked by the AI Legal Council; not yet reviewed by a human lawyer.
