Employing a foreign expert without a work permit is one of the few labour violations that strikes both sides at once: the enterprise is fined on a scale rising with headcount, while the expert faces expulsion from Vietnam. From 10 September 2026 the applicable penalty framework is Decree 283/2026/ND-CP replacing Decree 12/2022/ND-CP — with transition rules by time of conduct in Article 67.
Governing Instruments
The penalty framework for enterprises using unlicensed labour
Using a foreign worker in Vietnam without a work permit (or without an exemption confirmation) is an administratively sanctioned act in the labour field. The fine scale rises with the number of violating workers: the preceding framework in Decree 12/2022/ND-CP (Clause 4, Article 32) fined individual employers VND 30–45 million for 1–10 unlicensed workers, VND 45–60 million for 11–20, and VND 60–75 million for 21 or more; under Clause 1, Article 6 of the same decree, that scale is the individual level, so organisations committing the same act are fined twice as much — VND 60–90 million, VND 90–120 million and VND 120–150 million respectively. From 10 September 2026, Decree 283/2026/ND-CP replaces Decree 12/2022 for conduct within its scope, with the corresponding provision on using foreign labour without a permit and the convention that organisations pay twice the individual level (Clause 1, Article 7 of the decree) — the enterprise must look up the exact provision and amounts of the 283/2026 framework at the time of the conduct, not automatically carry old figures onto new conduct.
Beyond the fine, the enterprise faces operational consequences heavier than money: an order to stop using the unlicensed worker immediately upon detection — the line or project loses its expert on the spot; the violation is recorded in the compliance history, affecting later inspections and labour files; and for conduct occurring before 10 September 2026, Article 67 of Decree 283/2026 governs the transitional application of rules by the time the conduct occurred when authorities handle the case.
Application Analysis
For the individual expert, consequences do not stop at a fine: a foreigner working in Vietnam without a work permit falls within the cases subject to expulsion under immigration law (the Law on Entry, Exit, Transit and Residence of Foreigners in Vietnam 47/2014/QH13), and an expelled person is not permitted to re-enter for the period stated in the competent authority’s decision. For a key group expert, expulsion means a long ban on returning to Vietnam — a personnel loss far exceeding the enterprise’s fine. Responsibility is therefore clearly split: the enterprise bears organisational responsibility (headcount-scaled fines, an order to cease the employment), the individual bears responsibility for their own unlawful residence-and-work status — but as a matter of governance the enterprise cannot shift the whole risk onto the expert, because completing the labour procedures is the employer’s duty.
Mitigation exists but is conditional: the Law on Handling of Administrative Violations recognises mitigating circumstances such as voluntary declaration, sincere remorse, actively assisting authorities in detecting violations, and voluntary remediation of consequences. An enterprise that self-detects the breach before inspection, immediately stops deploying the undocumented worker, completes the permit/confirmation file and cooperates fully has assembled substantive mitigation. Conversely, continuing to use unlicensed labour after knowing, or concealing it from inspectors, is an aggravating circumstance that can pull the case to the top of the fine frame together with the expert’s expulsion.
Recommended Actions
- Audit all foreign experts currently working right away: reconcile each person against their existing permit/confirmation and their actual position and location.
- For undocumented cases: stop assigning permit-category work, start the permit/confirmation file immediately, and document the self-detection and remediation as the mitigation file.
- Update the penalty-framework register: conduct from 10 September 2026 falls under Decree 283/2026/ND-CP (look up the corresponding provision at handling time); earlier conduct is assessed for transition under Article 67.
- Install a pre-start control gate: without a permit/confirmation, the HR system does not activate the position for a foreign worker.
- Train project managers and contractors: permit duties also cover subcontractors’ experts working at the enterprise’s site or project.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much is an enterprise fined for employing foreign experts without work permits under the current framework?
The enterprise is fined on a scale rising with the number of unlicensed workers employed. The reference frame of Decree 12/2022/ND-CP (Clause 4, Article 32) — applicable to conduct before 10 September 2026 under the transition rule — sets the individual scale at VND 30–45 million for 1–10 unlicensed workers, VND 45–60 million for 11–20, and VND 60–75 million for 21 or more; organisations are fined twice that scale under Clause 1, Article 6 — VND 60–90 / 90–120 / 120–150 million. From 10 September 2026, Decree 283/2026/ND-CP is the current framework replacing Decree 12/2022, with the corresponding provision for this conduct and the convention that organisations bear twice the individual level (Clause 1, Article 7): the enterprise must determine the specific amount under Decree 283/2026’s provision at handling time, together with the order to cease using unlicensed labour immediately. The fine is thus only part of the price — the rest is operational disruption and violation history.
Can an expert working without a permit be deported and banned from re-entry?
The risk is direct: a foreigner working in Vietnam without a work permit belongs to the conduct group subject to expulsion under the Law on Entry, Exit, Transit and Residence of Foreigners in Vietnam 47/2014/QH13. Expulsion is decided by the immigration authority on the basis of the violation, separate from the labour administrative fine on the enterprise. The expelled person is simultaneously not permitted to re-enter Vietnam for the period stated in the expulsion decision — for a key group expert, this consequence outweighs any fine because it cuts off the ability to return to work in Vietnam for a long time. This is why an enterprise should never let an expert “work under the radar”, even for a few weeks.
How is responsibility split between the enterprise and the individual expert?
Two parallel responsibility lines. The employing enterprise bears responsibility as the organiser of the conduct: headcount-scaled fines, an order to cease the employment, and the duty to complete procedures — because applying for the permit/confirmation is the employer’s obligation. The individual expert bears responsibility for their own unlicensed work: an individual fine at the corresponding frame (the individual level is half the organisational level under the labour penalty framework’s general convention) and expulsion with an entry ban under immigration law. The two lines do not cancel each other: the enterprise’s fine does not save the expert from expulsion, and the expert’s expulsion does not save the enterprise from the fine. Within the group, the costs and consequences of a breach should be pre-allocated in the assignment documents to avoid post-incident disputes.
Does self-detection and remediation before an inspection earn mitigation?
There is a substantive basis for mitigation. The Law on Handling of Administrative Violations recognises mitigating circumstances including: voluntary declaration and sincere remorse about the violation; actively assisting authorities in detecting and handling violations; and having voluntarily remedied consequences and compensated damage. An enterprise that self-audits, finds an undocumented expert, immediately stops assigning permit-category work, completes a lawful file and archives the whole self-remediation record has built the strongest mitigation chain possible before the authorities discover anything. Mitigation does not erase the violation, however: the period of unlicensed work that already occurred is still sanctioned, and if the enterprise knew yet kept using the worker until inspectors found out, the conduct converts into an aggravating circumstance. The value of self-remediation lies in timing: the earlier, the more it counts.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council