Money laundering (Article 324 of the Penal Code) is much discussed but often misunderstood as to which acts actually constitute the crime. This article analyses the four groups of acts in Clause 1 of Article 324, the subjective element “knowing or having grounds to know”, the penalty for preparation of the offence, and the boundaries with related crimes. The focus is on determination of the crime (which acts constitute it); predicate offences and corporate penalties are covered in separate articles.
1. Current legal framework of Article 324
Article 324 of Penal Code No. 100/2015/QH13 is the version as amended by Clause 122, Article 1 of Law 12/2017/QH14 (effective 1 January 2018). Law 86/2025/QH15 (effective 1 July 2025) did not amend Article 324. The applicable consolidated text is Consolidated Document 135/VBHN-VPQH (5 September 2025). The guiding instrument still in force is Resolution 03/2019/NQ-HDTP of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court (effective 7 July 2019): Article 2 (terms, “knowing or having grounds to know”), Article 3 (predicate offence — no prior conviction for the predicate offence required), Articles 4–5 (circumstances determining the crime and the penalty frame).
2. Four groups of acts constituting money laundering (Clause 1, Article 324)
Anyone committing one of the following acts is subject to imprisonment from 01 to 05 years (the basic frame in Clause 1):
a) Participating in financial, banking or other transactions to conceal the illegal origin
Verbatim: “Directly or indirectly participating in financial, banking or other transactions in order to conceal the illegal origin of money or property obtained by the offender through his/her crime or known or with grounds to be known to be obtained by another person through his/her crime”.
The decisive element is the purpose of concealment: the transaction is carried out to make criminal proceeds appear “clean”. Illustrative example: moving drug-trafficking proceeds through multiple bank accounts to obscure the transaction trail.
b) Using criminal proceeds in business or other activities
Verbatim: “Using money or property obtained by the offender through his/her crime or known or with grounds to be known to be obtained by another person through his/her criminal act in conducting business or other activities”.
Illustrative example: using embezzled funds to contribute capital to a company, buy shares or invest in real estate. Unlike point a, this act does not necessarily require a directly manifested concealment purpose — introducing criminal proceeds into lawful economic life suffices for the objective element.
c) Concealing information or obstructing verification
Verbatim: “Concealing information on the origin, true nature, location, movement or ownership of money or property obtained by the offender through his/her crime or known or with grounds to be known to be obtained by another person through his/her crime, or obstructing the verification of such information”.
Illustrative example: holding assets in one’s name for the offender, forging ownership documents, refusing to cooperate with verification of the asset’s origin.
d) Acts against derivative property — NOT “self-laundering” in the narrow sense
Verbatim: “Committing one of the acts specified at points a, b and c of this Clause against money or property known to be obtained through the transfer, assignment or conversion of money or property obtained by another person through his/her criminal act”.
Point d has been cross-checked verbatim: it concerns acts against property derived through transfer, assignment or conversion of property obtained by another person through crime — i.e. a continuing chain of transactions distancing the proceeds ever further from their criminal origin. Some secondary sources describe point d as “laundering one’s own money” — this is not an accurate reading of the statutory text; the text ties point d to derivative property originating from crime committed by another person. Cite the verbatim text, not secondary interpretations.
3. The subjective element: “knowing or having grounds to know”
Money laundering is an intentional crime. The key phrase of the subjective element is “knowing or having grounds to know” the criminal origin of the money or property:
- “Knowing”: direct, certain awareness that the money or property is of criminal origin;
- “Having grounds to know”: although not certainly aware, the objective circumstances and signs are sufficient for an ordinary person to recognise the criminal origin — this content must be cross-checked with Article 2 of Resolution 03/2019/NQ-HDTP, not inferred.
The statute covers both self-laundering (proceeds “obtained by the offender through his/her crime”) and laundering for another (“known or with grounds to be known to be obtained by another person through his/her crime”) — both are money laundering.
Acts NOT constituting the crime where an element is missing
- Where the concealment purpose (point a) or the subjective element (no knowledge and no grounds to know the criminal origin) is missing → no money laundering;
- No need to prove the predicate offence through a prior conviction — under Article 3 of Resolution 03/2019, a prior conviction for the predicate offence is not required.
4. Preparation of the offence: 06 months to 03 years’ imprisonment
Clause 4 of Article 324 provides: “A person who prepares for the commission of this offence shall be subject to imprisonment from 06 months to 03 years“. Some secondary sources state “1–5 years” for preparation of money laundering — this is inconsistent with the verbatim statute. The preparatory stage — seeking or preparing instruments, means or otherwise creating conditions to commit the offence — is independently criminalised.
5. Boundaries with concealment of crimes and failure to report crimes
- Concealment of crimes (Article 389): concealing the offender, traces, exhibits or obstructing the detection, investigation or handling of the offender — differs from money laundering in that the act targets the person and the handling of the predicate offence, not the “legalisation” of assets;
- Failure to report crimes (Article 390): knowing that a crime is being prepared, is being or has been committed and failing to report it — an omission, unlike the active acts of money laundering.
Reference information only — not legal advice. Determining whether a specific act constitutes money laundering requires measuring all four elements of the crime against the evidence of each case.
For reference only, not legal advice. Content quality-checked by the AI Legal Council; not yet reviewed by a human lawyer.
