Scenario: a creditor learns the debtor is advertising its warehouse stock for sale and about to transfer its last truck, while the debt lawsuit is not even filed yet. By the time the claim is drafted, the assets will be gone. Vietnamese procedure law has a tool for exactly this moment: interim emergency measures applied before the lawsuit is even filed — if the conditions and deadlines are handled correctly.
The basis: Articles 111 and 114 CPC 2015
The Civil Procedure Code 91/2015/QH13 (CPC 2015), Article 111, allows a party to request interim emergency measures during the case, and in urgent situations — to preserve evidence and keep assets intact against irreparable harm — to request them even before filing the claim. The Article 114 catalogue includes: freezing bank accounts, blocking assets in custody, seizing disputed assets, prohibiting transfers of rights over disputed assets, prohibiting departure from the place of residence, and other measures provided by law.
The price of this «pre-suit» privilege: the applicant must file the lawsuit within the statutory window after the measure is granted; miss it, and the measure is lifted and the applicant answers for damage caused to the other side. It is the anti-abuse mechanism — the court lets you lock assets first, but makes you prove quickly that a real case exists.
Persuading the court, and the security deposit
The application must prove three things: (i) a prima facie debt — contract, reconciliation, delivery documents; (ii) the dissipation risk is real and urgent — sale advertisements, negotiations under way, a recent history of asset transfers; (iii) without an immediate measure, the applicant’s rights would be difficult or impossible to restore. A generic «we fear dissipation» application without concrete evidence is almost always refused.
Under Article 121 CPC 2015, the court may require the applicant to post security — a cash deposit or a bank guarantee — corresponding to the value of the assets affected. Having the deposit line ready is the logistics that decides speed: in many cases the measure is slow not because the court is slow, but because the applicant’s security money is not ready.
Court or arbitral tribunal — who grants the measure?
Power to order interim measures rests with the court — even where the contract sends disputes to commercial arbitration under the Law on Commercial Arbitration 54/2010/QH12: an arbitral tribunal cannot compel third parties (banks, warehouses) holding the assets, so the parties must ask the court where the assets are to apply supporting measures. This surprises many arbitration users — an arbitration clause cannot lock assets; only a court can.
On duration: the measure lives through the case and «bridges» into enforcement — win the case, and assets seized from the start pass straight into enforcement handling, instead of a fresh race against the debtor’s other creditors.
Frequently asked questions
Can we seize the debtor’s assets before filing the lawsuit?
Yes, in urgent cases under Article 111 CPC 2015: to preserve the asset status quo against irreparable harm, the court may apply interim measures before filing. In exchange, the applicant must file the lawsuit within the statutory window or the measure is lifted.
Must security be posted for interim measures?
The court commonly requires security under Article 121 CPC 2015: a cash deposit or bank guarantee corresponding to the value of the affected assets. The exact amount is set by the court according to the case’s nature and urgency.
Our contract has an arbitration clause — who freezes the assets?
The court. An arbitral tribunal under the 2010 Law on Commercial Arbitration cannot compel third parties holding assets; the parties request the court where the assets are located to apply interim measures in support of the arbitration.
What if we seize assets and then lose the case?
The interim measure is lifted and the assets released. If the application was unjustified and caused damage to the other side, the applicant must compensate — the posted security is precisely the fund for that liability.
Related articles
- Defective or Fake Goods: Consumer Complaints in Vietnam
- Online Shopping Disputes: Refunds When Sellers Don't Deliver
- Mutual Agreement Procedures (MAP) in Vietnam for Double Taxation From TP Adjustments
- Corresponding Adjustments in Vietnam When the Other Country Has Adjusted Upwards
- Negotiation in FDI Investment Disputes: Preparation and Strategy
This legal analysis has been verified against current Vietnamese regulations and cross-border FDI transaction practices by the attorneys at FLAT LAW FIRM.
