Lawyer NGUYEN QUOC CUONG – Is reducing penalties for offenders without profit motives consistent with Vietnam’s criminal policy?

Experts believe that the Central Government’s orientation to reduce criminal liability and penalties for offenders who act without profit motives is fully consistent with the humanitarian policy of Vietnam’s criminal law.

Lawyer NGUYỄN QUỐC CƯỜNG, Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association, stated:

“I fully support the proposal to reduce criminal liability and penalties for offenders who have no profit-driven motives and who proactively and voluntarily return assets and remedy the consequences and damages.” This is in line with the principles of the Criminal Code.

This proposal accurately reflects the policy direction and approach of the Party and the State in recent years, as concretized in Article 3 and Article 59 of the 2015 Criminal Code; Article 5 of Resolution No. 03/2020 of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court; and most recently, Resolution No. 68-NQ/TW dated May 4, 2025, of the Politburo.

First, profit motive is a core factor reflecting the degree of social danger of a criminal act. In the adjudication of economic and corruption-related cases, the element of “profit motive” often determines the nature of the offense.
If the offender does not act for personal gain, but rather due to errors in management or in the performance of duties, the level of danger to society is significantly lower than that of a person who intentionally appropriates assets. Therefore, reducing criminal liability in such cases is consistent with the principles of the Criminal Code.

Second, it encourages asset recovery and remediation of consequences. The act of “proactively and voluntarily returning assets and remedying damages” should be considered a special mitigating circumstance. In practice, a key objective in handling economic and corruption crimes is not only punishment but also the recovery of misappropriated assets. A clear mitigation mechanism would incentivize offenders to cooperate, thereby improving asset recovery efficiency and minimizing losses to the State and society.

Third, it reflects a balanced criminal policy between strict punishment and leniency. This is not “leniency” in a negative sense, but rather a reasonable approach aimed at achieving the highest goal of justice: deterrence, education, and remediation of consequences.

Expanding the application of fines and limiting imprisonment for economic and office-related crimes is a trend consistent with international practices and the practical demands of Vietnam.