PREVAILING IN LITIGATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN RECOVERING THE MONEY

The starting point is not the amount a Plaintiff intends to request the Court to order the Defendant to pay, but the legal nature of the transaction. Amounts arising from loan agreements, sales of goods, service provision, restitution of property, or compensation for damage may be subject to different rules on limitation periods, interest, contractual penalties, and the burden of proof. Before defining the scope of the claim, it is necessary to examine the validity of the transaction, the party bearing the obligation, the date on which the obligation falls due, and the competent dispute resolution forum.

The legal relationship, the obligor, the validity of the agreement, the due date, and the scope of the entitlement must be identified. A legal entity's obligations do not automatically become the personal obligations of its legal representative or capital-contributing members; any liability of a guarantor must be assessed on its own legal basis.

Although each case may involve a monetary obligation, the legal basis for calculating interest does not always apply in the same way to all cases. For a loan agreement, the parties' agreement and the relevant provisions of the 2015 Civil Code, including Articles 466 and 468, must be considered. For late payments falling within Article 306 of the 2005 Commercial Law, default interest is determined under a distinct legal framework, unless otherwise agreed or provided by law. Where liability arises from delayed performance of a monetary obligation, Article 357 of the 2015 Civil Code must also be observed. Contractual loan interest should not be conflated with interest on late payment; nor should principal, interest, contractual penalties, and damages be combined indiscriminately where each is subject to separate legal grounds and conditions.

To be explored next Topic: How should the legal relationship, the date on which the obligation arises, and the calculation of principal, interest, contractual penalties, and damages be determined to avoid errors in the initial claim?

The case file that is submitted to the Court should establish the course of the transaction: the agreement, the transfer of funds or performance of obligations, the due date, payments already made, and the outstanding balance. The contract is a starting point, not the entirety of the evidence. Bank transfer records, delivery and acceptance records, completion certificates, debt reconciliation statements, and electronic data may be decisive. Article 91 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code governs the burden of proof; the assessment must be tied to each claim and each fact requiring proof. Contracts, bank records, delivery records, emails, messages, and electronic data must be assessed for their origin, authenticity, accessibility, and probative value under procedural law; possession of a screenshot does not automatically mean it will be admitted as evidence.

Alongside evidence establishing the claim, the counterparty's ability to perform its obligations should be assessed using information lawfully accessible, including its asset position, third-party rights, secured obligations, and indications of insolvency. Such an assessment does not guarantee recovery, but it helps identify risks before a course of action is selected.

To be explored next Topic: Who bears the burden of proof, how may electronic evidence be used, and what should be verified before filing a claim?

Not every dispute should immediately be brought before a Court or Arbitral Tribunal. Depending on the nature of the transaction, the dispute resolution agreement, and applicable legal requirements, the parties may consider negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or court litigation. Arbitration has jurisdiction only where the statutory requirements are satisfied, including the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Each option should be assessed against limitation periods, costs, time, evidence, enforceability, and the Client's objectives.

If the parties opt for a payment settlement, the amount, payment deadlines, consequences of breach, security arrangements, and form of documentation should be clearly specified. If legal proceedings are chosen, the claim must be consistent with the evidence and legal grounds. Protracted negotiations should not cause the entitled party to miss a limitation period or an opportunity to preserve assets.

To be explored next Topic: When is negotiation more advantageous than litigation, and what warning signs indicate that a change of strategy is necessary?

A legally well-founded claim is not sufficient to secure recovery. An assessment based on lawfully obtained information should address the obligor's asset position, third-party security interests, and the risk of insolvency. These factors cannot establish with certainty the outcome of enforcement, but they help identify the limits of the available options and the appropriate time to act.

During legal proceedings, the risk of changes to the status of assets may affect the prospects of enforcement. Articles 111 and 114 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code govern applications for provisional emergency measures and the available measures, including freezing bank accounts, attachment of property in dispute, prohibiting changes to the existing condition of property in dispute, freezing assets of an obligor, and prohibiting or compelling specified acts. Filing a lawsuit does not automatically entitle a party to an asset-freezing order: the Plaintiff/Peitioner must establish the legal grounds, comply with the applicable scope and procedural requirements, and provide security where required by law. An improper application may give rise to liability for damages.

The application of these measures is also subject to significant limitations. Resolution No. 02/2020/NQ-HĐTP provides guidance on circumstances in which certain provisional emergency measures may not be imposed, including situations affecting the rights of secured parties and business operations. An asset-preservation strategy must therefore be grounded in the nature of the assets, the evidence, and necessity, rather than treating asset freezing as a routine procedural step.

If the parties reach a settlement during dispute resolution, the key issues extend beyond the amount promised: the payment schedule, events of default, security arrangements, and the legal form in which the settlement is recorded also matter. A commercially workable payment arrangement that lacks clear legal mechanisms may give rise to a further dispute.

To be explored next: When may an asset-freezing order be sought, what must be established, and what are the legal risks?

Where enforcement of a judgment or decision is subject to an application by the judgment creditor, attention must be paid to the time limit for applying, the enforceable obligations, and the subsequent steps. Law No. 106/2025/QH15 on Civil Judgment Enforcement, effective from 1 July 2026, governs the application procedure, the period for voluntary compliance, and verification of the conditions for enforcement. For cases accepted or under enforcement before that date, the relevant transitional provisions must be examined. An enforceable judgment does not mean that payment will be transferred automatically.

Information on the judgment debtor's assets, income, bank accounts, receivables, and property rights is important to verifying the conditions for enforcement. Article 37 of the 2025 Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement addresses verification by civil judgment enforcement officers. However, not every failure to pay amounts to deliberate evasion: a distinction must be drawn between a person genuinely lacking the means to comply and one who has the means but fails to do so.

Where there are indications of concealment, transfer, or dissipation of assets, the judgment creditor should promptly provide substantiated information to the competent authority for consideration under the applicable legal procedures. Any response must be based on the specific conduct and supporting evidence; not every transfer of property by an obligor should automatically be treated as unlawful.

To be explored next: What are the procedures for applying for enforcement, verifying assets, adopting coercive enforcement measures, and developing an enforcement strategy?

Failure to satisfy a monetary obligation under a judgment does not automatically constitute a criminal offense. Article 380 of the Penal Code prescribes specific legal elements for failure to comply with an effective court judgment or decision, including the ability to comply and other statutory conditions. Criminal liability must therefore be assessed against the evidence and all elements of the offense; delay in payment alone is insufficient.

A distinction must accordingly be drawn between a person genuinely unable to perform the obligation due to a lack of means for enforcement and a person who has the means but fails to comply in circumstances satisfying all legal elements of an offense. An ordinary dispute over a payment obligation must also be distinguished from a case involving indications of deceit or misappropriation of property during the formation or performance of the transaction. Any consideration of other criminal offenses must be based on their own constituent elements and cannot be inferred solely from non-payment.

A case reported in the press may illustrate a practical issue, but such reporting is no substitute for examining the official judgment, decision, and case record. Accordingly, this introductory Article does not rely on a case that has not been fully verified to draw generalized conclusions about criminal liability in disputes concerning payment obligations.

To be explored next: When may failure to comply with a judgment attract criminal scrutiny, and how should the boundary with civil liability be drawn?

At Integritas Vu Legal, we do not assume that litigation should be the first step, nor do we regard a judgment as the end of the matter. We approach each case through four stages: Understanding the transaction and the Client's substantive objectives - Assessing the legal position, evidence, risks, and enforceability - Developing a strategy tailored to the case within the bounds of the law - Implementing and adapting that strategy as the matter evolves. As a boutique law firm, Integritas Vu Legal emphasizes close involvement, independent judgment, and individually planned solutions, recognizing that an aggressive approach is not necessarily an effective one.

This is the opening Article in a series of in-depth analyses concerning receivables arising from civil and commercial relationships. Subsequent Articles will examine: (1) Choosing a legal strategy; (2) Identifying the legal relationship and calculating principal, interest, contractual penalties, and damages; (3) The burden of proof and electronic evidence; (4) Asset preservation during proceedings; (5) Enforcement procedures and strategy; and (6) the boundary between civil and criminal liability. Each installment will address a specific set of practical questions by reference to applicable law and verifiable source materials.

Follow Integritas Vu Legal's Legal Insights for further examination of the legal decisions that can shape the outcome of a dispute. An appropriate strategy must not only comply with the law; it must also reflect the particular transaction, the degree of risk, and the Client's practical objectives.

© 2026 Integritas Vu Legal. This Article has been prepared and published by Integritas Vu Legal LLC. Rights in the content to the extent protected by intellectual property law are reserved and exercised in accordance with applicable law. No part of the content may be reproduced, modified, republished, distributed, or commercially exploited without the authorization of the relevant rights holder, except as permitted by law. Where lawful quotation is made, please acknowledge the source and provide a link to the original Article.

This Article provides general legal information as at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice on any particular matter, does not establish a lawyer–Client relationship, and is not a substitute for reviewing the relevant documents, evidence, agreements, and applicable law. Readers should not rely solely on this Article when taking, delaying, or refraining from any legal action. Outcomes depend on the facts and applicable law in each case, and the content may require updating as legislation or legal practice develops.