To realize the goal of building a developmental institution and effectively implementing Resolution 68-NQ/TW, the prerequisite is to clarify and thoroughly limit the criminalization of purely economic and civil relations.

Not criminalizing economic relations will encourage businesses to feel secure and bold in investing and doing business. (Illustration)

Legal risks and the risk of criminalization in economic and civil relations are becoming a “constant worry” for businesses.

Legal “golden hoop”

Over the years, at many forums, seminars and many investigations, VCCI has regularly recorded concerns of private businesses about legal risks in production and business. These risks come not only from inconsistent policy changes, but also from the risk of criminalizing purely economic and civil disputes.

Businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, can be drawn into criminal cases arising from contracts, investments, bidding or loans – areas that are inherently in the civil and commercial categories. In many cases, reporting crimes is even abused as a pressure tool in negotiations.

In particular, crimes in the current Penal Code such as tax evasion, defrauding customers, false advertising, manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods, smuggling, etc. can all be applied in cases of an economic and civil nature. The unclear boundary between administrative violations, civil disputes and criminal acts has made the business environment uncertain.

This situation has had a negative impact on the spirit of innovation and creativity of private enterprises. Many enterprises are afraid to invest, do not dare to try new models, and even withdraw from the market due to fear of being prosecuted in unclear legal situations.

Three key groups of solutions

To overcome this situation, VCCI proposes three groups of solutions that need special attention and synchronous implementation.

Firstly, amending legal regulations that risk criminalizing business activities. Economic crimes need to be reviewed and clearly defined, and criminal proceedings should only be applied in cases where they are truly necessary, when the behavior has elements of intention, fraud, and causes serious consequences. In cases where errors and violations can be remedied by administrative or civil measures, these measures should be given priority.

Secondly, reforming the Criminal Procedure Code in the direction of protecting businesses. In particular, amending Article 122 on the financial guarantee mechanism, allowing businesses to use assets and bank guarantees to replace strict preventive measures. At the same time, it is necessary to strongly shift from "pre-control" to "post-control" in handling economic cases, avoiding disruption of production and business activities.

Thirdly, strengthening internal guidance and early legal advice mechanisms. The lack of consistency between localities and prosecution agencies has created legal uncertainty for businesses. Therefore, it is necessary to issue clear guidelines and establish a legal consultation channel early to support businesses as soon as there are signs of disputes or accusations.

Establishing specialized legal working groups will help businesses receive support in the process of investigating and handling violations, ensuring the right to explanation, advice and legal protection. At the same time, businesses themselves also need to strengthen their internal legal capacity through training, hiring external experts or building a professional legal team.