Abolition of the death penalty for the crime of embezzlement of property and the crime of accepting bribes

Abolition of the death penalty for the crime of embezzlement of property and the crime of accepting bribes is one of the most notable amendments to the Penal Code effective from 1 July 2025. Narrowing the scope of application of the death penalty has been a matter of concern to many countries in the course of judicial reform. In Vietnam, the abolition of the death penalty for the crime of embezzlement of property and the crime of accepting bribes is not merely an adjustment of sanctions, but also reflects a shift in legislative thinking, aiming to improve the effectiveness of recovery of corrupt assets and to align with the development trend of international law.

On 25 June 2025, the 15th National Assembly passed Law No. 86/2025/QH15 amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Penal Code, which takes effect from 1 July 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “Law No. 86/2025/QH15”). Among the notable amendments, the official abolition of the death penalty for the “crime of embezzlement of property” and the “crime of accepting bribes” has attracted particular attention from legal researchers, the business community, and public opinion.

1. Narrowing the scope of application of the death penalty

Pursuant to Law No. 86/2025/QH15, from 1 July 2025, the death penalty is abolished for 08 offences, including:

• – Crime of conducting activities aimed at overthrowing the people’s administration;
• – Crime of espionage;
• – Crime of sabotaging the material and technical facilities of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam;
• – Crime of manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods being curative medicines or preventive medicines;
• – Crime of illegally transporting narcotic substances;
• – Crime of embezzlement of property;
• – Crime of accepting bribes;
• – Crime of undermining peace and waging a war of aggression.

With respect specifically to the “crime of embezzlement of property” and the “crime of accepting bribes”, instead of the death penalty as previously applied, the highest applicable penalty is now life imprisonment. Notably, this provision shows that the legislators have shifted the focus from “depriving the offender of life” to prioritising “recovering assets lost to the State”, while at the same time creating a mechanism to encourage offenders to actively cooperate and make declarations during the resolution of the case. Law No. 86/2025/QH15 amends Clause 1, Article 63 of the Penal Code in the following direction:

“A person sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of embezzlement of property or the crime of accepting bribes may only be considered for a reduction of the term of serving the penalty when he/she has voluntarily returned at least three-quarters of the embezzled property or bribes received, and has actively cooperated with the competent authorities in detecting, investigating and handling crimes, or has recorded great merit”.

2. Why has Vietnam chosen to abolish the death penalty for corruption offences?

During the drafting and discussion of the bill, the question of whether to retain or abolish the death penalty for corruption offences gave rise to differing streams of opinion. The view in favour of retaining the death penalty holds that corruption is an exceptionally dangerous category of crime, causing serious damage to State property.

This category of crime erodes the people’s confidence in the public administration apparatus and hinders socio-economic development. Accordingly, the highest level of punishment should be retained to ensure deterrence. However, the view ultimately adopted was to continue narrowing the scope of application of the death penalty. This decision stems from a number of practical and policy grounds.

First, improving the effectiveness of recovery of corrupt assets

In major corruption cases, the important objective is not only to handle the offender but also to recover, to the greatest extent possible, the assets that have been appropriated or lost. Practice shows that, when facing the risk of being sentenced to death, offenders often have little incentive to cooperate with the procedural authorities or to voluntarily remedy the consequences.

Conversely, replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment together with a conditional sentence-reduction mechanism will create an incentive for offenders to proactively surrender assets, assist the investigation, and remedy the consequences. This represents a shift from the mindset of “absolute punishment” to that of “effective handling”, in which the interest of recovering assets for the State is placed at the centre.

Second, alignment with the development trend of international law

Over the past decades, the trend of restricting or abolishing the death penalty has become a common trend among many countries around the world. With respect to corruption offences, the majority of countries do not apply the death penalty, but instead focus on measures such as long-term imprisonment, confiscation of assets, and mechanisms for the recovery of illicit assets.

Vietnam’s continued narrowing of the scope of application of the death penalty demonstrates its convergence with international standards on human rights, while also creating more favourable conditions for international judicial cooperation, mutual legal assistance, and extradition of offenders.

Third, a clearer expression of the humanitarian principle of criminal law

One of the development trends of modern criminal law is to minimise the deprivation of the human right to life, applying it only in truly exceptional cases.

The abolition of the death penalty for the “crime of embezzlement of property” and the “crime of accepting bribes” shows that the State remains steadfast in the humanitarian criminal policy already reflected through previous amendments to the Penal Code. Accordingly, punishment is aimed not only at penalising, but also at educating, rehabilitating, and giving offenders the opportunity to remedy the consequences caused by their own conduct.

3. Does abolishing the death penalty reduce the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts?

This is the question that has attracted the greatest attention since the new provision was passed. In reality, the effectiveness of crime prevention and combat depends not only on the severity of the punishment, but also on the capacity to detect, investigate, prosecute, adjudicate, and enforce judgments.

A very severe punishment that is difficult to apply or rarely enforced does not necessarily deliver greater preventive effect than a mechanism of handling that is certain, transparent, and capable of thoroughly recovering criminal assets.

Moreover, even though no longer facing the death penalty, a person who commits the crime of embezzlement of property or the crime of accepting bribes may still be sentenced to life imprisonment, be subject to confiscation of assets, be prohibited from holding office, be prohibited from practising a profession, and must bear extremely severe legal, economic, and social consequences.

In particular, the new sentence-reduction mechanism imposes very strict conditions on the return of corrupt assets. This demonstrates that the new policy is not a loosening of criminal liability, but rather a change in the method of handling in order to achieve higher practical effectiveness.

4. Anticipated impacts on criminal proceedings and adjudication practice

The abolition of the death penalty for corruption offences is forecast to bring about significant changes in criminal proceedings in the coming period.

First, the procedural authorities will focus more heavily on the verification, distraint, freezing, and recovery of criminal assets.

Second, the cooperation of the accused and defendants in corruption cases may improve considerably as the leniency policy is now provided for more clearly and with greater feasibility.

Third, with respect to defence activities, lawyers will have an additional legal basis to advise and develop strategies to protect their clients’ interests in the direction of proactively remedying consequences, recovering assets, and cooperating with the procedural authorities in order to benefit from the leniency policies prescribed by law.

Conclusion

Litigation lawyer

The official abolition of the death penalty for the crime of embezzlement of property and the crime of accepting bribes marks an important milestone in the reform of criminal law in Vietnam. This change reflects the trend of continuing to narrow the scope of application of the death penalty, strengthening the humanitarian character of criminal policy, and shifting the focus from mere punishment towards the objectives of remedying consequences, recovering assets, and enhancing the effectiveness of the fight against corruption.

Although differing opinions remain regarding the impact on deterrence, it can be seen that modern criminal policy requires not only severity but also reasonableness, practical effectiveness, and the capacity to meet the requirements of international integration. In the context of Vietnam’s continued improvement of the socialist rule-of-law State, the trend of narrowing the death penalty is likely to continue to be studied and expanded in the future.

For in-depth legal assistance, please kindly contact:

Consulting – Litigation Lawyer: Tran Thi Kim Phung

• – Email: phung.tran@bizlawyer.vn
• – Tel: 0868 851 900

Respectfully./.