Individual Corruption

The US Department of State 2010 reports that the judicial system, and thus, the prospect of a fair trial, is strongly distorted by political influence, endemic corruption and inefficiency.

According to Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2010, the judiciary is perceived to be corrupt, and nearly one-fifth of households surveyed who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

Business Corruption.

Companies should be aware that the legal system lacks transparency and consistency, and according to Global Integrity 2009, verdicts are often pre-decided even before a case is tried.

Furthermore, a significant number of companies surveyed by the USAID’s Vietnam Provincial Competitiveness Index 2010 cited that the presence of bribes is a deterrent and the reason stopping them from using the courts to resolve business disputes. On the other hand, nearly half of the companies surveyed by the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2009 believe that the court system in Vietnam is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

Political Corruption

The Constitution of Vietnam grants the judiciary independence from political influence. However, according to Freedom House 2011, the judiciary lacks independence from political interference in practice, and the ruling Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) controls courts at all levels. Courts rarely rule against members of the government, or take on sensitive cases due to fear of negative consequences.

The US Department of State 2010 reports that CPV influence over the courts has been particularly notable in high profile cases in which a person was charged with criticising or harming the CPV. Moreover, it reports that many judges do not have adequate legal training, and their appointments are based on personal relationships with party officials or for their political views. Moreover, a 2008 report by the Finnish Embassy in Hanoi refers to cases where judges, investigators and prosecutors have either directly or indirectly taken bribes to mishandle documents or to reduce sentences and punishment. It further reports that there have been instances where corruption has taken place during the investigation and handling of corruption cases. Some judges, investigators and prosecutors have been punished and held criminally responsible for their actions.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- It takes 34 procedures and 295 days at a cost of 28.5% of the claim to enforce a contract through the courts, which is significantly more efficient than regional averages.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the independence of the judiciary from influences of members of government, citizens, or companies a score of 3.6 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give both the efficiency of the legal system for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3.7 and 3.6 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

USAID: Vietnam Provincial Competitiveness Index 2010:
- 28.7% of the domestic investors cite 'the presence of bribes as a deterrent' and the reason preventing them from using courts to resolve business disputes.

- 8.1% of the foreign investors cite 'the presence of bribes as a deterrent' and the reason preventing them from using the courts to resolve business disputes.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 11.6% of households surveyed consider the judiciary to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 16.4% of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 2.8 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 48.6% of companies surveyed believe that the court system is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.