In criminal proceedings in Vietnam, civil claims (e.g., claims for compensation, repair of damaged property) often arise alongside criminal charges against criminals. The Criminal Procedure Code 2015 introduces the position of “civil claimants” (nguyên đơn dân sự) and “civil defendants” (bị đơn dân sự) to facilitate the handling of civil claims in Vietnamese criminal proceedings. However, other than creating these positions, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 lacks detailed provisions on how these civil matters should be addressed in criminal proceedings. This legal gap, coupled with inconsistent judicial practices, makes the resolution of civil claims within criminal cases particularly complex and problematic. This post will explore the key challenges in resolving civil claims during criminal proceedings.

• No clear procedures - Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides that civil matters in criminal cases are to be resolved during the adjudication of the criminal case. However, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides no further instructions on the procedure for resolving civil claims within criminal proceedings. It remains unclear what procedural rules apply—whether the criminal court should follow its own process or adopt the procedures set out in the Civil Procedure Code 2015 to settle a civil claim during criminal proceedings. This uncertainty can lead to inconsistent judicial practices and procedural confusion.

• Scope of civil claims - Article 64.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 defines a civil defendant as “an individual, agency, or organization that, as prescribed by law, is responsible for compensating for damages”. It appears from the definition of civil defendant that a civil claim during criminal proceedings only relates to the issue of compensation for damages. It is not clear whether other issues such as ownership of assets or return of illegal property could be covered in a civil claim during criminal proceedings. In addition, the court may also designate the person making or subjecting to a claim on civil issues which are not claim for damages to another position (e.g., person with related rights and obligations) during the proceedings.

• Lack of clarity on the scope and procedure for compensation - The Criminal Procedure Code 2015 does not provide clear guidance on how to determine liability or calculate damages. It remains unclear whether the damages refer to “direct losses” or “indirect losses”, or whether the matter should be governed by the Civil Code 2015 or another legal framework.

• Absence of procedural rules for interaction with civil plaintiffs - Unlike the Civil Procedure Code 2015, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 lacks procedural mechanisms for interaction between civil plaintiffs and civil defendants. For example, there are no provisions for reconciliation between the civil defendants and civil claimants, no formal procedure for filing civil claims (e.g., no timeline or content requirements). As a result, civil defendants may not be informed of the plaintiff's identity or claims.

• No express right to file counterclaims – The Criminal Procedure Code 2015 does not clearly allow civil defendants to make a counterclaim against the civil claimant. Under the Civil Procedure Code 2015, a civil defendant has the right to counterclaim the civil claimant. Although Article 64.2(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 permits civil defendants to "make requests," it remains unclear whether this includes counterclaims, and whether the court would consider such requests. This ambiguity places civil defendants at a disadvantage, especially if they need to challenge the plaintiff’s liability.

• Lack of mechanism to directly contest civil plaintiffs - The Criminal Procedure Code 2015 does not grant civil defendants the right to argue directly with civil plaintiffs, as allowed under Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015. Instead, Article 322 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 only allows civil defendants to present arguments to the procuracy, which acts as a procedural authority. This arrangement creates an imbalance: the civil plaintiff may be supported by the procuracy (e.g., through legal arguments made on their behalf), while the civil defendant must challenge a state authority—greatly reducing their chance of a favorable outcome.

• Unclear ability to separate the civil claim from criminal proceedings - Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides that civil matters related to compensation or reimbursement may be resolved separately in a civil proceeding if there is a lack of evidences and the separation does not affect the resolution of the criminal case. However, it is challenging to determine whether a civil matter is sufficiently independent of the criminal case (e.g., the alleged damages claimed by a civil plaintiff may serve as a basis for establishing the criminal liability of the accused). As a result, the civil defendant’s right to request the separation of civil claims into a different proceeding may be difficult to exercise in practice.

• Delays and procedural inefficiency - Handling civil claims within criminal proceedings often results in prolonged trials—particularly when courts face difficulties in collecting sufficient evidence for the civil component. These delays increase both the time and financial burden for civil parties.

• Limited access to case files and evidence - Unlike criminal defendants, civil defendants may not have guaranteed rights to access the full criminal case file or the evidence presented by the civil plaintiff. This procedural gap places them at a disadvantage in disputing the claim.

This post is written by Trinh Phuong Thao and Nguyen Quang Vu.