Your Contract Expired — But Your Face Didn't: The Image Rights Case That Went All the Way to Hanoi's Appellate Court 🎬⚖️

 Judgment Reference: Appellate Civil Judgment No. 163/2023/DS-PT, dated 11 April 2023 — Hanoi People's Court | First Instance: Civil Judgment No. 13/2022/DS-ST, dated 22 February 2022 — Hai Ba Trung District People's Court, Hanoi

📖 Etymology corner, before we dive in

The word "image" comes from Latin imago — a likeness, a copy, a representation. The Romans used it not just for portraits but for wax death masks of ancestors displayed in family homes — a person's face as property of the lineage, to be displayed or retired on the family's terms.

The word "authorize" comes from Latin auctorizare — to give official approval — rooted in auctor, "one who creates or causes." An author of an authorization is the only one who can grant the right to use what is theirs.

Put them together: unauthorized image use is, etymologically, a very old kind of wrong — using someone else's likeness without the authority to do so. Today's case turns on exactly that ancient concept, now playing out across Facebook pages, YouTube channels, and Vietnamese beauty spa websites. Ngọc Prinny-mode: on. 🦊

---

🧐 The cast of characters

To keep things clear, we've renamed the parties for readability:

• Actress Lily Pham — the plaintiff. A working actress and public figure, born 1983.
• Glam Glow Corp. (inspired by the defendant, a major beauty spa chain) — the defendant. A well-resourced company with multiple clinics and a dedicated legal team.
• VP Nick Chen — Glam Glow's Vice Director who physically signed the image-use contract with Lily.
• CEO Terry Nguyen — Glam Glow's Director and legal representative, who later claimed he knew nothing about the contract.
• Accountant Amy Tran — Glam Glow's bookkeeper, a key witness who transferred payment from her personal account.
• Journalist Jenny Do — the middleperson who introduced Lily to Glam Glow and signed her own separate brokerage contract.

---

🎬 The setup: a beauty spa, an actress, and a contract with a very expensive clause

5 December 2018. Lily Pham signs Service Contract No. 22012019/2019/HĐDV with Glam Glow Corp. The deal:

• Glam Glow gets to use Lily's image for 3 months (5 January → 4 April 2019)
• Total contract price: 15 million VND (already paid in full, confirmed)
• The shoot takes place on 5 December 2018 at a Hanoi Glam Glow branch — livestream format, showing Lily experiencing spa services

And buried in Article 3, Section 6 of that contract, a clause that later became the center of everything:

"After the 3-month period, if Glam Glow continues using Lily's image, they must pay a fee of 100,000,000 VND per month."

That clause is either a deliberate, fully-negotiated penalty rate — or a typo. The entire case turns on which one it is.

---

📅 The timeline — here's what actually happened

The visual above maps it all out. In short:

• 5 April 2019: Lily's licensed image use period ends
• 5 April → 16 December 2019: Lily's images continue appearing on Glam Glow's Facebook fanpage, YouTube channel, website thammyvienNevada.com, and other platforms — without new authorization, without new payment
• 16 December 2019: A bailiff's office in Ho Chi Minh City formally documents the ongoing use in Procès-Verbal No. 2161/2019/VB-TPL — a legal evidentiary record under Vietnamese law
• 16 December 2019: Lily's law firm, Ngoc Phu Law, sends its first cease-and-desist letter
• 17 December 2019: Glam Glow removes all infringing content — but does not pay the overdue fees or issue a public apology
• 27 December 2019: Second C&D letter sent; Glam Glow stays silent
• 3 March 2020: Glam Glow's own legal representative responds, acknowledging the extended use but attributing it to a staff oversight, not deliberate infringement
• Litigation commences; Lily also later voluntarily withdraws her demand for a public apology in the newspapers

Lily's claim when she filed: 800 million VND — 8 months × 100 million VND/month per the contract clause.

---

⚖️ Round 1: The First Instance Judgment — District Court of Hai Ba Trung

Judgment No. 13/2022/DS-ST, dated 22 February 2022

The first-instance court heard Glam Glow's three main defences — and rejected most of them. Here's how each argument played out:

Glam Glow's defence 1: "The contract signer had no authority."
VP Nick Chen, who signed the contract, was a Deputy Director — not the company's legal representative. Glam Glow argued this made the contract invalid (citing Articles 85 and 87, Civil Code 2015).

Court's implicit finding: The contract bore Glam Glow's official company seal, which under Vietnamese corporate practice requires director-level approval before being affixed. Furthermore, a 15-million-VND payment was made by Glam Glow's own accountant Amy Tran, explicitly labeled "NEVADA KOL payment." Witness Nick Chen himself confirmed that all contracts he signed passed through the Director and the legal department before sealing. The "unauthorized signature" argument collapsed under the weight of the seal, the payment, and the witnesses' own testimony.

Glam Glow's defence 2: "The 100 million VND/month figure is a typo."
Glam Glow argued the figure made no economic sense — comparing it to contracts with more famous celebrities (a runner-up beauty queen, other actors) that only paid 5–10 million VND/month.

Court's implicit finding: The amount was written in figures rather than also in words — which Glam Glow said indicated a drafting error. But witness Journalist Jenny Do (who brokered the original deal) testified she specifically relayed Lily's own 100 million VND/month demand to Glam Glow, and that this figure was incorporated into the contract deliberately. Lily's own team pointed out: Glam Glow is a large, established company with a professional legal team — claiming you didn't notice a 100-million-per-month clause in a contract you sealed is not a credible position.

Glam Glow's defence 3: "We didn't really use the images commercially."
Their lawyer suggested the continued presence of Lily's images was merely a "staff oversight," not active commercial use.

Court's finding: The procès-verbal documentary evidence showed Lily's images on active commercial pages of Glam Glow — a registered e-commerce-website operator whose Director, as the website's legal responsible person, "knew or should have known" what content was being published.

First instance verdict:

• ✅ Accepted Lily's claim for 800 million VND (8 months × 100M)
• ✅ Ordered Glam Glow to pay — plus statutory interest until fully executed
• ✅ Discontinued the public-apology demand (Lily had withdrawn it)
• Glam Glow ordered to pay 18 million VND in first-instance court fees

---

⚖️ Round 2: The Appellate Judgment — The Twist

Judgment No. 163/2023/DS-PT, dated 11 April 2023 — Hanoi People's Court

Glam Glow appealed. But here's where the real story gets interesting — the case never actually got re-argued on the merits at appellate level. Instead, something more practical happened:

On 5 April 2023 — six days before the appellate hearing date — both parties reached a settlement:

Glam Glow Corp. agrees to pay Lily Pham 250,000,000 VND for the unauthorized continued use of her image. Payment confirmed transferred to Lily's authorized representative.

The Hanoi People's Court recognized the settlement as voluntary, legally consistent, and appropriate — and modified the first-instance judgment accordingly, reducing the payment obligation from 800 million to 250 million VND.

The key differences between first instance and appeal:

	First Instance	Appellate
Forum	Hai Ba Trung District Court	Hanoi People's Court
Decision type	Full judgment on merits	Settlement recognition
Amount ordered	800,000,000 VND	250,000,000 VND
Glam Glow pays court fees	18,000,000 VND (first-instance)	0 (appellate) + gets 300,000 VND deposit back
Public apology demand	Already discontinued	Same
Contract penalty/late interest	Lily waived voluntarily	Same

The Hanoi Prosecutor's Office (VKS) agreed with the outcome, recommending the court recognize the settlement per Article 308.2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Appellate Panel concurred.

---

🏠🚗 Real-life analogies

• 🚗 The car rental that keeps your car. You rent a car for a weekend. The rental company keeps driving it for 8 more months for their own commercial use without telling you, then argues "the daily rate was a typo" when you invoice them. The contract says what it says — if the rate was wrong, the time to object was before you accepted the keys and drove the car.
• 🏠 The landlord who keeps subletting after the lease. A tenant moves out on April 5th. The landlord immediately sublets the room under the tenant's registered lease for 8 more months without paying the original tenant anything. The use is documented, the benefit is real, and "we forgot to update the listing" doesn't undo the obligation.

---

🤔 Did you know? Quick legal trivia 🤔

• The procès-verbal (vi bằng) used to document Glam Glow's ongoing unauthorized use is a uniquely Vietnamese evidentiary instrument issued by licensed bailiffs (Thừa phát lại). It works as a contemporaneous, officially-witnessed record of facts — equivalent to having a notary physically sit with you while you screenshot infringing content, giving those screenshots real evidentiary weight in court.
• Under Article 3, Section 6 of the contract, the 100M/month clause was a liquidated damages clause — a pre-agreed figure for breach — not a "damages for actual loss" claim. This matters legally: Lily's team correctly argued she didn't need to prove what profit Glam Glow made or what actual losses she suffered. The clause set the rate in advance, and breach triggers the rate automatically.
• In Vietnamese civil procedure, if a settlement is reached during appellate proceedings, the appellate court modifies (not fully reverses) the first-instance judgment to reflect the settlement. The appealing party (Glam Glow) gets their appellate filing fee back, but still owes first-instance fees proportional to the settled amount.
• Signature authority (thẩm quyền ký kết) disputes are extremely common in Vietnamese commercial litigation. The practical rule of thumb: if the company seal appears on a contract, the company's defense that it "didn't know about" the contract faces a very steep uphill road, because Vietnamese law treats the seal as a controlled, director-supervised instrument.

---

📝 Quick self-quiz — are you image-rights-fluent yet?

1. What Vietnamese legal instrument did Lily use to document Glam Glow's continuing unauthorized use?
   A. Police report B. Notarized affidavit C. Procès-verbal (vi bằng) D. Tax audit record
2. Under Lily's contract, what triggered the 100M VND/month payment obligation?
   A. Glam Glow earning profit from the images B. Lily proving she suffered actual loss C. Glam Glow continuing to use her image after the 3-month licensed period D. The images appearing more than 10 times
3. True or false: Glam Glow successfully argued the contract was void because VP Nick Chen lacked signing authority.
4. The first-instance court ordered 800M VND. The appellate settlement was 250M VND. What percentage of the original award did Lily ultimately receive?
   A. About 15% B. About 31% C. About 50% D. About 67%
5. In Vietnamese appellate civil procedure, if parties settle during the hearing, the appellate court:
   A. Fully upholds the first-instance judgment B. Dismisses the case entirely C. Modifies the first-instance judgment to reflect the settlement D. Refers back to first-instance court

Answer key: 1-C · 2-C · 3-False · 4-B (250/800 ≈ 31.25%) · 5-C 🎉

---

💡 Practical tips for anyone licensing their image — or using someone else's

If you're the talent/image owner (like Lily):

• Build the overdue-use rate into the contract explicitly — as a liquidated damages clause, not a vague "additional fee may apply." Lily's clause worked because it named a specific figure.
• Get it documented the moment you spot unauthorized use — a procès-verbal or a screen-recording plus a notarized affidavit buys you evidentiary credibility that screenshots alone don't.
• Send written C&D notices promptly and keep copies. Lily's team sent two letters; Glam Glow's own (belated) response acknowledged the use — which became evidence for the plaintiff, not the defendant.
• Consult a lawyer before waiving anything — Lily voluntarily waived the public apology demand and the contract-breach penalty (separate from the image use fees). These were tactical choices, not inevitable ones.

If you're the company licensing talent:

• Never use images past the contract expiry date, even "temporarily." "We forgot to groom the social media pages" is not a defence — it's the factual basis of an 800-million-VND claim.
• Ensure your signer has documented authority, and keep the authorization paper on file. Nick Chen's authority was likely real (he sealed contracts routinely), but the paper trail wasn't there when Glam Glow needed it most.
• If you're using a post-contract rate that looks surprisingly high, re-read it before signing — don't countersign a clause you haven't understood and then call it a typo later.

---

🌿 A quick detour into nature's version of this rule

Ecologists describe a phenomenon in territory-marking behavior called "tenure overstay" — where an animal remains in a territory after its competitive dominance has expired, continuing to consume resources and derive benefits beyond its sanctioned period. When the rightful territory-holder returns and reasserts their claim, the overstaying animal faces a disproportionately aggressive response — because the longer the overstay, the more compensation the territory-holder needs to recoup. Lily's contract clause worked exactly like this: the longer Glam Glow overstayed in her licensed image-territory, the larger the bill. The clause wasn't punitive — it was evolutionary. It simply priced the overstay at a rate high enough to incentivize timely departure. 🦁

---

🗣️ Over to you

Do you think 250 million VND (the settlement figure) was a fair outcome given the facts — or should Lily have fought for the full 800 million? And where do you stand on the "typo vs. deliberate clause" debate — given that the contract was sealed with the company stamp and the payment was made? Drop your take in the comments. And if you're a creator, artist, or performer who's ever had your image used beyond its licensed window, this case is directly relevant to you. Tag them. 📣

#VietnamLaw #ImageRights #IntellectualProperty #CelebContract #CivilLaw #AppellateSettlement #DeluluVN #NgocPrinny #LegalEducation #ContractDispute

---

🚨 Fun but serious: a brief legal disclaimer 🚨

Hey there, legal explorer! 🕵️‍♀️ Before you close this tab —

• This article summarizes a real judgment — but it's a map, not a teleporter 🗺️ Your image contract situation has its own specific terms, facts, and jurisdiction.
• Party names have been adapted for readability; the legal facts are faithful to the judgment.
• For real-world image rights disputes, summon a professional legal wizard 🧙‍♀️ — may we suggest Thầy Điệp & Associates Law Firm.
• Reading this doesn't make you a litigation lawyer, the same way watching courtroom dramas doesn't make you one either. ⚖️😉

Full disclaimer: ngocprinny.blogspot.com/2024/08/disclaimer.html

#LegalInfo #delulu.vn #NotLegalAdvice #ConsultAPro #NgocPrinny

---

💝 Support your legal ninja's wellness fund! 🍵

This judgment ran 14 pages of dense Vietnamese legal prose — every clause, testimony, and counterargument — and you just got the distilled, readable version. That distillation runs on:

• Hours of close reading and legal analysis 📚
• 10+ years of hands-on legal expertise ⚖️
• A genuine love for a good courtroom story 📝
• And the usual herbal tea situation 🍵

If this case study helped you understand Vietnamese image rights law (or just gave you something fascinating to think about), consider treating this ninja to a green tea →. It keeps the analysis sharp and the next judgment coming. 🌱

---

More about the author and the DELULU world: delulu.vn/about-2/

Author: Nguyễn Lê Bảo Ngọc (Ngọc Prinny)
Reviewed by: Lawyer Lê Thị Kim Dung and Lawyer Nguyễn Văn Điệp, Thầy Điệp & Associates Law Firm

---

And a little closing wish, sized exactly to when you're reading this:

🌙 Nếu bạn đọc bài viết này vào buổi tối, chúc bạn ngủ thật ngon — và nhớ kiểm tra lại các hợp đồng hình ảnh của bạn trước khi đi ngủ nhé.
☀️ Nếu bạn đọc vào buổi sáng, chúc bạn một ngày tràn đầy năng lượng — và mong rằng mọi hình ảnh của bạn luôn được sử dụng đúng thỏa thuận.
🇬🇧 Wherever you're reading from — may your contracts be clear, your clauses be intentional, and your images stay within their licensed windows.
🇯🇵 いつ読んでいても、心穏やかな一日を。
🇫🇷 Et où que vous soyez, que vos droits à l'image soient toujours respectés. ☘️

When Lowest Doesn't Win: The Furniture Bid That Has Everyone Asking Questions 🪑⚖️

📖 Etymology corner, before we dive in

The word "tender" — as in a public procurement tender — comes from Old French tendre, "to offer, to extend," rooted in Latin tendere, "to stretch toward." The idea is elegant: you stretch your best offer toward a buyer, and the buyer picks the most suitable one stretched back.

The word "transparent," meanwhile, comes from Medieval Latin transparere — "to show through," trans- (across) + parere (to appear). Transparency means the decision mechanism shows itself clearly, like light through glass. The moment you can't see through the glass, "transparent" becomes just a word on paper. 🔍

Which brings us to today's case — a public procurement story from Ho Chi Minh City that's raising some very uncomfortable questions about what "evaluation criteria" actually mean in practice. Ngọc Prinny-mode: on. 🦊

🧐 The setup: a very ordinary furniture bid with a very un-ordinary result

The Client: Ho Chi Minh City Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement (Thi hành án dân sự TP.HCM) — the government body responsible for enforcing court judgments in Vietnam's largest city.

The Contract: Procurement, fabrication, and installation of office desks and document shelving for the department's workspace fit-out.

Budget cap: 3.1 billion VND.

Procurement method: Competitive quotation (chào hàng cạnh tranh).

Bids opened: 29 April 2026.

Seven contractors showed up to compete. Here's how they lined up on price — from lowest to highest:

The bar chart above tells the story. On 16 June 2026, the contracting authority announced the winner: Ura Decor Co., Ltd. — with the highest bid of 2.918 billion VND. All six other bidders, including the lowest bidder, were disqualified on technical grounds. 📋

---

🧐 "First instance": what everyone expected would happen

In a standard competitive procurement, the common expectation is:

• Bidders who meet technical requirements compete on price.
• The lowest price that clears technical review wins.
• Public funds are spent as efficiently as possible.

DSD Co., Ltd. — submitting the lowest bid of 1.818 billion VND — walked in expecting exactly that logic to apply. 1.818 vs. 2.918 is not a small difference: DSD's bid would have saved the state budget roughly 1.1 billion VND compared to the winner. That's not pocket change. 💸

---

⚖️ "On appeal": what the evaluation report actually said — and why DSD disagrees

The evaluation report (prepared by Newstar Construction & Trading Co., Ltd.) disqualified DSD on three specific technical gaps:

1. No detailed step-by-step narrative for the implementation and installation methodology
2. No explanation of preservation/storage measures during transport, warehousing, and installation for each category of goods
3. No detailed warranty procedure — no plan for post-warranty maintenance, spare parts, or upkeep

DSD's response, filed in a formal petition to both the contracting authority and the Ho Chi Minh City Department of Finance, amounts to: "We did provide all of that — please look again."

Specifically, DSD claims its dossier included:

• A step-by-step implementation sequence: contract/technical dossier receipt → site survey → technical breakdown → production order → material prep → manufacturing/fabrication → quality check → packaging → transport → staging → installation → finishing → acceptance and handover
• A maximum 15-day contract execution timeline, broken down by milestone and work category, consistent with the bid document requirements
• Preservation and storage methods covering packaging, coding, transport, temporary warehousing, on-site storage, and protective measures categorized by product type: desks, MDF cabinets, doors, fittings, rails, hinges, locks, screws, brackets, strips, and related components

DSD's core argument: "The assessment that we had no explanatory narrative on these items needs to be objectively and thoroughly re-examined." 🔎

---

🚨 The detail that's making procurement observers uncomfortable

Here's where the story takes a turn. A quick search of Vietnam's National Procurement Network System (Hệ thống mạng đấu thầu quốc gia) reveals the following track records of the seven bidders:

Contractor	Past procurement wins on record
Ura Decor (WINNER)	Zero — none recorded
DSD Co. (protesting)	36 wins (2018–present)
Moc Dai	8 wins
Long Nguyen Star	66 wins
Anh Duy Equipment	55 wins
Nguyet Anh II	327 wins
Moc Nhat Minh	201 wins

In a procurement for standard office furniture — a category where track record, production capacity, and delivery reliability are primary indicators of execution capability — all six contractors with documented experience were disqualified on technical grounds, while the only contractor with zero procurement record was awarded the contract at the highest price. 😶

A procurement specialist quoted in the original report made this point plainly: evaluation of bid dossiers must be objective, fair, and transparent, anchored to the evaluation criteria in the bidding documents, with the overriding objective of selecting a capable and experienced contractor — ensuring state budget funds are used effectively. For a standard goods procurement, awarding a "brand-new" contractor at the top price while cutting every experienced bidder on technical grounds warrants very careful scrutiny.

---

🏠🚗 Real-life analogies

• 🏠 The landlord who "tours" ten apartments and picks the most expensive one with the newest-looking doormat, disqualifying the others because they didn't hand over the utility bills in a specific folder. If the folder requirement was genuinely in the lease listing, fair enough. But if those folders were actually included and the landlord just missed them — then the evaluation process failed, not the tenants.
• 🚗 A driving school hiring a new, untested instructor at the highest hourly rate, while rejecting instructors with decades of experience because their CVs used the "wrong font." Technically defensible on paper. Actually defensible in logic? That's another question.

---

🤔 Did you know? Quick legal trivia 🤔

• Vietnam's Law on Procurement (Luật Đấu thầu) establishes that evaluation of bid dossiers must follow the specific criteria set out in the bidding documents (hồ sơ mời thầu) — evaluators cannot apply criteria that weren't disclosed upfront, and cannot ignore criteria that were. This is the foundation of DSD's protest: if their dossier actually satisfied the stated criteria, disqualification is legally contestable.
• Contractors have the right to petition (kiến nghị) at multiple levels — first to the contracting authority, then to a higher authority — and the authority receiving the petition is obligated to respond within statutory timeframes. Silence or delay is itself a procedural violation.
• The competitive quotation method (chào hàng cạnh tranh) in Vietnam is designed for standard, commonly available goods, where price competition is the primary value driver. Applying complex technical barriers to knock out experienced bidders on a standard furniture contract is exactly the scenario that procurement watchdog guidelines warn against.
• This is not an isolated incident at the same department: other recent procurements at the same body (computer equipment for newly recruited officials, and computers for enforcement operations across 19 district units) also generated multiple clarification requests and protests.

---

📝 Quick self-quiz — are you procurement-literate yet?

1. In a competitive quotation procurement, what is generally the primary deciding factor once technical requirements are met?
   A. The bidder's brand recognition B. Price competitiveness C. The evaluation committee's preference D. The bid submission font
2. Under Vietnam's procurement system, if a bidder disagrees with the evaluation result, they can:
   A. Only accept the outcome B. File a petition to the contracting authority and/or a higher body C. Immediately go to court D. Publicly announce the result
3. True or false: the contracting authority must always award to the lowest bidder, regardless of technical compliance.
4. What is the name of Vietnam's online platform where procurement awards are publicly recorded?
   A. Cổng dịch vụ công B. Hệ thống mạng đấu thầu quốc gia C. VnExpress đấu thầu D. BHXH điện tử
5. In this case, how much more expensive was the winning bid compared to the lowest bid?
   A. ~300 million VND B. ~600 million VND C. ~1.1 billion VND D. ~3 billion VND

Answer key: 1-B · 2-B · 3-False (technical compliance is the threshold, price is the deciding factor among compliant bids) · 4-B · 5-C 🎉

---

💡 Practical tips for bidders, rights holders, and procurement watchers

• Read the bidding document (HSMT) against your submitted dossier line by line before submission. If a criterion asks for "step-by-step narrative," make sure your headings use that language explicitly, not just the content implied by it.
• Keep a clean, indexed copy of your bid dossier. If you're disqualified, your petition needs to reference specific pages/sections that address the criteria the evaluator claims were missing.
• Know your petition timeline. Procurement law sets statutory deadlines for petitions and for contracting authority responses — missing those windows can forfeit your right to contest.
• Check the National Procurement Network (mạng đấu thầu quốc gia) when you win or lose — it's public, searchable, and a useful reference for benchmarking your competitors' track records.
• If you're a contracting authority or evaluation committee member: document your reasoning thoroughly and specifically. "Doesn't meet technical requirements" without pinpointing exactly which criterion and why is the kind of vague finding that creates exactly this sort of contestable outcome.

---

🌿 A quick detour into nature's version of this rule

Evolutionary biology describes a concept called honest signaling — where signals that convey quality or fitness are only reliable when they're genuinely costly or difficult to fake. An animal with a bright, symmetrical plumage can't easily fake that symmetry — it's an honest signal of genetic fitness. The entire logic of competitive procurement is built on the same principle: price is an honest signal because it directly costs the bidder real money. A bidder willing to do the job for 1.818B when others ask for 2.918B is sending a strong, real-cost signal of confidence in their production efficiency. When procurement evaluations systematically filter out the "honest signals" — on technical grounds that the bidder disputes — and elevate a bidder with no track record at the highest price, the signaling system breaks down. 🦚 And when signaling systems break down, trust in the entire ecosystem erodes.

---

🗣️ Over to you

Should a "brand-new" contractor with zero procurement wins ever be awarded a public contract at the highest bid, while six more experienced and cheaper competitors are eliminated on technical grounds? Is this a legitimate evaluation outcome, or does it point to something the system needs to look at more closely? Drop your take in the comments — especially if you've participated in (or watched) a similar procurement process in Vietnam. And if you work in public procurement, procurement law, or civil judgment enforcement, this conversation is exactly for you. Tag them. 📣

#VietnamLaw #PublicProcurement #BidDispute #Transparency #LawOnProcurement #DeluluVN #NgocPrinny #LegalEducation #GovernmentContracting #CivilEnforcement

---

🚨 Fun but serious: a brief legal disclaimer 🚨

Hey there, legal explorer! 🕵️‍♀️ Before you close this tab —

• This article is a map, not a teleporter 🗺️ — it'll orient you, but it won't file your procurement petition for you.
• Every procurement dispute turns on its own specific dossier and evaluation record 🦄 — the outcome in this case doesn't automatically predict yours.
• For real-world procurement quests, summon a professional legal wizard 🧙‍♀️ — may we suggest Thầy Điệp & Associates Law Firm, the firm that reviews what gets published here.
• Reading this doesn't make you a procurement lawyer, the same way watching The Apprentice doesn't make you a business mogul. 💼😉

Full disclaimer details: ngocprinny.blogspot.com/2024/08/disclaimer.html

#LegalInfo #delulu.vn #NotLegalAdvice #ConsultAPro #NgocPrinny

---

💝 Support your legal ninja's wellness fund! 🍵

Enjoyed this deep dive into the world where the lowest bid doesn't always win? Every article like this one runs on:

• Hours of reading procurement reports and system records 📚
• 10+ years of hands-on legal expertise ⚖️
• A healthy dose of healthy skepticism 📝
• And — you guessed it — herbal tea 🍵

If this post helped you understand how procurement disputes work in Vietnam (or just scratched your "wait, that doesn't seem right" itch), consider treating this ninja to a green tea →. It keeps the puns flowing, the research honest, and the ninja caffeinated for the next one. 🌱

More about the author and the DELULU world: delulu.vn/about-2/

Author: Nguyễn Lê Bảo Ngọc (Ngọc Prinny)
Reviewed by: Lawyer Lê Thị Kim Dung and Lawyer Nguyễn Văn Điệp, Thầy Điệp & Associates Law Firm

And a little closing wish, timed exactly to whenever you're reading this:

🇬🇧 Wherever you're reading from — may your bids be fairly evaluated and your lowest price actually mean something.
🇯🇵 いつ読んでいても、心穏やかな一日を。
🇫🇷 Et où que vous soyez, que la transparence soit toujours au rendez-vous. ☘️

🚗💸 He Paid a Bribe in Cash — So Why Did the Court Confiscate His Car?

A "3 Mins Legal" Nutshell Breakdown by Ngọc Prinny

📖 First, a Little Etymology Detour

Before we dive in, let's geek out for 15 seconds on the word "confiscate." 🤓

It comes from the Latin confiscare — con- ("together") + fiscus ("the state treasury, the public purse"). Literally: "to gather something into the treasury." The Roman fiscus is also where we get "fiscal" and "fisc." So when a court "confiscates" your car, it's etymologically just sending your beloved Camry on a one-way trip into the government's wallet. 💰🚙➡️🏛️

Cute word origin. Less cute when it's your car. Which brings us to today's case.

🎬 The Case, In a Nutshell

Picture this — not a galaxy far away, but Đồng Nai province, and a Toyota Camry that's about to have a very eventful legal journey. 🏛️🚗

A university rector — let's call him Mr. Bảo Long (former Rector of a public university, name changed for clarity) — was being investigated for financial irregularities. Wanting that headache to disappear, he and two associates (we'll call them Mr. Thành and Mr. Thắng) reached out to a forensic examiner at the provincial Finance Department, whom we'll call Mr. Quốc Trung, and arranged for 39 million VND 💵 to flow his way — in exchange for a forensic conclusion stating there were no financial violations worth worrying about.

Mr. Trung accepted, and issued forensic conclusions stating the university's accounting and tax handling for the 2018–2019 period had no violations and caused no loss to the state budget. Spoiler: that conclusion didn't hold up — a later official audit (Nov 2025) found the university had actually caused over 6.29 billion VND in financial damage. 😬

One detail turns out to matter a lot for our story: on January 15, 2023, when handing over 10 million VND of that bribe, Mr. Long personally drove his own Toyota Camry 2.0E to a spot across from the Finance Department's gate to make the handoff.

Bribery happened. That part isn't in dispute (Mr. Trung even self-confessed in June 2023). The real legal puzzle is about something else entirely: the Camry. 🚗❓

⚖️ Round 1: The First-Instance Trial

📌 First-Instance Criminal Judgment No. 206/2024/HSST, dated September 23, 2024 — Đồng Nai Provincial People's Court

The trial court found Mr. Long guilty of giving a bribe under Article 364 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to 9 months in prison (with three co-defendants also convicted for related bribery offenses).

But the court didn't stop there. Applying Article 47 of the Penal Code and Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it also ordered the confiscation of the Toyota Camry 2.0E (along with its key and registration papers) into the state treasury — ruling that the car counted as a "tool/instrument used to commit the crime" (phương tiện phạm tội) because he'd driven it to the bribery meeting.

Key Round 1 takeaway: ✅ Bribery conviction stands. 🚗 Camry seized as "crime equipment."

Mr. Long appealed on October 3, 2024 — specifically asking for a lighter sentence AND the return of his car. 🙋‍♂️

---

⚖️ Round 2: The Appeal — Where It Gets Worse, Not Better

📌 Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 57/2025/HS-PT, dated January 14, 2025 — High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City

Despite Mr. Long specifically requesting his car back, the appellate court upheld everything — the conviction, the sentence, and the car confiscation. No changes. 🔁

This is actually the part the Supreme People's Procuracy called out most harshly. According to their official notice, the appellate court "failed to detect the trial court's error and upheld its decision on the judicial measure — a serious mistake that affected the defendant's lawful rights and interests." 😳 In other words: the chance to fix this was right there, and the appellate court missed it.

So at this point, two courts in a row had agreed: car = crime tool = state property now.

---

🚨 Round 3: The Plot Twist (Cassation Review)

Here's where it gets spicy. 🌶️ On October 21, 2025, the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People's Procuracy filed a cassation protest (kháng nghị giám đốc thẩm) against the appellate judgment — essentially saying: "Hold on. Something doesn't add up here."

And honestly? They had a point. The bribe-by-car portion was just 10 million VND out of a 39-million-VND total. The Camry seized in "compensation" was worth many, many times more. That's not exactly proportional. 📉➡️📈

On January 13, 2026, the Judicial Council of the Supreme People's Court accepted the protest and reasoned through it logically:

• 🚗 The car was only used to drive to the meeting point — basic transportation.
• 🚫 It was not the direct instrument used to commit the act of bribery (the money was — and the money, separately, is handled as proceeds of crime).
• 🚫 It wasn't used to store, conceal, or transport evidence in any decisive way.
• 🔗 There was no direct causal link between the car and the act of bribery itself — meaning the bribery could have happened just as easily on foot, by motorbike, by Grab, or by teleportation if that existed. The car wasn't essential to the crime.

Conclusion: The Camry was not a "tool of the crime" under Article 47 of the Penal Code. Both the trial court and the appellate court had misapplied the law — the trial court for making the error in the first place, and the appellate court for failing to catch and fix it. The confiscation portion of the appellate judgment was annulled (hủy), and the case was sent back for a fresh appellate trial on that specific point, to be decided correctly this time. 🔄

The Supreme People's Procuracy didn't stop at fixing this one case, either — it issued Official Notice No. 128/TB-VKSTC (dated May 20, 2026) instructing procuracy offices nationwide to study this case and tighten up their oversight of how courts apply judicial measures like asset confiscation. Translation: "Let's not do this again, everyone." 📢

---

📊 Quick Infographic: The Case at a Glance

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  THE BRIBE CAMRY CASE — TIMELINE                             │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  💵 Total bribe:              39,000,000 VND (3 people)      │
│  🚗 Bribe handed via car:     10,000,000 VND (Jan 15, 2023)  │
│  🚙 Car seized:               Toyota Camry 2.0E (worth FAR   │
│                                more than the bribe itself)   │
│                                                               │
│  ROUND 1 — Trial Court                                       │
│   No. 206/2024/HSST (Sep 23, 2024)                           │
│   ➜ Guilty (9 months) + Car confiscated                     │
│                                                               │
│  ROUND 2 — Appellate Court                                   │
│   No. 57/2025/HS-PT (Jan 14, 2025)                           │
│   ➜ Upheld everything, even after defendant asked for        │
│      the car back. Missed the error.                         │
│                                                               │
│  ROUND 3 — Cassation Review (Supreme People's Court)         │
│   Protest filed Oct 21, 2025 → Decided Jan 13, 2026           │
│   ➜ Car confiscation ANNULLED, sent back for re-trial        │
│                                                               │
│  📢 Nationwide guidance: VKSTC Notice 128/TB-VKSTC            │
│      (May 20, 2026)                                          │
│                                                               │
│  🔑 Legal test for "tool of crime" (Art. 47 Penal Code):     │
│     1️⃣ Directly used to commit the act?                     │
│     2️⃣ Used to store/conceal/transport evidence?             │
│     3️⃣ Direct causal link to the crime?                     │
│     ➜ Camry failed ALL THREE. Mere transportation ≠          │
│        instrument of crime.                                  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

---

🏠🚗 Real-Life Examples (So This Isn't Just Abstract)

• 🚗 The Getaway Car Analogy: If someone uses a van specifically to smuggle stolen goods, that van is a tool of the crime — it's functionally part of how the crime worked. But if a thief simply drove to the store before shoplifting, the car didn't do the stealing — his hands did. Same logic applies here: the Camry didn't bribe anyone. Mr. Long did, with cash.
• 🏠 The House Analogy: If you host an illegal gambling den in your living room every night, your house could arguably be treated as a tool/location of the crime. But if you simply happen to live somewhere and once made a phone call from your kitchen to plan something illegal, your house isn't suddenly state property. Context and necessity matter.
• 📱 The Phone Analogy: Texting "let's meet at 3pm" to arrange a crime doesn't usually make your phone a confiscatable "weapon." It's incidental, not instrumental.

---

🤔 Did You Know? — Legal Trivia Break

• 🧠 Under Vietnamese criminal law, judicial confiscation measures are NOT automatic punishments — they're separate "judicial measures" (biện pháp tư pháp), and courts must justify each one individually, not just bundle them in for good measure.
• 🧠 "Giám đốc thẩm" (cassation review/supervisory review) isn't a third level of appeal you can request anytime — it's a special procedure triggered by serious legal errors in a case that's already final, usually initiated by senior procuracy or court officials.
• 🧠 Confiscating "proceeds of crime" (tài sản do phạm tội mà có) and confiscating "tools used in the crime" (phương tiện phạm tội) are two completely different legal baskets — mixing them up is exactly the mistake this case corrects.
• 🧠 Even when a defendant explicitly asks for an asset back on appeal (as Mr. Long did here), that doesn't guarantee the appellate court will catch a legal error from the trial below — which is exactly why this case needed a third round of review to get fixed.

---

🌿 Nature's Version of This Law

Even ecosystems follow a "proportionality and necessity" principle, in their own brutal way: a predator doesn't waste energy hunting prey that isn't worth the calories burned chasing it. 🦁 Evolution punishes disproportionate effort for the result. Courts, similarly, aren't supposed to seize disproportionate assets just because they were nearby when a crime happened. Nature: "don't burn fuel you don't need to." Law: "don't confiscate property you don't need to." Same energy. 🌱⚖️

💡 Tips for Understanding & Applying This Principle

1. Ask "would the crime still have happened without this item?" If yes — it's probably not a "tool of crime," just incidental property.
2. Separate "instrument of crime" from "proceeds of crime." Different legal categories, different rules, different outcomes.
3. Proportionality matters. A 39-million-VND bribe and a multi-hundred-million-VND car seizure should raise eyebrows — courts are expected to apply judicial measures fairly, not punitively beyond what the law authorizes.
4. If you're ever facing asset seizure in a criminal matter, get a lawyer to specifically challenge which legal category the prosecution/court is using to justify it. This case proves that distinction is exactly where appeals (and cassation protests) win.

---

📝 Quick Self-Check Quiz

1. What is the legal term for the special review procedure used here to overturn a final judgment due to serious legal error?

   • A) Phúc thẩm (Appeal)
   • B) Giám đốc thẩm (Cassation/supervisory review)
   • C) Tái thẩm (Reopening due to new facts)

2. Under Article 47 of the Penal Code, which of these is NOT one of the tests used to determine whether an asset is a "tool of crime"?

   • A) Was it directly used to commit the act?
   • B) Was it used to store/conceal/transport evidence?
   • C) Was it purchased with the defendant's own salary?

3. True or False: Even though the defendant asked the appellate court to return his car, the appellate court still upheld the confiscation — meaning the error survived two full court levels before being fixed.

(Answers: 1-B, 2-C, 3-True — scroll back up if you need the receipts 😉)

---

🗣️ Now It's Your Turn

So — do you think the Supreme People's Procuracy got it right by stepping in here? Or do you think "well, he did drive it there, so..." has a point? 👀 Drop your take in the comments below — I read every single one (between sips of green tea 🍵). And if you've ever had property seized or threatened with seizure in a legal matter, I'd genuinely love to hear how that distinction between "tool of crime" vs. "incidental property" played out for you.

Hashtags: #VietnamLaw #CriminalLaw #LegalEducation #3MinsLegal #NgocPrinny #PenalCode #AssetForfeiture #BriberyCase #LegalTrivia #LawExplained #delulu.vn

---

🚨 Fun But Serious: A Brief Legal Disclaimer 🚨

Hey there, legal explorer! 🕵️‍♂️ Before you bounce off to tell all your friends about a Camry's wrongful arrest, let's get real for a second:

• 📖 This article is a map, not a teleporter — it'll help you understand the terrain, but it won't zap your own legal situation away.
• 🦄 Every legal journey is unique. Your facts, your province, your judge — all of it changes the outcome. Mileage will vary.
• 🧙‍♂️ For real-world legal quests, please summon an actual legal wizard. May we humbly suggest Thầy Điệp & Associates Law Firm, who handle exactly this kind of criminal law nuance.
• 📜 Need notarization for something unrelated but equally important? Say hello to our friends at Thủ Thiêm Notary Office.
• ✈️ Remember: reading this doesn't make you a lawyer, just like watching Top Gun doesn't make you a fighter pilot. 😉

For the full, formal version of this disclaimer, see: ngocprinny.blogspot.com — Disclaimer

#LegalInfo #delulu.vn #NotLegalAdvice #ConsultAPro #NgocPrinny

---

💝 Support Your Legal Ninja's Wellness Fund! 🍵

Enjoyed this witty deep-dive into confiscation law? Help keep this legal ninja caffeinated, researched, and ready for the next case breakdown! Every article here is fueled by:

• 📚 Hours of digging through judgments and procuracy notices
• ⚖️ 10+ years of legal know-how (and counting)
• 📝 Way too much creative energy spent on car-related puns
• 🍵 An honestly concerning amount of herbal tea

If this post helped you navigate one more corner of Vietnam's legal labyrinth, consider buying this ninja a cup of tea: Support Ngọc Prinny here 🍵💝

Your support keeps the legal puns flowing, the knowledge growing, and this ninja well-rested for better content. 🌱

---

🌙 Reading this at night? Sleep well and dream of fair, proportional judgments. 😴⚖️ ☀️ Reading this in the morning? Wishing you a bright day, zero legal headaches, and plenty of good coffee (or tea!) to go with it. ☕🌞

Author: Nguyễn Lê Bảo Ngọc (Ngọc Prinny) 

Consulted by: Luật sư Lê Thị Kim Dung & Luật sư Nguyễn Văn Điệp 

Source: Official Notice No. 128/TB-VKSTC, dated May 20, 2026, issued by the Supreme People's Procuracy of Vietnam