Expanding the scope of anti-corruption efforts.
It is not uncommon for the private sector to serve as a safe haven, a "backyard," or even a "money laundering" facility for corrupt officials in the public sector.
The draft submission on the revised Law on Prevention and Combat of Corruption, prepared by the Government Inspectorate and reviewed by the Ministry of Justice, has significantly expanded its scope compared to before, including the handling of individuals who commit acts of corruption; the handling of related agencies, organizations, and individuals; and the handling of assets and income that cannot be reasonably explained.
 |
| Illustrative image |
In addition to the individuals stipulated by current law, the concept of "persons holding positions of authority" has been expanded to include "persons holding the positions of chairman of the board of directors, members of the board of directors, general director, director, head of the supervisory board, chief accountant of public companies, credit institutions, and investment funds" and "chairman, general secretary, chief accountant, head of the inspection board of social organizations".
Regarding acts of corruption, while the draft law essentially retains the provisions on acts of corruption as in the current law, it has been revised and clarified to be consistent and in line with the provisions of the Penal Code on corruption offenses.
This change reflects the spirit of gradually expanding the scope of the law to include organizations and businesses outside the state sector. It must be said that this is a very correct policy. Corruption in the non-state sector is also becoming increasingly serious and complex, but it is not yet regulated by the Law on Prevention and Combat of Corruption. Without including the private sector under regulation and control, the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts in the public sector will be significantly reduced, because in reality, there is always a close connection between public and private relationships in many fields, like "communicating vessels."
It is not uncommon for the private sector to serve as a haven, a "backyard," or even a "money laundering" facility for corrupt officials in the public sector. Anti-corruption efforts will be ineffective if the private sector is ignored; conversely, combating corruption in the private sector is also essential for combating corruption in the public sector.
Furthermore, the current Penal Code has expanded its scope to include the non-state sector (for four offenses: embezzlement, bribery, receiving bribes, and brokering bribery), and also stipulates the criminal liability of legal entities. Directive No. 50-CT/TW dated December 7, 2015, of the Politburo on strengthening the Party's leadership in detecting and handling corruption cases and incidents requires the unification of regulations on corrupt acts between the Penal Code and the Law on Anti-Corruption. The United Nations Convention against Corruption also requires the prevention and control of corruption in the private sector. Therefore, expanding the scope of the Law on Anti-Corruption to the non-state sector is essential.
However, the expansion needs to be feasible, based on the current state of development and management requirements for the non-state sector, as well as the ability to control this sector. Therefore, the drafting agency has chosen the immediate option of mandating the application of certain anti-corruption measures to the following entities: public companies, credit institutions, and investment funds.
The reason for prioritizing public companies, credit institutions, non-public service units, and investment funds is that these entities have a clear separation between owners and managers in their governance and management mechanisms. This separation increases the risk of managers abusing their positions and authority for corruption. For other non-state organizations and businesses, the law provides general principles on anti-corruption to be implemented in accordance with their specific business activities and regulates inspection and auditing procedures based on the authority of their respective sectors and fields.
According to VOV