Precedent No. 86/2026/AL on legal events giving rise to grounds for reconsideration under retrial procedure was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on May 21, 2026, and announced under Decision No. 162/QĐ-CA dated May 29, 2026, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a Precedent?
Precedent refers to arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Court regarding a specific case, selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and announced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedents for Courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HĐTP)
Selected precedents must meet the following criteria:
– Have the value of clarifying legal provisions that are subject to different interpretations, analyzing and explaining legal issues and events, and indicating principles, approaches to handling, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case, or demonstrating fairness for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– Be exemplary;
– Have the value of guiding the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 86/2026/AL on legal events giving rise to grounds for reconsideration under retrial procedure
2.1. Source of Precedent
Retrial Decision No. 05/2022/KDTM-TT dated February 25, 2022, of the Committee of Judges of the High People’s Court in Hanoi regarding the commercial business case “Dispute over credit contract” between the plaintiff, Joint Stock Commercial Bank Q, and the defendant, Limited Liability Company T; the party with related rights and obligations is Limited Liability Company H.
Location of precedent content:
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.
2.2. Overview of Precedent Content
– Precedent situation:
A credit contract dispute between the plaintiff (credit institution) and the defendant (enterprise) was resolved by a legally effective judgment or decision of the Court, obliging the defendant to pay money to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the investigative agency determined that the defendant’s legal representative had fraudulent acts in debt repayment to appropriate the plaintiff’s money, thus issuing a decision to initiate a criminal case and prosecute this person, along with accompanying documents requesting the competent authority to consider a review of the aforementioned legally effective judgment or decision.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the Court must determine that the decision to prosecute the accused and the accompanying documents from the investigative agency mentioned above constitute a legal event giving rise to grounds for reconsideration under retrial procedure for the legally effective judgment or decision of the Court.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
Articles 351, 352 and Clause 1, Article 353 Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Credit contract”; “Decision to prosecute the accused”; “New details”; “Legal events giving rise to grounds for reconsideration under retrial procedure”.
CASE CONTENT:
According to the statement of claim dated July 19, 2018, and during the proceedings, the plaintiff, Joint Stock Commercial Bank Q (represented by its legal representative), stated: On March 21, 2011, Limited Liability Company T (hereinafter referred to as Company T) signed credit limit contract No. 29.11.066.899998.TD with Joint Stock Commercial Bank Q (hereinafter referred to as Bank Q). Accordingly, Bank Q agreed to grant Company T credit facilities with a maximum committed amount of 300,000,000,000 VND at all times, of which the maximum payment guarantee limit was 200,000,000,000 VND, to finance working capital, open import L/Cs for the production and business activities of steel, steel billets, and various types of coal in 2011.
Bank Q disbursed 246,000,000,000 VND to Company T through 06 promissory notes, with a loan term of 03 months from the disbursement date of each note.
The collateral for the aforementioned loan of Company T included:
– The right to claim debt against Limited Liability Company H for trade and construction under mortgage contract No. 18.11.066.899998.ĐB dated March 21, 2011 (amended on November 14, 2011), registered as a mortgage at the Asset Transaction Registration Center in Hanoi on March 29, 2011, valued at 607,550,000,000 VND.
– The right to claim debt against Limited Liability Company H for trade and construction under mortgage contract No. 78.11.066.899998.ĐB dated September 30, 2011, registered as a mortgage at the Asset Transaction Registration Center in Hanoi on October 4, 2011, valued at 65,620,480,302 VND.
Additionally, the loan was secured by other real estate assets, which were agreed upon by both parties to be processed during the Bank’s debt recovery from Company T, and the mortgages on these real estate assets have been released.
During the contract execution, due to Company T’s violation of debt repayment obligations, the debts under the aforementioned promissory notes became overdue. Therefore, the Bank filed a lawsuit requesting the Court to compel Company T to repay the Bank a total amount of 535,605,196,882 VND as of the first-instance trial date of August 22, 2020; including principal debt of 133,783,843,161 VND; in-term interest of 4,979,395,772 VND; overdue interest of 396,841,957,949 VND, and has the right to request the competent authority to dispose of the collateral assets, which are the rights to claim debt under mortgage contract No. 18.11.066.899998.ĐB dated March 21, 2011 (amended on November 14, 2011) and the rights to claim debt under mortgage contract No. 78.11.066.899998.ĐB dated September 30, 2011, in case Company T fails to repay the aforementioned loan to the Bank.
The defendant, Limited Liability Company T for trade and tourism services (represented by Mr. Doan Hong D in the statement taken on June 4, 2020), stated: He agreed with the Bank’s representative’s statement regarding the signing of credit limit contract No. 29.11.066.899998.TD and the disbursed amount according to the 06 signed promissory notes. The collateral for the aforementioned loan consists of 02 rights to claim debt against Limited Liability Company H for trade and construction (hereinafter referred to as Company H) and some other real estate assets. During the process of fulfilling debt repayment obligations, Company T and Bank Q agreed to dispose of some real estate assets as collateral to recover the debt, and Bank Q released the mortgages on these real estate assets. However, due to the excessively low deduction of real estate values, the outstanding balance of the contract remains as per Bank Q’s current lawsuit. According to the content of the statement of claim and the documents notified by the Court, Company T is aware that, as of July 14, 2018, Company T still owes the Bank a total of 407,316,591,766 VND, including principal debt of 133,783,843,161 VND; and interest debt of 313,532,748,605 VND. These figures were provided by Bank Q. Company T is no longer operating, and he, as the legal representative of Company T, has been in temporary detention for a long time, so he does not remember and no longer has any documents or evidence to cross-reference and prove, thus he has no basis to confirm the aforementioned outstanding balance. Therefore, he disagreed with Bank Q’s lawsuit. As Company T is currently inactive and lacks the financial capacity to fulfill its debt repayment obligations, he requested the Court to resolve the matter based on legal provisions. Regarding the disposal of the collateral, which are the 02 rights to claim debt of Company T against Company H under the contracts signed between the parties. As Company H is also currently inactive and lacks financial capacity, its legal representative, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh S, and the members of Company H are currently doing what and where he does not know, and the purchase and sale contracts between Company T and Company H have also been settled, so there are no longer any assets for the Bank to request the disposal of the collateral, which are the 02 rights to claim debt with Company H, requesting the Court to resolve the matter according to legal provisions.
The party with related rights and obligations, Limited Liability Company H for trade and construction, has its registered office according to the Business Registration Certificate at Handicraft Cluster, D Craft Village, H1 Commune, D District, Ha Nam Province. Through verification with local authorities, Company H is currently no longer operating at the aforementioned address, and Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh S, the legal representative of Company H, no longer resides at her registered permanent address. Address No. 425 M Street, V Ward, B District, Hanoi City, has been cleared for the M Street expansion project, and local authorities do not know where Ms. S currently is.
In Commercial Business First-Instance Judgment No. 15/2020/KDTM-ST dated August 22, 2020, the People’s Court of Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi City, decided:
To accept all claims of Bank Q against Company T.
To compel Company T to repay Bank Q the outstanding debt under credit limit contract No. 29.11.066.899998.TD dated March 21, 2011, and the 06 accompanying promissory notes, provisionally calculated until August 22, 2020, as follows:
– Principal debt: 133,783,843,161 VND.
– In-term interest debt: 4,979,395,772 VND.
– Overdue interest debt: 396,841,957,949 VND.
Total: 535,605,196,882 VND (Five hundred thirty-five billion six hundred five million one hundred ninety-six thousand eight hundred eighty-two VND).
From the day following the first-instance trial date until the enforcement of the judgment is completed, the party obliged to enforce the judgment must also bear interest on the remaining principal debt to be enforced, at the overdue interest rate agreed upon by the parties in the credit contract, but in accordance with legal provisions.
Should Company T fail to repay or fully repay the above debt, Bank Q has the right to request the competent enforcement agency to dispose of the collateral assets, including:
– The right to claim debt of Company T against Limited Liability Company H for trade and construction, valued at 607,550,000,000 VND, according to mortgage contract No. 18.11.066.899998.ĐB dated March 21, 2011, and contract amendment document No. 90.11.066.899998 dated November 14, 2011;
– The right to claim debt of Company T against Limited Liability Company H for trade and construction, valued at 65,620,480,302 VND, according to mortgage contract No. 76.11.066.899998.ĐB dated September 30, 2011.
Additionally, the judgment also decided on court fees and the parties’ right to appeal.
On November 15, 2021, the Criminal Investigation Agency – Ministry of National Defense issued Document No. 258/ĐTHS-P1 proposing a review under cassation and retrial procedures for the aforementioned first-instance commercial business judgment of the People’s Court of Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi City.
In Retrial Protest Decision No. 23/2021/KN-KDTM dated December 10, 2021, the Chief Justice of the High People’s Court in Hanoi protested against Commercial Business First-Instance Judgment No. 15/2020/KDTM-ST dated August 22, 2020, of the People’s Court of Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi City; requesting the Committee of Judges of the High People’s Court in Hanoi to conduct a retrial to annul the entire aforementioned first-instance commercial business judgment; and to remand the case file to the People’s Court of Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi City, for re-adjudication under first-instance procedure in accordance with legal provisions.
At the retrial hearing, the representative of the High People’s Procuracy in Hanoi requested the Committee of Judges of the High People’s Court in Hanoi to accept the protest of the Chief Justice of the High People’s Court in Hanoi.
COURT’S OPINION:
[1] According to the verification by the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Ministry of National Defense, it was determined that after signing credit contract No. 29.11.066.899998.TD dated March 21, 2011, with Bank Q, Company T prepared loan documents from Bank Q – L Branch, Hanoi City, to purchase steel billets from S1 Vietnam Company and sell them to O Company. In reality, Company T did not transfer the proceeds from the sale of steel billets to Company T’s account at Bank Q to repay the Bank, but instead requested O Company to transfer the money to Company T’s account at Bank B – H2 Branch for other purposes. Therefore, there are grounds to determine that Mr. Doan Hong D – Director of Company T – committed fraudulent acts in debt repayment to appropriate 86,000,000,000 VND in principal debt from Bank Q. On September 26, 2021, the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Ministry of National Defense issued a decision to initiate a criminal case and prosecute Doan Hong D and Nguyen Thi Thanh S for the act of “Abuse of trust to appropriate property” as stipulated in Clause 4, Article 175 of the Penal Code.
[2] Thus, the act of Mr. Doan Hong D, identified by the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Ministry of National Defense as a criminal act, is a newly discovered detail that could fundamentally alter the content of Commercial Business First-Instance Judgment No. 15/2020/KDTM-ST dated August 22, 2020, of the People’s Court of Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi City, and serves as a ground for reconsideration of the case under retrial procedure. Therefore, the aforementioned first-instance commercial business judgment should be annulled under retrial procedure and remanded to the first-instance Court for re-adjudication.
[3] Upon re-receiving the case, the People’s Court of Hai Ba Trung District should, based on Point d, Clause 1, Article 214 of the Civil Procedure Code, temporarily suspend the resolution of the case to await the outcome of the criminal case against the accused Doan Hong D and Nguyen Thi Thanh S. If the aforementioned acts and the loan amount under credit limit contract No. 29.11.066.899998.TD dated March 21, 2011, are dealt with under criminal law by a legally effective judgment or decision, then the first-instance Court shall dismiss the commercial business case as stipulated in Point c, Clause 1, Article 192 and Point g, Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015.
For the above reasons,
DECISION:
Based on Article 351; Clause 2, Article 356 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015;
1. To accept Retrial Protest Decision No. 23/2021/KN-KDTM dated December 10, 2021, of the Chief Justice of the High People’s Court in Hanoi.
2. To annul Commercial Business First-Instance Judgment No. 15/2020/KDTM-ST dated August 22, 2020, of the People’s Court of Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi City, regarding the case “Dispute over credit contract” between the plaintiff, Bank Q, and the defendant, Company T; the party with related rights and obligations is Limited Liability Company H for trade and construction.
3. To remand the case file to the People’s Court of Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi City, for re-adjudication under first-instance procedure in accordance with legal provisions.
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[1] According to the verification by the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Ministry of National Defense, it was determined that after signing credit contract No. 29.11.066.899998.TD dated March 21, 2011, with Bank Q, Company T prepared loan documents from Bank Q – L Branch, Hanoi City, to purchase steel billets from S1 Vietnam Company and sell them to O Company. In reality, Company T did not transfer the proceeds from the sale of steel billets to Company T’s account at Bank Q to repay the Bank, but instead requested O Company to transfer the money to Company T’s account at Bank B – H2 Branch for other purposes. Therefore, there are grounds to determine that Mr. Doan Hong D – Director of Company T – committed fraudulent acts in debt repayment to appropriate 86,000,000,000 VND in principal debt from Bank Q. On September 26, 2021, the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Ministry of National Defense issued a decision to initiate a criminal case and prosecute Doan Hong D and Nguyen Thi Thanh S for the act of “Abuse of trust to appropriate property” as stipulated in Clause 4, Article 175 of the Penal Code.
[2] Thus, the act of Mr. Doan Hong D, identified by the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Ministry of National Defense as a criminal act, is a newly discovered detail that could fundamentally alter the content of Commercial Business First-Instance Judgment No. 15/2020/KDTM-ST dated August 22, 2020, of the People’s Court of Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi City, and serves as a ground for reconsideration of the case under retrial procedure. Therefore, the aforementioned first-instance commercial business judgment should be annulled under retrial procedure and remanded to the first-instance Court for re-adjudication.”
[*] This precedent was proposed by the Department of Legal Affairs and Scientific Management of the Supreme People’s Court.
