On September 30, 2025, the Council of Judges of The Supreme People's Court of The Socialist Republic of Vietnam adopted Resolution No. 04/2025/NQ-HĐTP providing guidance on the application of mitigating and aggravating factors of criminal liability as prescribed in Articles 51 and 52 of the Criminal Code (effective as of November 15, 2025) (hereinafter referred to as “Resolution No. 04/2025/NQ-HĐTP”).
Prior to the promulgation of Resolution No. 04/2025/NQ-HĐTP, other mitigating factors provided in Clause 2, Article 51 of the 2015 Criminal Code, as amended and supplemented in 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Criminal Code”), had been previously guided by the Supreme People’s Court under Resolution No. 01/2000 (providing guidance on the implementation of the 1999 Criminal Code). However, since Resolution No. 01/2000 ceased to be effective in October 2021, no subsequent legal normative document has been issued to replace or provide specific guidance on this matter.
The promulgation of Resolution No. 04/2025/NQ-HĐTP at the present time is of great necessity to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of the current Criminal Law by judicial and prosecutorial authorities.
With respect to the group of mitigating factors of criminal liability as prescribed in Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code, specifically:
Firstly, regarding the factor that “the offender has prevented or mitigated the consequences of the crime”, as provided in Clause 1, Article 2 of Resolution No. 04/2025/NQ-HĐTP, corresponding to Point a, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code:
“a) “Preventing the consequences of the crime” refers to factors in which the crime has been committed, and the offender, either on their own initiative or under certain external influences, has taken all possible actions to prevent the occurrence of harm caused by the crime.
b) “Mitigating the consequences of the crime” refers to factors in which the crime has been committed and the harmful consequences are occurring, and the offender, either on their own initiative or under certain external influences, has taken all possible actions to prevent further harm or greater damage from occurring.
When applying this mitigating factor, the extent of mitigation of criminal liability shall depend on the offender’s attitude (whether acting on their own initiative or under the influence of others or other objective factors) and the actual extent to which the harm caused by the crime has been prevented or reduced.
Example: Immediately after causing a traffic accident, Nguyen Van A promptly took the victim to the hospital for emergency treatment, thereby reducing the victim’s bodily injury rate. In this case, Nguyen Van A is entitled to the mitigating factor of criminal liability as provided at Point a, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code.”
Secondly, regarding the factor that “the offender voluntarily remedies, compensates for damage, or mitigates the consequences” as provided in Clause 2, Article 2 of Resolution No. 04/2025/NQ-HĐTP, corresponding to Point b, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code:
“a) The offender personally, or with his or her consent for his or her parents or other persons (such as spouse, children, siblings, friends, etc.), has repaired, compensated for the damage, or remedied the consequences caused by his or her criminal act;
b) The offender is not legally obliged to repair, compensate for the damage, or remedy the consequences caused by his or her criminal act (for example, where the obligation to compensate lies with the owner of a source of extreme danger or with other defendants in the same case), but has voluntarily used his or her own money or property, or consented for his or her parents or other persons (such as spouse, children, siblings, friends, etc.) to repair, compensate for the damage, or remedy the consequences caused by his or her criminal act;
c) The offender has voluntarily, or with his or her consent for his or her parents or other persons (such as spouse, children, siblings, friends, etc.), used money or property to repair, compensate for the damage, or remedy the consequences caused by his or her criminal act, but the victim, civil plaintiff, or their lawful representative has refused to accept it, and such money or property has been handed over to the competent procedural authority, judgment enforcement agency, or other competent authority for safekeeping and use in repairing, compensating, or remedying the consequences caused by the offender’s act;
d) There is evidence proving that the offender has voluntarily, or with his or her consent for his or her parents or other persons (such as spouse, children, siblings, friends, etc.), used money or property to repair, compensate for the damage, or remedy the consequences caused by his or her criminal act, but the victim, civil plaintiff, or their lawful representative has refused to accept it, and the offender has set aside or deposited such money or property to be available for repair, compensation, or remedy when requested.”
Thirdly, regarding the factor that “voluntary surrender” as provided in Clause 16, Article 2 of Resolution No. 04/2025/NQ-HĐTP, corresponding to Point r, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code:
““Voluntary surrender”as provided in Point r, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to a factor in which the offender voluntarily reports to a competent authority or organization about his or her criminal act before the offense or the offender is detected. In cases where the offender has been arrested or discovered for a specific criminal act, but during the course of investigation voluntarily confesses and discloses other criminal acts committed by himself or herself that have not yet been detected, such conduct shall also be regarded as a voluntary surrender with respect to the acts self-confessed and disclosed by the offender which had not been previously discovered.
Example: Immediately after committing a traffic accident resulting in death, Nguyen Van A went to the commune-level police office to surrender himself and report his criminal act. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating factor of criminal liability as provided in Point r, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code.”
Fourthly, regarding the factor that “truthful confession and genuine repentance”, được as provided in Clause 17, Article 2 of Resolution No. 04/2025/NQ-HĐTP, corresponding to Point s, Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code:
“a) An offender is considered to have made a truthful confession when he or she has fully, truthfully, accurately, and clearly declared his or her criminal act;
b) An offender is considered to have shown genuine repentance when he or she feels remorse and regret for the act committed and wishes to have an opportunity to make amends, reform, and compensate for the losses or damages caused by his or her criminal conduct.
“Truthful confessio” and “genuine repentance” are not two separate mitigating factors. If the offender both makes a truthful confession and shows genuine repentance, these shall be regarded as a single mitigating factor under Clause 1, Article 51 of the Criminal Code.
In cases where the offender is caught in the act (in flagrante delicto), but after being arrested truthfully declares his or her criminal act in a manner consistent with other evidence and materials contained in the case file, the mitigating factor of truthful confession shall apply. However, if after being arrested, the offender is evasive, denies the offense, or provides false testimony about the case, and only admits the offense after the procedural authorities have fully proved his or her criminal act, this mitigating factor shall not apply.
In cases where the offender initially denies or gives false testimony but later truthfully and fully confesses the factors of the offense, the mitigating factor of truthful confession may still apply; however, the degree of mitigation in such cases shall not be equivalent to that granted where the offender has truthfully confessed from the outset.”
English 
Tiếng Việt