Become a Member for $9.99/month

A draft regulation allowing “exemption from punishment” for corruption offenders who acted from a “desire to innovate and make breakthroughs” sets a dangerous precedent. If this reformist slogan becomes a shield to legitimize wrongdoing, justice and public trust in the law will inevitably be eroded.

A New Shield Emerges A new clause in the third draft of the Supreme People’s Court’s guidance on Việt Nam’s Penal Code regarding corruption has drawn strong public concern. According to Article 5, Clause 3, individuals convicted of corruption may be granted “special leniency” if they acted “without self-serving motives, but out of a desire to innovate or to make breakthroughs for the nation’s socio-economic development and defense.” [1]

This proposal contrasts with the standard understanding of corruption. Transparency International defines corruption as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” [2] It is among the gravest of crimes because it erodes trust, weakens democracy, hinders economic development, and exacerbates inequality, poverty, social division, and environmental degradation.

An effective legal system must prevent and punish corruption by using clear criteria, transparency, and independent oversight. When motives like “patriotism” or “innovation” are invoked as shields, the line between accountability and impunity blurs. This proposed “special leniency” thus raises profound concerns about where to draw the boundary between reform and abuse of power. While innovation and bold reform are vital to national progress, especially amid globalization and digital transformation, reform cannot rest on presumed good intentions alone.

This clause introduces three major risks:

(1) turning the slogan “daring to innovate and break through” into an exemption zone for wrongdoing;

(2) eroding public confidence in justice and the rule of law; and

(3) allowing institutional reform to be exploited as a pretext for group interests.

The Risk of Legalizing Wrongdoing Under the draft, a person convicted of corruption may be exempted from punishment for a “first offense,” playing a “minor role,” or acting “without self-interest.” Subordinates carrying out a superior's orders could also be eligible for clemency.

In essence, this opens a legal loophole—a potential “escape hatch” for the powerful. Once the law allows exceptions “for innovation,” who will determine what constitutes “innovation” or “self-serving”?

In Việt Nam, corruption rarely occurs in isolation. It often operates through entrenched networks of power and interest where personal gain is easily disguised as “reform” or “development.” History shows that many countries have failed in their anti-corruption efforts precisely because of weak institutional oversight and broad loopholes. [3]

If leniency can be granted without independent verification, powerful individuals or groups could conveniently claim they were merely “breaking through for the nation’s good,” causing legal deterrence to collapse.

The public, witnessing offenders excused for supposedly patriotic motives, will inevitably be left to ask: If corruption can be pardoned in the name of reform, who will ever be punished?

Erosion of Public Trust Public trust in the judiciary and the integrity of justice is a cornerstone of any successful anti-corruption effort. Studies confirm that high public perception of corruption correlates with low trust in government, while transparency and accountability help rebuild it. [4]

Legalizing leniency for corruption under vague conditions like “innovation” or “breakthrough” could have two dangerous consequences. First, it breeds inequality before the law, as one offender may walk free for being “innovative” while another faces punishment for a similar act. Second, such indulgence undermines the long-standing pledge that “there are no forbidden zones, no exceptions” in Việt Nam’s anti-corruption campaign. [5]

If this clause becomes law, that slogan risks becoming a public farce. When citizens see that those in power are spared punishment, confidence in government legitimacy and the justice system will collapse. Once a nation loses public trust, it loses the social capital necessary for reform and sustainable growth.

When “Innovation” Becomes a Moral Veneer The rhetoric of “daring to innovate and break through” sounds inspiring, but when attached to corruption, it becomes a moral veneer—a convenient political language to justify wrongdoing.

The concept of “breakthrough” itself is nebulous. On what grounds can it be deemed legitimate, and who holds the authority to make that judgment?

Genuine reform requires institutions, mechanisms, and checks, not vague appeals to spirit or intent. Mature legal systems affirm that “good intentions” can never substitute for “lawful conduct.” Declaring, “I did it for economic development,” cannot legitimize misconduct or abuse of power.

Integrity in governance demands clarity and equality before the law, not selective forgiveness. The greater danger is that factions or interest groups will exploit reformist slogans to shield one another, eroding the foundation of justice. When the lines between “innovation” and corruption blur, noble ideals like patriotism, reform, and public service risk becoming convenient disguises for moral decay.

No “Golden Immunity” for Corruption Việt Nam’s path forward undeniably requires courage, innovation, and institutional reform. However, if the law itself allows corruption to be pardoned under the pretext of “innovation,” the state effectively creates an exception that legalizes the abuse of power.

Anti-corruption must know no exceptions, as exceptions are the largest loophole of all. Public trust, the authority of law, and a culture of integrity cannot be preserved by slogans that justify wrongdoing. True reform demands accountability—not immunity dressed in the language of progress.

Nhật Lam wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on Nov. 10, 2025. J. Miu translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.

References: Duyên, H. (2025, November 4). Phạm tội tham nhũng vì ‘dám đổi mới, đột phá’ có thể được miễn hình phạt. VNExpress. https://vnexpress.net/pham-toi-tham-nhung-vi-dam-doi-moi-dot-pha-co-the-duoc-mien-hinh-phat-4959727.html What is Corruption? (n.d.). Transparency International. https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption Quah, J. S. (2021). Breaking the cycle of failure in conbating corruption in Asian countries. Public Administration and Policy. https://www.emerald.com/pap/article-pdf/24/2/125/3652978/pap-05-2021-0034.pdf Gebrihet, H. G. (2024). The effects of the perception of corruption on public trust in government in Africa: a comparative analysis. Politikon. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02589346.2024.2344276 Văn, H. (2025, October 30). Thủ tướng: Mọi vi phạm, tội phạm về tham nhũng, lãng phí, tiêu cực, nhân dân đều biết. Báo Chính phủ. https://baochinhphu.vn/thu-tuong-moi-vi-pham-toi-pham-ve-tham-nhung-lang-phi-tieu-cuc-nhan-dan-deu-biet-10225103020484914.htm