Statute of limitations for criminal liability in Vietnam

Statute of limitations for criminal liability in Vietnam

According to the provisions in Article 27, Clause 2 of the Penal Code 2015 (Article 23, Clause 2 of the Penal Code 1999), the statute of limitations for criminal liability is as follows:

- Five years for less serious crimes;

Less serious crimes are offenses that have a lesser degree of social danger, and the highest punishment prescribed by this Law for such offenses is a fine, non-custodial reform, or imprisonment for up to 3 years (Point a, Clause 2, Article 1 of the Penal Code 2017).

- Ten years for serious crimes;

Serious crime means a crime whose danger to society is significant and for which the maximum sentence of the bracket defined by this Code is from over 03 years' to 07 years' imprisonment; (Point b, Clause 2, Article 1 of the Penal Code 2017).

- Fifteen years for very serious crimes;

Very serious crime means a crime whose danger to society is great and for which the maximum sentence of the bracket defined by this Code is from over 07 years' to 15 years' imprisonment; (Point c, Clause 2, Article 1 of the Penal Code 2017).

- Twenty years for extremely serious crimes;

Extremely serious crime means a crime whose danger to society is enormous and for which the maximum sentence of the bracket defined by this Code is from over 15 years' to 20 years' imprisonment, life imprisonment, or death. (Point d, Clause 2, Article 1 of the Penal Code 2017).

For example, some offenses that are determined to be extremely serious crimes include: treason as stated in Article 108, Clause 1 of the Penal Code 2015; activities aimed at overthrowing the people's government as stated in Article 109, Clause 1 of the Penal Code 2015; murder as stated in Article 123, Clause 1 of the Penal Code 2015; illegal possession of narcotics as stated in Article 249, Clause 4 of the Penal Code 2015; illegal transportation of narcotics as stated in Article 250, Clause 4 of the Penal Code 2015; illegal sale of narcotics as stated in Article 251, Clause 4 of the Penal Code 2015;...

Classification of crimes under the Penal Code

The determination of which crimes are less serious, serious, very serious, or extremely serious is based solely on the highest level of punishment for that offense. If the highest level of punishment for that offense is up to three years in prison, it is classified as a less serious crime; up to seven years is classified as a serious crime; up to fifteen years is classified as a very serious crime; and life imprisonment or the death penalty is classified as a extremely serious crime.

However, not every crime in the Penal Code is specified with a maximum punishment of three years, seven years, fifteen years, life imprisonment, or the death penalty. In many cases, the maximum punishment for an offense is one year, two years, four years, five years, six years, eight years, ten years, twelve years, or twenty years. Although the Penal Code has been in effect for a long time and has undergone multiple replacements, amendments, and supplements, there is still a viewpoint that if the maximum punishment is not seven years, it is not a serious crime; if it is not fifteen years, it is not a very serious crime; if it is not life imprisonment or the death penalty, it is not a extremely serious crime.

For example, Article 168, Clause 1 of the Penal Code 2015 (robbery) carries a punishment ranging from three to ten years in prison, which is classified as a serious crime, not a very serious crime. This viewpoint is not consistent with the provisions of the Penal Code because the law only specifies the maximum punishment for that offense as "up to" three years, seven years, fifteen years, life imprisonment, or the death penalty, rather than specifying it as "is" three years, seven years, fifteen years, life imprisonment, or the death penalty.

"The period for prosecuting criminal liability is calculated from the date the crime was committed" (Clause 3, Article 27 of the Penal Code 2015).

For example, on January 5, 2010, Nguyen Van A borrowed Bui Thu B's motorbike to take his mother to the hospital for a medical examination, but A did not return the motorbike to B and instead sold it to gamble, losing all the money. Because A lost the money and did not have a motorcycle to return to B, he fled to the South to live with his sister. On October 5, 2013, Nguyen Van A returned home. After returning home, A promised to compensate B for the motorbike, so B did not report A's criminal behavior to the investigative agency. After waiting for a long time without receiving the motorbike compensation from A, on February 20, 2015, B filed a complaint about A's criminal behavior with the investigative agency. After determining A's criminal behavior as the crime of misappropriation of property under Article 175, Clause 1 of the Penal Code 2015 and considering it a less serious crime, the period for prosecuting A's criminal liability had expired.

If within the aforementioned period, the offender commits another offense with a punishment of one year or more as specified by the Penal Code, the time that has passed will not be counted, and the period for the old offense will be recalculated from the date of the new offense (Clause 3, Article 27 of the Penal Code 2015).

For example, on January 1, 2010, Bui Dinh V committed the offense of disturbing public order under Article 318, Clause 1 of the Penal Code 2015, but was not investigated or prosecuted. On December 10, 2014, V committed the offense of theft, and on June 30, 2015, the investigative agency discovered the criminal behavior of theft. If based on the period for prosecuting criminal liability for the offense of disturbing public order, it had expired after January 1, 2015, but before that (December 10, 2014), V committed a new offense, so the period for prosecuting criminal liability for the offense of disturbing public order in public places would be calculated from December 10, 2015, not from January 1, 2010. Therefore, V would be held criminally liable for both offenses: theft and disturbing public order.

If, within the aforementioned period, the offender intentionally evades and has a wanted order, the time of evasion will not be counted; the period for prosecuting criminal liability will be recalculated from the date the person surrenders or is arrested (Clause 3, Article 27 of the Penal Code 2015).

For example, recently, Tuoi Tre newspaper reported the case of Mrs. Tran Thi Sau (59 years old) having to stand before the Hanoi People's Court to hear the verdict on the crime she committed 22 years ago. Due to despair, Sau often thought of killing her two children and then committing suicide to escape suffering. On the first day of April 1996, Sau took her two children, Ngo Thi Hang, 5 years old, and Ngo Thi Nga, a little over 1 year old, to visit relatives. After that, Sau borrowed 4,000 dong from a neighbor to buy two packages of rat poison, ten packages of pig lice medicine, a bottle of orange juice, and two baked cakes. Sau took her two children to the dike of the village and poured rat poison into the bottle of orange juice for them to drink. Sau then poured pig lice medicine into the bottle of orange juice and drank it along with three tablets of headache medicine. After drinking, the three of them fell unconscious and embraced each other. Late that night, the police on patrol discovered the three of them and took them to the hospital for emergency treatment. However, Sau's two children had already died. The forensic examination results showed that the two poor children died from acute pulmonary edema caused by toxic substances, possibly from drinking Chinese rat poison. While the case was under investigation, Sau was allowed to stay outside due to her weak health. However, fearing the punishment of the authorities and the gossip of the neighbors, Sau fled her hometown. Sau wandered from Ha Tay to Lam Dong. Here, she hid her name and identity. A year later, Sau remarried and gave birth to two sons in succession. Life in the new land was also difficult, and Sau had to do various jobs to make a living. Then her second husband also passed away due to illness. Her two sons grew up; one joined the military, and the other went to work abroad. Sau thought she had escaped the pursuit of the authorities and lived peacefully with her new family. But on February 2, 2018, both Sau and the neighbors in Lam Dong were surprised when the police came to arrest Sau based on a wanted order from 22 years ago.

Therefore, Mrs. Sau committed the crime of murder (in addition to killing two or more people, which falls under a more severe punishment), which is a particularly dangerous crime, so the period for prosecuting criminal liability is 20 years. If calculated from the date the crime was committed, which is the beginning of April 1996, the period for prosecuting criminal liability for Sau's act of murder would have expired by the beginning of April 2016. However, after killing her two children, Sau fled from Ha Tay to Lam Dong, hiding her name and identity. Therefore, in this case, the period for prosecuting criminal liability for Sau's act of murder is calculated from the date Sau was arrested (which is February 2, 2018).

Please Login to be able to download