Resolution No. 04/2025/NQ-HDTP on guidelines for the application of mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances of penal liability prescribed in Articles 51 and 52 of the Criminal Code

RESOLUTION

ON GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF PENAL LIABILITY PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLES 51 AND 52 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

Pursuant to the Law on Organization of the People’s Courts No. 34/2024/QH15, as amended by Law No. 81/2025/QH15;

For the proper and uniform application of the provisions of Articles 51 and 52 of the Criminal Code No. 100/2015/QH13, as amended by Law No. 12/2017/QH14, Law No. 59/2024/QH15 and Law No. 86/2025/QH15;

After obtaining opinions from the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy and the Minister of Justice;

The Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court hereby issues this Resolution to provide guidance on the application of mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances of penal liability prescribed in Articles 51 and 52 of the Criminal Code.

Article 1. Scope

This Resolution provides guidance on the application of mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances of penal liability prescribed in Articles 51 and 52 of the Criminal Code No. 100/2015/QH13, as amended by Law No. 12/2017/QH14, Law No. 59/2024/QH15 and Law No. 86/2025/QH15 (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code).

Article 2. On mitigating circumstances of penal liability prescribed in Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code

1. “The offender has prevented or reduced the harm caused by the crime” as prescribed in Point a Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code falls into one of the following cases:

a) “Prevention of the harm caused by the crime” means that the crime has been committed, and the offender, by himself/herself or under external influence, has used all possible means to prevent the harm of the crime from occurring;

b) “Reduction of the harm caused by the crime” means that the crime has been committed, the harm is ongoing, and the offender, by himself/herself or under external influence, has used all possible means to prevent further harm or greater harm from occurring.

When applying this mitigating circumstance, the extent of mitigation of penal liability depends on the offender’s attitude (whether by himself/herself or under the influence of others or 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 emergency care, thereby reducing the victim’s bodily injury rate. In this case, Nguyen Van A is entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point a Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

2. “The offender voluntarily repairs, compensates for the damage, or remedies the consequences” as prescribed in Point b Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code falls into one of the following cases:

a) The offender, by himself/herself or with his/her consent, allows his/her parents or others (spouse, children, siblings, friends, etc.) to repair, compensate for the damage, or remedy the consequences caused by the offender’s criminal act;

b) The offender is not obliged to repair, compensate for the damage, or remedy the consequences caused by his/her criminal act (for example, where compensation for damage is the responsibility of the owner of a source of extreme danger or the civil liability of other defendants in the same case), but has voluntarily used his/her money or property, or consented for his/her parents or others (spouse, children, siblings, friends, etc.) to repair, compensate for the damage, or remedy the consequences caused by the offender’s criminal act;

c) The offender voluntarily or with his/her consent allows his/her parents or others (spouse, children, siblings, friends, etc.) to use money or property to repair, compensate for the damage, or remedy the consequences caused by the offender’s criminal act, but the victim, civil plaintiff or their lawful representative refuses to accept it, and such money or property has been handed over to the procedure-conducting body, judgment enforcement body or another competent authority for management to perform the repair, compensation, or remedy;

d) There is evidence proving that the offender voluntarily or with his/her consent allows his/her parents or others (spouse, children, siblings, friends, etc.) to use money or property to repair, compensate for the damage, or remedy the consequences caused by the offender’s criminal act, but the victim, civil plaintiff or their lawful representative refuses to accept it, and they have kept or deposited the money or property ready to perform the repair, compensation, or remedy when requested.

When applying this mitigating circumstance, the extent of mitigation of penal liability depends on the offender’s initiative and positivity in repairing, compensating for the damage, or remedying the consequences, as well as the effectiveness and extent of such repair, compensation, or remedy.

3. “Committing the crime in a case of exceeding the limit of justifiable defense” as prescribed in Point c Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to the case in which the offender, in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of himself/herself, another person, or the interests of the State, agencies or organizations, performs a counter-attack that is clearly excessive and disproportionate to the nature and extent of the social danger of the infringing act.

An act of counter-attack clearly exceeding the necessary limit refers to a disproportionate counter-attack, showing a significant disparity compared with the nature and extent of the social danger of the infringing act. To determine whether the counter-attack “clearly exceeds the necessary limit” or not, it is necessary to make an objective, comprehensive and adequate assessment of the circumstances and facts related to the infringing act and the counter-attack, such as: the object to be protected; the extent of harm that the infringing act may cause; the weapon, means, and method used; the personal characteristics of the offender; the relative strength, intensity, and extent of the infringing act and the defensive act; the context, circumstances, and location where the incident occurred, etc.

Example: Pham Van T threatened with a knife and punched Nguyen Van A in the face. To protect himself, A wrestled with T, seized the knife and threw it into the river. When T ran away, A continued to chase and repeatedly struck T with a stone, causing a bodily injury rate of 25%. A’s act of inflicting injury clearly exceeded the limit of justifiable defense. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point c Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

4. “Committing the crime in a case of exceeding the requirement of urgent circumstances” as prescribed in Point d Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to the case where the offender, in order to avoid causing harm to his/her own lawful rights and interests, those of others, or the interests of the State, agencies or organizations, has no other way but to cause lesser harm than the harm to be prevented, but the actual harm caused is clearly excessive compared with the requirement of the urgent circumstance (the actual harm caused is equal to or greater than the harm to be prevented).

Example: When a fire broke out at a shop, although the fire had been brought under control, it still generated a large amount of smoke. Nguyen Van A, an employee, believed that the fire would spread to the garage, so he broke the door and wall to retrieve his motorbike worth 20,000,000 dong. His act caused actual damage of 100,000,000 dong, which was greater than the damage to be prevented; therefore, A’s act exceeded the requirement of the urgent circumstance. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point d Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

5. “Committing the crime in a case of exceeding the necessary limit when arresting an offender” as prescribed in Point dd Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to the case where, in order to arrest a person committing a crime, the offender has no other option but to use necessary force that causes harm to the person being arrested, but actually uses force clearly exceeding the necessary limit, thereby causing harm to such person.

Example: Nguyen Van A caught Nguyen Van B committing a robbery by snatching a passerby’s handbag. Although B had already been subdued, A continued to kick and strike him repeatedly despite being stopped by others. As a result, B suffered broken legs and arms, with a bodily injury rate of 65%. A’s act clearly exceeded the necessary limit when arresting an offender. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point dd Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

6. “Committing the crime under mental provocation caused by the victim’s unlawful act” as prescribed in Point e Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code falls into one of the following cases:

a) The offender was mentally provoked and influenced by the victim’s unlawful act, making him/her not fully self-controlled, lucid or restrained, and thus committed the crime. The mental provocation must be immediate, resulting directly from the victim’s unlawful act that led to the commission of the crime;

b) Where the victim’s unlawful act is of a relatively severe, oppressive and repetitive nature, the provocation smoldered and lasted for a long time, and at a certain point, the victim’s unlawful act recurred, causing the offender to lose self-control and commit the crime. In this case, if the act is considered separately, it is not deemed provocation, but considering the entire development of the event, it shall be regarded as strong or very strong provocation, and the offender may be entitled to mitigation of penal liability.

When applying this mitigating circumstance, the extent of mitigation of penal liability shall also be based on the fault and seriousness of the victim’s unlawful act and the causal relationship between such unlawful act and the offender’s mentally provoked state.

This mitigating circumstance shall be applied only when the victim is the person who committed the unlawful act, and such unlawful act infringed upon the lawful rights and interests of the offender or of his/her relatives. If the victim’s unlawful act does not infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of the offender or his/her relatives but still causes the offender to become mentally provoked, it shall not serve as a ground for mitigation of penal liability under Point e Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

Example: Nguyen Van A frequently drank alcohol, beat and verbally abused his wife and children, and destroyed household property. On September 1, 2025, A continued to smash household items and assault his wife and his son, Nguyen Van B. Losing self-control, B struck A multiple times on the head with a wooden stick, resulting in a bodily injury rate of 65%. In this case, Nguyen Van B shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point e Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

7. “Committing the crime under particularly difficult circumstances not self-caused” as prescribed in Point g Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to the case where the offender commits the crime due to particularly difficult circumstances, and such particularly difficult circumstances are not self-caused but arise from others or objective causes (such as natural disasters, war, fire, accidents, serious illness, force majeure events leading to destitution or lack of essential property, etc.). This mitigating circumstance shall apply only when both of the following conditions are met: “the crime is committed due to particularly difficult circumstances” and “the particularly difficult circumstances are not self-caused.”

When applying this mitigating circumstance, the extent of mitigation of penal liability shall depend on the severity and nature of the difficulty and the offender’s ability to overcome it.

Example: Nguyen Van A’s family is classified as poor; his wife is paralyzed on one side, and he has no stable income. When their small child suffered a life-threatening accident requiring emergency treatment, the family had no money and could not borrow from anyone. A therefore stole a motorbike, sold it for 20,000,000 dong, and used the money to pay for his child’s medical treatment. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point g Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

8. “Committing the crime but causing no damage or only minor damage” as prescribed in Point h Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code falls into one of the following cases:

a) Committing the crime but causing no damage means that the crime has been committed, but no actual (material or non-material) damage occurred. When considering this mitigating circumstance, it is necessary to distinguish it from the case of an incomplete crime prescribed in Article 15 of the Criminal Code.

Example 1: Nguyen Van A broke into another person’s house to steal a motorbike worth 20,000,000 dong. A managed to take the motorbike out of the gate but was discovered by the homeowner, who raised an alarm, prompting neighbors to stop and arrest A together with the motorbike. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point h Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

Example 2: Nguyen Van A broke into another person’s house to steal a motorbike worth 20,000,000 dong but was caught by the homeowner while trying to unlock the bike. In this case, Nguyen Van A committed the crime of theft of property in the form of an incomplete crime and shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point h Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

b) Committing the crime but causing only minor damage means that the crime has been committed and actual damage occurred, but such damage is insignificant compared with the normal level of damage typically caused by that crime. The determination of whether the damage is minor or not must be based on the value of the material damage and the impact of the non-material damage on the owner and society. For material damage, assessment shall be based on the monetary value of the loss, compared with the monetary thresholds specified in the constituent elements of the corresponding crimes. For non-material damage, assessment shall consider the extent of the crime’s impact on the victim’s psychology, mental health, reputation, honor, and dignity, as well as its influence on public opinion, social life, and the community.

9. “Committing the crime for the first time and in a less serious case” as prescribed in Point i Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code applies where both of the following conditions are met:

a) Committing the crime for the first time means that the offender has never previously committed any crime; or previously committed a crime but was exempted from penal liability; or previously committed a crime and was subject to the judicial measure of education at a reformatory school; or is considered to have no previous conviction; or was previously convicted but has had the conviction expunged;

b) Committing the crime in a less serious case means that the offender’s criminal act is of a minor nature and degree of social danger, with the highest level of the applicable penalty being a fine, non-custodial reform, or imprisonment of up to 3 years; or where the offender plays an insignificant, secondary role in a case involving a serious, very serious, or especially serious crime.

The court shall apply the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point i Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code only when both conditions: “committing the crime for the first time” and “in a less serious case” are satisfied. If the defendant commits a crime for the first time but the offense is not classified as less serious, or conversely, if the offense is classified as less serious but it is not the defendant’s first offense, the mitigating circumstance prescribed at Point i Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code shall not be applied. If the defendant committed a criminal act for which the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has expired, has not yet been convicted, or the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has not yet expired but is prosecuted for a subsequent offense, this mitigating circumstance shall not be applied.

Example: Nguyen Van A has never committed any crime and is now prosecuted for the crime of indecent acts against a person under 16 years of age as prescribed in Clause 1 Article 146 of the Criminal Code (a less serious crime). In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point i Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

10. “Committing the crime due to threats or coercion by another person” as prescribed in Point k Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to one of the following cases:

a) “Being threatened by another person” means being threatened with punishment for disobeying that person’s will, creating in the offender a fear of possible consequences, and in order to avoid such consequences, the offender commits the crime;

b) “Being coerced by another person” means being subjected to the use of force, or immediate threat of force, with physical or mental impact, or other acts compelling the offender to commit the crime.

When applying this mitigating circumstance, the extent of mitigation of penal liability depends on the nature and degree of the offender’s act and the act of threat or coercion against the offender.

Example: Le Tan Y, a creditor, frequently assaulted and threatened to kill Nguyen Van A and his wife if they did not repay a debt on behalf of A’s mother, Dinh Thi K. On August 1, 2025, A and several others met Y to negotiate repayment, leading to a scuffle in which Y sustained a bodily injury rate of 30%. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point k Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

11. “Committing the crime while having limited cognitive capacity not caused by one’s own fault” as prescribed in Point l Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to the case in which the offender commits the crime while having limited cognitive capacity, being insufficiently conscious to fully perceive the danger and consequences of his/her act. The offender’s limited cognitive capacity is caused by external, objective factors (such as being coerced or deceived into using strong stimulants, etc.), not by the offender’s own fault.

When applying this mitigating circumstance, the extent of mitigation of penal liability depends on the nature and extent of the offender’s limited cognitive capacity and the circumstances, causes, and objective factors affecting the offender’s cognition.

Example: Nguyen Van A knew that Pham Van B would lose self-control if he drank alcohol. A poured alcohol into a soft drink can for B to drink. After realizing he had drunk alcohol, B became angry and went home. On the way, seeing Ta Thi C, B attacked her, causing a bodily injury rate of 30%. A forensic psychiatric examination concluded that, at the time of committing the crime, B suffered from an acute psychotic state due to alcohol (pathological intoxication). In this case, Pham Van B shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point l Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

12. “Committing the crime due to backwardness” as prescribed in Point m Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to the case in which the crime is committed due to low awareness or poor educational level, resulting in a failure to fully recognize the seriousness of one’s act, or due to being unable to keep up with the progress and development of society. This mitigating circumstance shall apply only when “such backwardness” results from objective causes (such as social living conditions leading to ignorance or poor knowledge of the law, lack of education, or no practical means to distinguish right from wrong in life, etc.).

Example: Sung Van A, an ethnic minority person living in a socio-economically disadvantaged area where the custom of early bride abduction still exists, abducted Vang Thi B, aged 14, to be his wife without her consent, leading to her giving birth at age 15. In this case, Sung Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point m Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

13. “The offender is a pregnant woman” and “The offender is 70 years of age or older” as prescribed in Points n and o Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refer to cases where the offender is a pregnant woman or is 70 years of age or older at the time of committing the crime or during criminal prosecution. The determination that the offender is a pregnant woman or is 70 years of age or older must be based on conclusions of competent specialized authorities or other lawful documents.

14. “The offender is a person with severe or especially severe disability” as prescribed in Point p Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to cases where the offender is a person with severe or especially severe disability at the time of committing the crime or during criminal prosecution, and falls into one of the following cases:

a) A person with severe disability is someone who, due to disability, loses or has a partial loss of bodily function and cannot perform daily personal activities without supervision or care from others; also considered a person with severe disability if capable of self-care with partial assistance or if suffering from working capacity reduction of 61% to 80%;

b) A person with especially severe disability is someone who, due to disability, loses total bodily function, cannot control or perform personal activities, and constantly requires care and supervision; also considered a person with especially severe disability if unable to self-care or suffering from working capacity reduction of 81% or more.

Persons with severe or especially severe disabilities shall be determined in accordance with the Law on Persons with Disabilities and other relevant laws. The Court shall rely on the conclusions of competent medical authorities, forensic assessment, or certification of competent agencies to determine whether the offender is a person with severe or especially severe disability.

When applying this mitigating circumstance, the extent of mitigation of penal liability depends on the degree of the offender’s severe or especially severe disability.

Example: On March 20, 2025, Nguyen Van A committed a robbery, taking a mobile phone worth 20,000,000 dong from Nguyen Van S. On May 24, 2025, A was involved in a traffic accident, resulting in the amputation of his right leg, and was issued a Certificate of Disability confirming severe disability due to a 65% working capacity reduction. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point p Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

15. “The offender is a person with an illness limiting cognitive capacity or self-control” as prescribed in Point q Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code falls into one of the following cases:

a) The offender suffers from a disease that limits his/her ability to perceive or control his/her behavior;

b) The offender has an illness causing him/her to be unable to control behavior according to his/her will (limiting physical movement) even though he/she is aware that his/her behavior is dangerous to society and its consequences.

This mitigating circumstance shall apply only when the offender has a disease that is medically concluded to have caused the limitation of cognitive capacity or self-control.

Example: Nguyen Van A intentionally caused injury to Nguyen Thi B. A’s forensic psychiatric assessment concluded that, at the time of committing the crime, A had limited cognitive capacity and lacked self-control due to mental disorder and moderate intellectual disability. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point q Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

16. “The offender voluntarily surrenders himself/herself” as prescribed in Point r Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to the case in which the offender voluntarily reports his/her criminal act to a competent authority or organization before the crime or the offender is detected. If the offender has been arrested or discovered for a specific crime but, during the investigation, voluntarily confesses and reveals other crimes he/she has committed that have not yet been detected, such confession shall also be considered a voluntary surrender for those undiscovered crimes.

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 circumstance prescribed in Point r Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

17. “The offender makes an honest confession and shows repentance” as prescribed in Point s Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code falls into one of the following cases:

a) Making an honest confession means that the offender truthfully, accurately, and clearly confesses all of his/her criminal acts;

b) Showing repentance means that the offender feels remorse and regret for his/her wrongdoing, wishes to have the opportunity to correct it, reform, and make amends for the losses and damage caused by his/her criminal act.

“Honest confession” and “repentance” are not two separate mitigating circumstances. If the offender both makes an honest confession and shows repentance, they shall be considered as one mitigating circumstance prescribed in Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

If the offender is caught red-handed but later truthfully confesses his/her criminal act in a manner consistent with the evidence and documents in the case file, the mitigating circumstance of honest confession shall apply. If, after being arrested, the offender is evasive, denies the offense, or makes false statements about the case, and only admits their criminal act after the procedure-conducting authorities have fully proved their offense, this mitigating circumstance of criminal liability shall not be applied.

In cases where the offender was initially evasive, denied the offense, or made false statements, but later made a full and truthful confession of the circumstances of the crime, the mitigating circumstance of showing honest declaration shall still be applied to them; however, the degree of mitigation of criminal liability in this case cannot be equivalent to that in which the offender made a full and truthful declaration from the outset.

18. “The offender actively cooperates with competent authorities in detecting the crime or during the settlement of the case” as prescribed in Point t Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to the case in which, after committing the crime, the offender actively assists the competent procedure-conducting authorities in ways that create changes or developments facilitating the detection, investigation, or resolution of the case more promptly.

Active cooperation with competent authorities in detecting the crime or during the settlement of the case may be shown through providing information, documents, or objects of substantial value to the detection, investigation, or settlement of the case; indicating the hiding place of exhibits, instruments, or means used for committing the crime; or providing information about or location of co-offenders in hiding.

When applying this mitigating circumstance, the extent of mitigation of penal liability depends on the offender’s initiative and degree of active cooperation, the value of the information, documents, and evidence provided, and the effectiveness of the offender’s cooperative acts.

Example: Nguyen Van A provided information to the investigating agency about the criminal act and the hiding place of Pham Van B, enabling the investigation agency to arrest B, a co-offender in the case. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point t Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

19. “The offender has rendered meritorious service to atone for the crime” as prescribed in Point u Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code refers to the case where, from the time of committing the crime until before the trial (first-instance, appellate, cassation, or reopening), the offender performs one of the following acts, recognized or commended by competent authorities:

a) Assisting procedure-conducting bodies in detecting, preventing, or apprehending other criminals unrelated to the crime for which he/she is prosecuted;

b) Performing self-sacrificing acts for the interests of the State, the collective, or the legitimate rights and interests of others, or making other notable contributions to make amends for the crime, such as saving another person in danger or rescuing valuable property of the State, collectives, or individuals in natural disasters, fires, epidemics, accidents, or other force majeure events.

Example: During the investigation, Nguyen Van A helped functional forces control a fire and rescued four people trapped inside. The President of the commune-level People’s Committee awarded A a certificate of merit. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point u Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

20. “The offender has outstanding achievements in production, combat, study or work” as prescribed in Point v Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code falls into one of the following cases:

a) The offender has been awarded orders, medals, State honorary titles, the Ho Chi Minh Prize, the State Prize, certificates of merit, the Creative Labor Certificate, or has made significant inventions or innovations, or has been recognized as an emulation soldier in accordance with the law on emulation and commendation;

b) The offender has been awarded a Commemorative Medal for contributions to the development of a ministry, sector, province, or organization in accordance with the law on emulation and commendation;

c) Other forms of commendation for outstanding achievements in production, combat, study, or work as prescribed by the law on emulation and commendation.

Example: The offender was awarded the Labor Order, the title of Labor Hero, People’s Artist, or the title of Emulation Soldier, etc. In this case, the offender shall be entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed in Point v Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

21. “The offender is a person with meritorious service to the revolution or the father, mother, spouse, or child of a martyr” as prescribed in Point x Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code falls into one of the following cases:

a) The offender is a person with meritorious service to the revolution as prescribed in Clause 1 Article 3 of Ordinance No. 02/2020/UBTVQH14 dated December 9, 2020, on preferential treatment for persons with meritorious service to the revolution;

b) The offender is the father, mother, spouse, or child of a martyr.

If the offender is the spouse of a martyr who has remarried but still worships the martyr, this mitigating circumstance shall also apply.

If the offender has rendered care or raised a martyr, or has cared for or raised the martyr’s father, mother, spouse, or child (including cases where such persons have died), the offender shall also be entitled to this mitigating circumstance as the father, mother, spouse, or child of a martyr prescribed in Point x Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

If the offender is both a person with meritorious service to the revolution and the father, mother, spouse, or child of a martyr, he/she shall be entitled to two mitigating circumstances prescribed in Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

Article 3. On mitigating circumstances of penal liability prescribed in Clause 2 Article 51 of the Criminal Code

The following circumstances may be considered mitigating circumstances under Clause 2 Article 51 of the Criminal Code:

1. An offender who surrenders themself is a case in which, after the crime or the offender has been detected, the offender voluntarily turns themself in and makes a statement to the competent authority about their criminal act.

2. The offender voluntarily returns at least one-half of the illicit gain obtained from the criminal act or the additional fine imposed under the Court’s judgment or decision;

3. The crime is committed while performing urgent duties such as storm or flood response, emergency rescue, or epidemic prevention;

4. The offender participated in the national resistance or in activities for national liberation, defense of the Fatherland, or fulfillment of international obligations, as certified by competent authorities, but has not yet been awarded orders or medals due to objective reasons;

5. The offender has a mother or grandmother conferred the title “Vietnamese Heroic Mother,” or has a father, mother, grandfather, or grandmother conferred the title “Labor Hero” or “People’s Armed Forces Hero”;

6. The offender’s father or mother has been awarded multiple certificates or commendations for outstanding achievements in work;

7. The victim or the victim’s representative requests leniency for the offender in cases where the crime caused only health damage or property loss;

8. The victim is also at fault, or the damage was partly caused by a third party;

9. The offender has three or more children under 15 years old, or has a child with severe or especially severe disability, or a child with a life-threatening illness, while his/her spouse is unemployed and the family’s hardship is certified by local authorities;

10. The Court may consider other circumstances as mitigating circumstances under Clause 2 Article 51 of the Criminal Code but must clearly state the reasons for such mitigation in the judgment. The application of other mitigating circumstances shall be carefully and strictly considered depending on the nature and specific characteristics of each case.

Article 4. On aggravating circumstances of penal liability prescribed in Article 52 of the Criminal Code

1. “Committing the crime in an organized manner” as prescribed in Point a Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to a form of complicity with close coordination and assignment of roles among those jointly committing the crime.

Where the crime is determined to be organized, this aggravating circumstance shall apply to all accomplices (organizers, executors, instigators, and aiders).

When applying this aggravating circumstance, the extent of aggravation of penal liability depends on the size of the organization and each person’s role in committing the crime.

2. “Committing the crime in a professional manner” as prescribed in Point b Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to the case in which the offender commits the criminal act five or more times (regardless of whether he/she has been prosecuted for penal liability or not, as long as the statute of limitations for prosecution has not expired or the conviction has not been expunged), and the offender uses the illicit gains from committing the crime as a source of income.

Example: Dang Hong H, unemployed and idle, often indulged in gambling and entertainment, leading to debts. From October 2023 to September 2024, H committed ten thefts (each valued at 10,000,000 dong or more), with a total stolen property value of 500,000,000 dong. In this case, Dang Hong H shall be subject to the aggravating circumstance prescribed in Point b Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

3. “Abusing position or power to commit the crime” as prescribed in Point c Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to the case where a person holding a position or power intentionally commits wrongful acts, omits required acts, or performs acts contrary to law by taking advantage of his/her position or power.

Example: Nguyen Van A, an investigator of the Police Investigation Agency of Province D, abused his position and used the agency’s seal to forge a certificate falsely identifying Nguyen Van B (a suspect in another case not under A’s charge) as a person who had contributed to detecting a new crime. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be subject to the aggravating circumstance prescribed in Point c Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

4. “Committing the crime in a gangster-like nature” as prescribed in Point d Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to the case where the offender shows contempt for the law, frequently disturbs public order, readily uses violence, and behaves aggressively with blatant disregard for the lives and health of others -whether without reason, impulsively, or over trivial matters – and is willing to use violence or habitually intimidate others into submission.

Example: Nguyen Van A rode a motorcycle and loudly revved the exhaust on the street. At that time, Nguyen Van B was also riding another motorcycle; annoyed by the loud revving, B sped ahead to block A’s path and stabbed A in the right chest and left hip with a knife, causing a bodily injury rate of 60%. In this case, Nguyen Van B shall be subject to the aggravating circumstance prescribed in Point d Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

5. “Committing the crime with a vile motive” as prescribed in Point dd Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to cases where the offender commits the crime to take revenge or to evade his/her own responsibility; commits the crime against a person to whom he/she is indebted with gratitude; or other criminal acts showing ingratitude or treachery.

Example: Killing a person in order to marry the victim’s spouse; killing a lover who is pregnant by the offender to avoid responsibility; killing a creditor or benefactor who lent or helped the offender in hardship in order to avoid paying debts; etc.

6. “Deliberately carrying the crime through to the end” as prescribed in Point e Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to the case where the offender is determined to realize his/her criminal intent and commit the crime despite others’ interventions or other obstacles arising during the commission of the crime. This aggravating circumstance may also apply where the offender fails to achieve the intended purpose but it can be proved that he/she did everything possible to commit the crime or to attain the criminal purpose. Where the offender hesitates and does not resolutely carry out the crime, this circumstance shall not apply.

Example: Nguyen Van A and Pham Van B had a traffic-related quarrel that escalated into a scuffle. A stabbed B in the back with a knife. Although B fought back and escaped, A continued to chase and repeatedly stabbed B in the abdomen and chest, causing B’s death. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be subject to the aggravating circumstance prescribed in Point e Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

7. “Committing the crime 2 times or more” as prescribed in Point g Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to the case where the offender has committed the same crime from 2 times or more, each time fully constituting the crime, but has not been prosecuted for penal liability for any of those times and the statute of limitations for prosecution has not expired.

Example: In January 2025, Nguyen Van A stole three motorbikes from residents, with the value of property taken each time exceeding 2,000,000 dong; the total value appropriated was 60,000,000 dong, but A had not been prosecuted for any of those thefts. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be subject to the aggravating circumstance prescribed in Point g Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

8. “Recidivism or dangerous recidivism” as prescribed in Point h Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to the cases of recidivism defined in Article 53 of the Criminal Code.

Example: In June 2024, Nguyen Van A was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for theft of property (and completed serving the sentence). In October 2025, A again stole a motorbike worth 20,000,000 dong. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be subject to the aggravating circumstance prescribed in Point h Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

9. “Committing the crime against a person under 16 years of age, a pregnant woman, or a person who is 70 years of age or older” as prescribed in Point i Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code applies only to crimes committed with fault of intent, regardless of whether, at the time of committing the act, the offender was subjectively aware that the victim was under 16, pregnant, or 70 years of age or older.

10. “Committing the crime against a person who is unable to defend himself/herself, a person with severe or especially severe disability, a person with limited cognitive capacity, or a person who is dependent on the offender financially, mentally, at work, or otherwise” as prescribed in Point k Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to committing the crime against a person falling into one of the following cases:

a) “A person who is unable to defend himself/herself” means a person who has lost or has limited ability to perceive or control his/her acts; is ill; or is in another situation in which he/she cannot resist or protect himself/herself (being fast asleep, in a coma, unconscious, being tied up, etc.);

b) “A person with severe or especially severe disability” is as guided in Points a and b Clause 14 Article 2 of this Resolution;

c) “A person who is dependent financially, mentally, at work, or otherwise” means a person who has a relationship with the offender and is dependent on the offender in terms of finances, mental aspects, work, religion, belief, or other aspects.

Example: Taking advantage of the fact that Ms. Pham Thi H was fast asleep due to sleeping pills and thus unable to defend herself, Nguyen Van A committed rape against Ms. H. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be subject to the aggravating circumstance prescribed in Point k Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

11. “Abusing circumstances of war, state of emergency, natural disasters, epidemics, or other particularly difficult social circumstances to commit the crime” as prescribed in Point l Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to cases where the offender exploits circumstances of war; a state of emergency (such as armed riots, mass migration, food crises, etc.); natural disasters; epidemics; or other particularly difficult social circumstances (such as earthquakes, tsunamis, storms and floods, droughts, fires, pandemics, etc.) to commit the crime. It is not required that, at the time of committing the crime, war, a state of emergency, a natural disaster, an epidemic, or other particularly difficult circumstance is actually occurring.

Example: Taking advantage of residents’ urgent evacuation to avoid storms and floods, Nguyen Van A stole a motorbike worth 20,000,000 dong. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be subject to the aggravating circumstance prescribed in Point l Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

12. “Using sophisticated, deceitful, or cruel tricks to commit the crime” as prescribed in Point m Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to one of the following cases:

a) Using sophisticated tricks to commit the crime means that, when committing the crime, the offender uses skillful, complex, and covert methods to conceal the criminal act, making it difficult for the victim or others to detect;

b) Using deceitful tricks to commit the crime means that the offender uses highly deceptive and fraudulent tricks, employs high technology to commit the criminal act, conceal the crime, shift blame to others, or destroy evidence to hinder detection, investigation, and handling of the crime;

c) Using cruel tricks to commit the crime means that, when committing the crime, the offender uses malicious, ruthless, and barbaric methods that cause physical or mental suffering to the victim or the victim’s relatives.

Example: Nguyen Van A organized a large-scale online gambling ring, built a complex technological system, and created a highly secure website that was difficult to detect. A used multiple bank accounts and had relatives open accounts to receive and transfer funds from the gambling operation, thereby concealing the illicit origin of criminal proceeds. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be subject to the aggravating circumstance prescribed in Point m Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

13. “Using tricks or means capable of endangering many people to commit the crime” as prescribed in Point n Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to the case where, when committing the crime, the offender uses tricks, means, or instruments not only aimed at harming one person but also capable of endangering many other people.

Example: Poisoning a water source or food in a collective kitchen; using flammable substances to set fire to a factory with many workers present; throwing bombs or mines into a place with many passers-by; driving a car and crashing into a crowded area; etc.

14. “Inciting a person under 18 years of age to commit the crime” as prescribed in Point o Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to the case where both of the following conditions are met:

a) The offender is an adult;

b) The offender clearly knows that the person incited to commit the crime is under 18 years of age.

15. “Having deceitful or aggressive acts to evade or conceal the crime” as prescribed in Point p Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code refers to malicious, cunning, or violent acts such as destroying property, attacking, or killing others in order to escape, evade detection, or conceal the crime.

Example: After causing a traffic accident, Nguyen Van A abandoned the victim at the scene and drove the vehicle to a garage for repair to erase traces of the collision. A then returned to the scene, collected all fragments of the car to conceal his criminal act, and staged a false scene to mislead the investigation. In this case, Nguyen Van A shall be subject to the aggravating circumstance prescribed in Point p Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

Article 5. Application of mitigating and aggravating circumstances of penal liability in certain cases

1. Where the penalty is decided below the minimum level of the applicable penalty frame under Clause 1 Article 54 of the Criminal Code, the number of mitigating circumstances must exceed the number of aggravating circumstances by at least two, and among them, there must be at least two mitigating circumstances prescribed in Clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code.

2. Where the offender has multiple aggravating circumstances, including a circumstance that serves both as a qualifying circumstance and as an aggravating circumstance, the application shall be as follows:

a) If the qualifying circumstance concurrently constitutes an aggravating circumstance under Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code but does not belong to the same penalty frame of the provision, the highest qualifying circumstance shall apply, and the remaining ones shall not be considered aggravating circumstances;

b) If the qualifying circumstance concurrently constitutes an aggravating circumstance under Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code and belongs to the same penalty frame of the provision, only one qualifying circumstance shall apply, and the remaining ones shall not be considered aggravating circumstances;

c) Where the offender has multiple qualifying circumstances, the Court shall, based on the nature and seriousness of the crime, the offender’s personal record, the number of qualifying circumstances, and the number of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, determine the appropriate penalty.

3. In cases where the crime is committed five or more times, and one or more of those acts have resulted in a conviction that has not yet been expunged, depending on the specific case, the offender may be subject to qualifying circumstances or aggravating circumstances of “committing the crime two or more times,” “recidivism (or dangerous recidivism),” and “professional nature.”

4. Where, upon arrest, the offender not only honestly confesses to the act already detected by competent authorities but also voluntarily reports previous crimes that have not yet been detected, two mitigating circumstances shall apply: “honest confession” and “voluntary surrender.”

5. Where the offender was previously convicted of a very serious intentional crime or a particularly serious crime and has not had the conviction expunged but commits two very serious intentional crimes or particularly serious crimes again, the circumstance of “dangerous recidivism” shall apply to both crimes. If the law defines “dangerous recidivism” as a qualifying circumstance of the penalty frame, it shall be applied as such; if the law does not define it as a qualifying circumstance, it shall apply as an aggravating circumstance of penal liability under Point h Clause 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Code.

Article 6. Entry into force

1. This Resolution was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on September 30, 2025, and comes into force as of November 15, 2025.

2. For offenders who were tried before the effective date of this Resolution in accordance with previous guiding documents and whose judgments have taken legal effect, this Resolution shall not serve as a basis for protests under cassation or reopening procedures.