The notion of not criminalizing cases related to civil and economic relations has been raised for decades, yet little change has been made. The Politburo’s Resolution 68/NQ-TW has infused society with a new, more specific and determined spirit. However, this remains a complex issue, and in order to succeed, it requires thorough discussion to ensure a proper approach.

What does “criminalization” mean? The term “criminalization” certainly does not refer to the legitimate prosecution of crimes or the initiation of criminal proceedings in accordance with the law. Rather, the issue arises when cases involving certain relationships or incidents, by their objective nature, do not fall within the realm of criminal law and lack reasonable grounds for criminal liability. For example, such cases may involve civil or commercial transactions, or even isolated administrative violations that do not pose a danger to public order or general societal interests. Yet, these are still turned into criminal cases by law enforcement, at least to the extent of initiating investigation proceedings, even if not yet prosecuted by the procuracy or adjudicated by the court. What are the impacts and consequences of criminalization? If criminalization were merely the result of isolated incidents due to misapplication, error, or abuse in navigating between civil, economic, administrative, and penal laws, its impact and consequences would not be too severe. After all, no legal system is completely immune to such occurrences. However, despite public outcry and supportive responses from many leaders over the years, such incidents have not decreased—in fact, they appear to be on the rise. This suggests the emergence of a new behavioral pattern in the interactions between regulatory agencies, law enforcement, citizens, and businesses. Regarding impact, the most concerning effect of criminalization is the distortion or nullification of the state’s lawful oversight functions. Instead of providing guidance, support, inspection, or even using administrative sanctions as a deterrent, state agencies are increasingly shifting responsibility to the judiciary, particularly the investigation system. In terms of consequences, beyond the unnecessary psychological and material losses for victims of criminalization, the more alarming issue is the gradual erosion of public trust. Both citizens and businesses start to lose faith in the effectiveness of law enforcement and the credibility of regulatory institutions. On the national scale, these behaviors and practices become institutional bottlenecks, disrupting civil life and hindering development. This is precisely why Resolution 68, instead of relying on general appeals, directly identifies and addresses the issue to combat the trend of criminalization. What are the root causes of criminalization? I believe the issue of criminalization stems from a common way of thinking or behaving. It is a simple and seemingly reasonable mindset: “If something cannot be resolved through civil or administrative channels, criminalize it.” However, a deeper analysis requires clarification on the following points: First, why are disputes not resolved through civil or administrative means? Civil and administrative cases have different reasons for being criminalized, but they share a common logic. Take, for example, a civil matter such as a loan agreement. If a lender cannot recover the loan despite repeated demands, the legal course would be to file a civil lawsuit. Yet, the lender may choose not to go this way, finding it complicated, costly, and ultimately ineffective—even if the court rules in their favor, they may still not recover the money. Instead, they seek help from the police in hopes of turning it into a criminal case. Unfortunately—but effectively—this approach often works. A similar pattern occurs in administrative enforcement. For instance, the taxman might find it difficult to compel a tax debtor to settle outstanding obligations and may hesitate to initiate court proceedings. Instead, they may opt for the “safer” path of referring the case to the police for criminal investigation. As a result, the tax debtor is immediately pressured—forced to declare assets and income, publicly named, and restricted from overseas travel. What these cases share is a lack of trust in the legal infrastructure, which was originally designed with a clearly defined and logical division of responsibilities. This mistrust leads to a sense of helplessness among involved parties, discouraging them from following the correct legal process. What’s more concerning is that in both types of cases, law enforcement agencies are often willing to take over the case and the responsibility. After all, this “pass-the-buck” approach appears to be legally compliant and procedurally sound. Second, what is the incentive for criminalization? Why has this trend been gaining momentum in recent years? Because it seems that all parties involved—the complainant, the regulatory authority, and the enforcement agency—stand to “win.” Criminalization leads to faster resolution and tangible outcome, including material gains and performance bonuses. The perceived “success” of this process often overshadows the pain, loss, and injustice suffered by the victim of criminalization, whether deserved or not. Third, where is the root of the problem? In fact, pinpointing individual wrongdoing in specific cases of criminalization is nearly impossible, unless from a purely technical legal perspective. Who will investigate and verify the conduct when the ones responsible for doing so are themselves part of the system—and when the expected findings would involve abuse of power or exceeding legal authority? Therefore, logically speaking, if all operational units appear to function properly but the outcomes are undesirable, we must look for systemic causes. This leads to a broader discussion. From both a research and practical perspective, I propose two institutional reform points to address this issue. First, judicial reform to truly position the court at the center of the justice system; and second, legal reform in both law-making and law enforcement processes, with the overarching aim of prioritizing the protection of human and civil rights. What can be done to prevent or limit criminalization? To achieve this goal, especially in the context of ongoing constitutional amendments and revisions to fundamental laws on criminal justice, criminal procedure, and government organization currently being discussed by the National Assembly, two specific reforms could be implemented. First, procedural reform. In the criminal proceedings law, introduce independent and separate processes during the pre-trial phase. This would allow defendants, either during prosecution or after the investigation is concluded, to file complaints and request judicial review of the legitimacy of criminal charges. Courts could then determine whether a case has been unlawfully criminalized. Second, review of legislative and executive actions: Broadly speaking, criminalization can also occur when legislative or executive bodies issue legal documents that “upgrade” certain violations into criminal offenses, even though they are essentially civil, economic, or administrative matters. Therefore, it is crucial to establish independent courts to review the constitutionality of such laws and adjudicate complaints regarding legal provisions that have been enacted or misused in ways that infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals and organizations as guaranteed by the Constitution. These two proposed reforms are not novel; they reflect standard practices in many rule-of-law countries. In support of the strong reformist spirit of the Party’s highest leadership, these solutions represent concrete steps toward institutionalizing the clear and specific directives outlined in Resolution 68/NQ-TW.