Decree 250/2025: Ending the Endless Cycle of Asset Revaluation

Revaluation with Limits and a Final Decision Point

According to Article 26, the first revaluation is permitted when a competent authority finds reasonable grounds to doubt the initial valuation. This revaluation must be carried out by the immediate higher-level Valuation Council.

If there remains a conflict between the initial valuation and the first revaluation, a second revaluation may be conducted by a council of the same level as the one that performed the first revaluation.

In exceptional cases, when contradictions persist even after two revaluations, the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy or the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court will issue the final and legally binding conclusion. This provision establishes a clear endpoint to the revaluation process—eliminating the previous situation where valuations could be endlessly repeated.

The Decree also clarifies what does not constitute a revaluation. For instance, if the valuation council fails to follow proper procedures or does not issue a valid conclusion, it must redo its work — but this is not counted as a “revaluation.” Similarly, when there are significant changes to the asset or the valuation request, a new council must be formed.

Furthermore, the Decree strengthens the accountability of the investigating body. Any request for revaluation must be accompanied by complete documentation, legal grounds, and justification, preventing arbitrary or redundant requests that delay proceedings.

Enhanced Ethics and Independence of Valuation Councils

Article 5, Chapter I sets out six categories of individuals prohibited from participating in valuation councils, ensuring objectivity and integrity throughout the process. These include:

1. Those directly involved in the case—victims, defendants, suspects, or their relatives.

2. Anyone who has previously taken part in valuing or revaluing the same asset.

3. Persons who have served as defense counsel, legal representatives, witnesses, experts, interpreters, or translators in the case.

4. Individuals currently acting as procedural authorities in the same case.

5. Anyone with reasons to believe they cannot remain impartial.

6. Persons under disciplinary action at the level of a warning or higher, including Party or public service discipline.

If a council member becomes subject to disciplinary measures during the process, they must immediately withdraw, and the appointing authority must replace them to maintain the council’s legality and continuity.

Key Differences from Earlier Decrees

Compared with Decree 30/2018 and 97/2019, the new decree expands disqualification criteria and aligns with the current criminal procedure framework, covering even the pre-investigation stage (e.g., handling reports or denunciations of crimes).

The phrase “has reasons to believe they may not be impartial” replaces the previous, stricter wording “clearly proven to be biased.” This change gives authorities more flexibility to act swiftly when impartiality is in question, without waiting for hard evidence.

Practical Impact

By establishing a clear hierarchy of revaluation levels, a final decision-making authority, and specific exclusion criteria, Decree 250/2025 ensures the asset valuation process becomes transparent, efficient, and accountable.

This marks a major step forward in judicial reform, helping prevent wrongful convictions, eliminate valuation-related manipulation, and accelerate case resolution.

In short, Decree 250/2025 officially puts an end to the endless loop of asset revaluations, paving the way for a fairer, more credible, and efficient criminal justice process in Vietnam.