Sharks and Mistakes: Lessons from Legal Incidents

"Shark" is not wrong for taking risks because that is the nature of investing. Wrong is when inspiration runs faster than control, when renaming, relabeling, restructuring ahead of the books, when PR replaces auditing.

Mr. Nguyen Hoa Binh, also known as Shark Binh - Photo: TL

On the occasion of Vietnamese Entrepreneurs Day, October 13, looking back at the controversies surrounding a few faces who appeared in the billion-dollar deal (Shark Tank Vietnam) is not to condemn anyone, but to identify the fragile border between startups, investment and law.

Making mistakes in business is normal, what is abnormal is letting mistakes escalate into criminal records.

A repeating orbit

The spotlight often stops at handshakes. The market does not. Behind the spotlight are contracts, taxes, and data. When a "shark" or a link in the ecosystem steps off the television to face investigation, prosecution, or verification, the real question arises: lost money can be recovered, but lost reputation can be recovered with what?

Recent cuts show a repeating trajectory. The case involving Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Thuy (Egroup, Apax English) started with commercial commitments. Then expanded the investigation to many individuals in the ecosystem with crimes being considered such as fraud, appropriation of property, giving and receiving bribes.

Regarding the NextTech and AntEx ecosystems related to Mr. Nguyen Hoa Binh, from investors' feedback on the token's sharp depreciation and project name change, Hanoi Police received it for verification.

The market often confuses reputation with personal trust in the founder. The law sees reputation as a verifiable obligation. That obligation is not in the poster, but in contracts, books, taxes, risk disclosures and compensation mechanisms.

The current legal framework has "hard supports", which are the 2019 Tax Administration Law requiring honest, complete and timely declaration; the 2015 Accounting Law and accounting standards requiring the preparation and presentation of reports in accordance with regulations, which can be converted into criminal liability if causing serious consequences; the 2023 Consumer Rights Protection Law and the Decree on product labeling require honesty about origin; the 2023 Electronic Transactions Law and Decree 13/2023 on personal data protection require data processing for the right purpose, with consent, tracking and accountability mechanisms.

In other words, collecting money creates tax obligations; processing data creates data protection obligations; and having a transaction creates a contract and civil liability.

Three intertwined control gaps

The common point of many legal-ridden deals often comes from three intertwined control loopholes.

At the legal level, the contract looks "nice" but is difficult to enforce. The risk management clause is just a slogan. The compensation mechanism lacks a source of payment. Each major change is not accompanied by an appendix, notice or technical documentation.

At the financial level, project cash flow is mixed with personal cash flow or between legal entities with "brotherly" relationships, without escrow accounts, separate with clear disbursement conditions. While this is the minimum standard of high-risk fields.

At the operational and data layer, import-export-inventory documents are broken, system logs are missing, smart contract intervention rights are not published, and the ultimate beneficial owner is unclear.

When these three weaknesses overlap, just one media shock can turn into legal risk.

The lesson for investors and startups is not to avoid risk by not investing because investing always involves risk, but to learn how to control it. Any profit commitment must be linked to a source of collateral through a margin account or a segregated account. Absolutely do not use new money to pay old promises.

For Vietnamese goods, the answer lies in the labeling system, supply chain records and internal control, not in media inspiration. When calling for capital or designing tokenomics (the economic model of digital currency operations), it is necessary to separate project accounts and clearly announce the disbursement mechanism.

Any major changes to the token, platform, or revenue sharing model must be timestamped, logged, and independently confirmed. User data must only be processed with legal justification, logs, and a mechanism for withdrawing consent. Any policy changes must be communicated promptly, concisely, and clearly.

The approach should be technical and legal in parallel. At the technical level, the platform should standardize the display of prices, fees, return conditions, and risk warnings right before the user clicks “accept.” Any changes should be time-stamped.

For high-risk industries, it is necessary to apply margin accounts to ensure cash flow safety. At the legal level, it is necessary to strengthen the obligation to disclose information, organize a time-limited online dispute resolution channel, link the responsibility of the legal representative to the quality of internal control according to the Enterprise Law 2020 and enhance the role of the Audit Committee under the Board of Directors in listed enterprises.

Television can be edited to make it appealing, but the market only believes in viable contracts, segregated cash flows, verifiable data, and accountability.

"Shark" is not wrong for daring to take risks because that is the nature of investing. Wrong is when inspiration runs faster than control, when changing names, labels, and structures before books, when PR replaces auditing. Once trust is lost, the road back is always there but long and steep.

The most memorable lesson from deals that get stuck in legal trouble is to not make promises that you cannot control. The spotlight may be less bright but the business value will last and that is the "deal of a lifetime" worth pursuing.

HOANG HA

Source: https://tuoitre.vn/shark-va-sai-lam-bai-hoc-tu-nhung-vu-dinh-lao-ly-20251010224848221.htm