When power becomes privilege

Yesterday, Le Thuy Hang, former General Director of Saigon Jewelry Company (SJC), was formally charged by the Supreme People's Procuracy with two offenses: embezzlement and abuse of power while performing official duties. The financial loss is staggering: around USD 3.87 million in state assets were misappropriated, with Hang personally profiting by about USD 2.97 million.

It marks a bitter end to a saga that spanned more than 13 years, in which SJC gold bars became the symbol of a monopolized system under Decree 24/2012, granting the state exclusive rights to gold bullion production.

This exclusivity made SJC the almost singular brand trusted by the public, while the State Bank of Vietnam wielded full control over supply and demand.

Yet it was within this seemingly "safe" monopoly framework that serious violations emerged.

A market with a single sales channel and only one authorized brand provides the perfect conditions for power to morph into unchecked privilege. The monopoly mechanism wrapped SJC in a "national treasure" status, shielding sophisticated wrongdoing for years.

From inflated loss limits, off-the-books raw gold, to the misuse of stabilization gold sold at inflated prices—these allegations, as outlined in the indictment, paint a familiar picture: where there is no competition, oversight becomes ineffective, and profiteering opportunities flourish.

Hang’s misconduct reflects an institutional flaw: monopoly inherently carries the risk of abuse and creates a breeding ground for exploitation.

From criminal case to institutional reform

Without a monopoly mechanism, could a general director of a gold enterprise have manipulated hundreds of billions of dong in state assets alone?

When markets are stifled by monopoly, wrongful acts are easily cloaked in the guise of “policy implementation.”

Let’s revisit the conclusions of the Central Policy and Strategy Committee’s report on May 2, during a meeting chaired by General Secretary To Lam on gold market regulation:

The gold market is poorly managed and misaligned with global supply-demand dynamics, creating economic risks, particularly smuggling and capital flight.

Monopolistic conditions prevail, stifling competition and hindering a healthy gold business environment.

Current policies fail to encourage idle household capital to contribute to economic development, as people still hoard gold.

Management methods remain outdated, lacking modernization and global alignment.

These are all institutional bottlenecks.

A shift to ‘open governance’ thinking

During the meeting, General Secretary To Lam emphasized a shift in governance philosophy: from administrative control to disciplined market thinking, from “tightening to control” to “opening to govern.” He firmly rejected the mindset of “ban what cannot be managed.”

The gold market, he said, must operate according to market principles under state regulation. Interventions should avoid rigidity that stifles market dynamics. Ownership rights, property rights, and freedom of business must be respected and safeguarded. Storing gold should be recognized as a legitimate form of saving and investment, and policies must be designed accordingly.

He instructed the elimination of the state’s exclusive monopoly on gold bullion branding in a controlled manner. The state would retain oversight of gold production but could license qualified enterprises to produce bullion, creating a level playing field, diversifying supply, and stabilizing prices.

After 13 years, Decree 24 has finally been revised. The new Decree 232/2025 officially ends the state monopoly over gold bullion production. Instead of the State Bank of Vietnam being the sole authority, eligible enterprises and commercial banks may now be licensed to produce bullion.

The key shift: from “absolute monopoly” to “conditional competition.” The state remains the regulator and supervisor but no longer the sole producer - a necessary step to reduce risk, increase transparency, and limit avenues for profiteering.

A costly lesson

The case of Le Thuy Hang and her accomplices at SJC is more than a criminal matter. It’s a profound lesson in governance and monopoly risk. It reminds us that good institutions are not defined by absolute power concentration, but by power distribution and guaranteed competition. Markets require transparency, openness, and accountability.

While Decree 24 may have been created with good intentions - to stabilize gold prices - reality has shown that monopoly, even when justified by noble goals, can still breed corruption and vested interests.

Decree 232 is a clear declaration that the state seeks to build a functioning market, not to dominate it.

More importantly, it signals a move to restore public trust: that egregious abuses like the SJC case will have no room to thrive under a transparent, competitive regulatory system.

Tu Giang