Analyzing the Vingroup vs. Lê Trung Khoa Dispute: Implications of the Final Judgment

A lawsuit over speech in which a defendant, even if wrong, is not sent to prison: that is a hallmark of a democratic judiciary. [1]

---

In early September 2025, Vingroup, Việt Nam’s largest private conglomerate, filed civil lawsuits against 68 organizations and individuals domestically and abroad. The lawsuits accused these entities of spreading false information regarding the company’s finances, products, and the personal lives of its senior executives. [2]

Of these cases, the dispute with Lê Trung Khoa is particularly significant. Lê Trung Khoa, a German citizen since 2024, is the founder and chief editor of thoibao.de, a diaspora newspaper covering Việt Nam’s conglomerates, corruption, and the power tug-of-war within the Communist Party. This case serves as a valuable study in how different legal cultures manage speech disputes, demonstrating that authorities can resolve conflicts while preserving both liberty and reputation—a true measure of judicial maturity. [3]

Regrettably, objective commentary on this matter has been scarce. Observers have largely picked sides or bent their thinking out of deference to power, with domestic media mostly aligning with Vingroup.

Amid the confusion regarding the trial’s outcome, it is necessary to determine where each party actually won or lost. However, victory should not be viewed merely in the binary terms of a court ruling. Instead, one must consider what the plaintiff sought versus what was gained or forfeited. This strategic assessment reveals the true nature of victory and defeat.

The Court’s Verdict

On Nov. 5, 2025, a rare legal event occurred in Berlin, Germany, as a major Vietnamese conglomerate sued an independent media outlet on Western soil. Plaintiff Phạm Nhật Vượng pressed four claims against defendant Lê Trung Khoa, alleging that Khoa had accused VinFast of bribery; [4] published false information about products; defamed the business as a “mafia”; and was spreading misinformation, claiming that the plaintiff plotted to plant a bomb to attack him. [5]

The Regional Court of Berlin II (Landgericht Berlin II, Zivilkammer 27) provisionally resolved the dispute between Vingroup chairman Phạm Nhật Vượng and Lê Trung Khoa of Thoibao.de with a specific cost allocation: Khoa bears 20% of the court costs, while Vingroup must bear 80%. While the court enjoined Khoa from repeating allegations that “VinFast bribed” anyone without concrete proof, it did not accept the majority of the plaintiff’s demands.

This “both-sides-suffer” judgment has triggered fierce debate. Vượng’s supporters cite the restrictions on Khoa as a Vingroup victory, while Khoa’s supporters view the fact that Vingroup must pay 80% of the costs as a victory for the journalist.

The legal basis for this decision rests on §§91–92 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO), which establishes the “loser pays” principle (Kostenentscheidung nach Obsiegen und Unterliegen). [6] Under these provisions, costs are allocated according to the proportion of success.

Therefore, the 80–20 split signals that Vingroup prevailed in only roughly 20% of its claims. The dismissal of the majority of the claims indicates that the court found many of Vingroup’s arguments to be legally unproven or outside a reasonable scope. On paper, the court treated the outcome as roughly a 4–1 victory for Lê Trung Khoa. This carries two messages: Khoa is not a unanimous winner, nor is Vingroup a total loser; and while the court limited Khoa’s freedom of expression, it did not extinguish his voice.

What Grounded the Court’s Ruling?

While Germany criminalizes “defamation” (Verleumdung), its application differs significantly from the Vietnamese context. The German court’s reasoning relies on balancing the constitutional right to freedom of expression under Article 5 of the Grundgesetz (Basic Law) against civil protections for personal honour under § 823 and § 1004 of the Civil Code (BGB). [7][8][9]

Freedom of expression is likewise enshrined in the German constitution as a core democratic value. Article 5(1) grants individuals the right to express and disseminate opinion and to have a free press. But paragraph 2 makes clear that this freedom is not absolute: it must comply with general laws and respect the honour and dignity of others, consistent with the constitutional order.

This balance is guided by the landmark “Lüth” precedent (Beschluss vom 15.01.1958 – 1 BvR 400/51), which affirms freedom of expression as the foundation of democratic society while requiring respect for the dignity of others. [10] Additionally, corporate entities like VinFast possess “personality rights” (Unternehmenspersönlichkeitsrecht), as established in the “Herrenreiter” case (BGH, Feb. 14, 1958). [11]

The specific 4–1 outcome stems from the distinction in German media law between factual assertions (Tatsachenbehauptung) and value judgments (Werturteil). [12] Factual claims are verifiable as true or false, while value judgments are subjective opinions protected by free speech.

Applying this taxonomy, the court rejected three of Vingroup’s claims:

1. The “Mafia” Comment: Under customary legal practice, accusations that liken a person or organization to degrading or criminal images can constitute defamation if used as fact. However, the court treated Khoa’s description of Vingroup as “mafia” as a value judgment (Werturteil) rather than a factual allegation of criminal enterprise. As a subjective assessment, it falls within the protective ambit of freedom of expression. [13]
2. The Bomb Plot Allegation: The court dismissed the Plaintiff’s demand because it viewed Khoa’s suggestion—that Vingroup plotted to attack him—as a subjective perception or expression of fear. Because such speculative assertions are difficult to verify as deliberate acts, they are protected as free expression.
3. Product Criticism: The court dismissed the claim regarding negative product reviews. International jurisprudence protects product criticism to drive accountability. To rebut this, VinFast needed to provide objective evidence (such as independent testing), which it failed to do. This contrasts sharply with reports of VinFast using policing to suppress customer dissent in Việt Nam. [14]

However, the court ruled in favor of Vingroup on the fourth claim: bribery. Unlike the other claims, bribery is a verifiable behavior. Because Khoa failed to prove that the person soliciting bribes was a VinFast agent, the court prohibited him from repeating the allegation. Violations carry fines of €250,000 (roughly 7 billion đồng) or potential imprisonment.

A German Lesson for Vietnamese Jurisprudence

The German judgment invites reflection on the nature of freedom of expression, a concept rooted in Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws. While freedom generally implies the ability to act without coercion, in a society built on multilateral contracts, one person’s freedom cannot infringe upon another’s.

Germany creates a unique boundary by criminalizing defamation, a stance uncommon among advanced democracies. This rationale is anchored in Article 1 of the Basic Law, which establishes human dignity (Ehre) as an inviolable right. Because of this, willful humiliation or the spread of false allegations is viewed not just as a private tort, but as an assault on the constitutional fabric itself. This specific aversion to unchecked speech is historically rooted in the trauma of the Nazi era and the abuses of propaganda. [15]

However, the German court’s ruling also demonstrates a robust protection of press freedom via the proportionality test (Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung). [16] This principle dictates that restrictions on speech must be necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim—in this case, protecting a reputation. Courts are obligated to choose the least restrictive measure (mildeste Mittel) to avoid chilling the press. As confirmed by precedent (BVerfG, NJW 1999, 1322), courts should not impose blanket bans if targeted, partial measures suffice.

The True Winners and Losers 

On paper, Vingroup lost by a 1–4 margin and bears 80% of the litigation costs. Yet, for a multi-billion-dollar conglomerate, such costs are trivial. To understand the outcome, one must look past the financial penalty to the strategic reality.

Vingroup’s failure to secure a total victory limits its ability to use the law as a deterrent against critics. Among the targets sued by Vingroup—including Lê Trung Khoa, Phương Ngô, and Hoàng Dũng—Khoa was arguably the most vulnerable legal target due to the specific nature of his statements. Despite having top-tier counsel and the advantage of Germany’s strict speech laws (compared to the U.S. or Canada), Vingroup struggled.

However, Vingroup achieved a tactical victory simply by engaging in the process. Forcing a critic to stand trial and pay even 20% of the costs imposes significant pressure on independent journalists or activists. The spectacle of being hauled into court serves as a warning to others: dissent carries a heavy price.

Ultimately, Vingroup’s goal may not have been a clean legal win, but by simply signaling that they will litigate, they encourage a quieter, more compliant media environment. In this sense, their “victory” is not found in a judge’s ruling or a court’s verdict, but in the silence of those who decide not to speak up in the future—a victory won long before and beyond the courtroom.

---

Đan Thanh wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on Nov. 17, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.