The Vietnamese logistics and import/export market was recently shaken by news of a legal dispute involving damages exceeding VND 150 billion. The trial took place between a shipper (a rubber exporting company) and 8 logistics companies/forwarders/shipping lines involved in export shipments to China.

The case serves as a “wake-up call” and leaves behind hard-learned lessons about the risks of consignee fraud (forged bill of lading), while also raising serious questions about the boundaries of forwarder liability when acting solely as a booking agent.

Details of the VND 150 Billion Bill of Lading Fraud

According to information recorded at the trial, the transaction and logistics chain for these shipments proceeded as follows:

  • Nature of service: The shipper engaged the logistics/forwarder companies primarily to book vessel space to China, along with some ancillary services at the origin port.
  • Bill of lading type: The shipping lines issued Master Bills of Lading (MBL) directly to the shipper. The forwarders involved in this case did not issue any House Bills of Lading (HBL).
  • Document handover process: The shipper received the full set of original bills of lading directly in Ho Chi Minh City and personally sent them to the buyer (consignee) in China.
  • Incident at the destination port: When the cargo arrived at the Chinese port, the consignee allegedly used sophisticated forged bills of lading to deceive the shipping line’s local agent at the destination port (POD Agent) and successfully removed all cargo from the yard without making payment to the shipper.

As a result, the shipper lost the entire cargo and filed suit against the entire logistics chain – including all 8 logistics companies/forwarders and shipping lines – on grounds of “joint and several liability,” seeking compensation for the VND 150 billion loss.

Legal Analysis: Is a Booking-Only Forwarder Liable?

For the forwarder companies involved in this case in the capacity of intermediary booking agents, the most pressing question is: Are they jointly liable for the VND 150 billion in damages?

From the perspective of international maritime law and standard industry practice, legal experts assess the likelihood of forwarder liability as VERY LOW, supported by the following defensive arguments:

1. No Contract of Carriage Exists Between the Shipper and the Forwarder

Because the documents issued were Master Bills of Lading (MBL) signed and issued directly by the shipping line to the shipper, the contractual relationship for sea freight carriage was established directly between the shipper and the carrier (shipping line).

The forwarders did not issue any House Bill of Lading (HBL), meaning they did not act as Contractual Carriers. Responsibility for safekeeping and safely releasing the cargo at the destination port lies with the shipping line and its agents.

2. The Risk of Information Leakage Falls Within the Shipper’s Own Management Scope

In this case, the shipper was the party responsible for managing and personally sending the original bill of lading set to the consignee. If a data breach occurred – such as a hacker compromising email accounts or a scanned document being leaked – allowing the consignee to obtain files for forging the bill of lading, this constitutes a security vulnerability on the shipper’s side, entirely outside the forwarder’s control.

Key defense strategy for forwarders at trial: Forwarders need to present their logistics service agreement or booking note clearly defining the scope of work: Responsible only for securing the booking, transmitting the manifest, or handling origin customs clearance (where applicable). The forwarder has neither the obligation nor the tools to manage cargo release operations at the destination port on behalf of the shipping line.

Who Bears the Primary Liability?

The court’s focus will center on two key parties: the consignee (the fraudulent party) and the carrier (shipping line).

Under the Hague-Visby Rules and the Maritime Code, the shipping line has a duty of “due diligence.” The shipping line’s agent at the destination port is only permitted to release cargo upon receiving at least one original bill of lading (or a valid telex release/seaway bill instruction).

  • If the shipping line’s agent was negligent: Failing to carefully verify security features (signature, stamp, paper quality) and releasing cargo incorrectly constitutes wrong delivery → the shipping line bears liability to compensate the shipper.
  • If the forged bill was highly sophisticated: Forensic examination will be required to determine the level of sophistication. If the forgery exceeded what could reasonably be detected through standard professional checks, the parties will need to litigate over risk prevention responsibility.

Hard-Won Lessons for Forwarders to Protect Themselves

The VND 150 billion lawsuit is a costly lesson for everyone in Vietnam’s logistics and forwarding industry. To avoid being drawn into legal disputes over joint liability, companies must tighten their operational processes:

  • Transparency in contracts (Indemnity Clause): Always include clear exclusion-of-liability clauses for the forwarder covering risks arising at the destination port when an MBL is used and the forwarder has no direct agent involved in cargo release at destination.
  • Prioritize secure alternatives (Telex Release / e-Bill): Encourage customers to use telex release or electronic bills of lading authenticated through the shipping line’s own secure internal system, minimizing the risk of paper bill forgery.
  • Document all communications: Every advisory, instruction, and document security warning issued to shippers must be sent through official channels (corporate email) and strictly archived as legal evidence when needed.

The case remains under review by the People’s Court, with findings to be determined based on forensic evidence. 3W Logistics will continue to update customers and readers on the latest developments as the proceedings unfold.

*This article is intended for industry news reference purposes only. For advice on safe shipping solutions and international cargo insurance, contact the expert team at 3W Logistics today.*

3W Logistics is currently an OTI-NVOCC with FMC and bond, capable of independently issuing HBLs and automatically filing AMS/ISF files (for US goods) and E-Manifest files (for Canadian goods) using 3W’s scan code. Therefore, the process of shipping goods to the US and Canada will be easier with 3W Logistics.

Head Office – 3W Logistics Ho Chi Minh City Branch
Address: 34 Bach Dang Street, Tan Son Hoa Ward, Ho Chi Minh City
Hotline: +84 28 3535 0087
____________________________
3W Logistics Hanoi Branch
Address: 81A Tran Quoc Toan Street, Cua Nam Ward, Hanoi
Hotline: +84 24 3202 0482
____________________________
3W Logistics Hai Phong Branch
Address: 8A Lot 28 Le Hong Phong Street, Gia Vien Ward, Hai Phong
Hotline: +84 225 355 5939
____________________________
3W LOGISTICS CO., LTD – We here serve you there!
Email: quote@3w-logistics.com
Website: www.3w-logistics.com