You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

March 15, 2024

Vietnam Revs Up Fintech Sector with Updated Draft of Sandbox Decree

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s fintech industry is booming, and the rapid emergence of tech startups and non-bank institutions offering innovative financial services has been outpacing existing regulations. This regulatory gap not only creates uncertainty for both innovators and consumers, but also poses a number of imminent risks in areas such as consumer protection, data privacy, cybersecurity, and anti-money laundering, among others.

The State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) is stepping up to tackle these challenges by accelerating the promulgation of a long-awaited Fintech Sandbox Decree with the issuance of an updated draft (“Draft Fintech Sandbox Decree”) on March 4, 2024. The Draft Fintech Sandbox Decree establishes a controlled environment where fintech companies and financial institutions can test solutions that do not fall squarely within the parameters of existing regulations. The pilot activities will be limited in scope, scale, and duration, with a number of precautionary measures in place. The SBV will supervise this “sandbox” closely, effectively mitigating risks and gathering valuable data to inform future regulations.

Who Can Participate in the Sandbox?

  • Traditional financial institutions (credit institutions): Banks and other institutions licensed to provide financial services can participate in the sandbox to test new offerings or refine existing ones.
  • Independent fintech companies: Startups and established companies specializing in fintech solutions can leverage the sandbox to pilot innovative ideas before seeking wider market adoption.
  • Other relevant organizations involved in the pilot: Depending on the specific solution being tested, other entities may also be involved in the sandbox.
  • Geographical scope: Limited to Vietnamese territory; cross-border testing is not allowed.

Focusing on Three Solution Categories

Earlier versions of the Draft Fintech Sandbox Decree included categories like blockchain technology and other innovative business models, but these were removed in the latest version. To allow the SBV to assess the associated risks and work on the solutions more effectively, this version focuses only on the following three solutions:

  • Credit scoring: Fintech companies can pilot new credit scoring models to assess the creditworthiness of individuals or organizations.
  • Data sharing via Open Application Programming Interface (“Open API”): Secured data-sharing mechanisms using Open APIs can be tested within the sandbox.
  • Peer-to-peer lending (“P2P Lending”): Platforms that connect lenders and borrowers can be piloted in the sandbox.

Participation Conditions

Fintech companies must meet specific criteria depending on the solution they are piloting. The criteria will vary depending on the complexity and potential risks associated with the solution. For example, P2P lending platforms might face strict requirements on cybersecurity and network information security.

All participants must submit a registration dossier and obtain a Certificate of Participation from the SBV.

Monitoring and Risk Control

The SBV will closely monitor activities, evaluate participation, and assess the effectiveness of the piloted solutions, with a dedicated team to oversee activities within the sandbox, ensuring that participants comply with applicable regulations and that pilots are conducted safely and effectively.

Participating organizations are required to submit regular reports and provide ad hoc information on the pilot process, operational indicators, risks encountered, and the results of the pilot implementation to the SBV.

Customer Protection

Participating organizations have a responsibility to ensure customer rights and interests. This includes informing them about potential risks associated with using the piloted solution, obtaining their informed consent, and clearly outlining data privacy practices.

Participating organizations must implement robust security measures to safeguard customer data collected during the pilot program.

For dispute settlement, organizations are required to establish a customer complaint handling department and have clear mechanisms in place to address any disputes or complaints arising from the use of their piloted solutions.

Sandbox Conclusion

The pilot period will last a maximum of two years, with the SBV having the authority to adjust the length based on the actual implementation. After the pilot period, the SBV will decide on the next steps based on participating organizations’ reports, its own monitoring data, and any feedback received from relevant state authorities. Options will include terminating the pilot, certifying its completion, or extending the pilot period.

Participation in the Sandbox Mechanism does not guarantee an operating license or market approval for the piloted solutions.

Outlook

Once it is officially passed, it is hoped that the Fintech Sandbox Decree will usher in a new era of controlled experimentation in the sector, fostering a dynamic fintech ecosystem where innovation can thrive alongside robust regulations. By balancing innovation with consumer protection, cybersecurity, and data protection, it has the potential to transform Vietnam into a hub for groundbreaking fintech solutions, all while safeguarding the integrity of the financial system and consumers’ interests.

Now that the sandbox program has been streamlined to include only the three most prominent fintech solutions, the SBV might be able to speed up the official issuance of the Fintech Sandbox Decree.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More