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

June 19, 2024

Vietnam’s New Decree on Non-Cash Payments

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s financial landscape is set to further transform on July 1, 2024, when the government’s long-awaited Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024 (“Decree 52”), will officially replace Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Decree 101”).

Decree 52 marks an important milestone by introducing the country’s first-ever legal definition of e-money. In addition, the decree brings forth new updates to regulations governing payment and intermediary payment services, laying the groundwork for more comprehensive guidance that will be provided in draft circulars now being developed by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV).

Non-Cash Payment Instruments

The new definition of non-cash payment instruments under Decree 52 expands upon the previous definition in Decree 101. Notably, it clearly specifies the issuing entities as payment service providers, financial companies licensed to issue credit cards, and e-wallet service providers. Additionally, the new definition further clarifies that bank cards include debit, credit, and prepaid cards, and adds e-wallets to the list of non-cash payment instruments. Unlawful non-cash payment instruments are still defined as those that are not otherwise specified.

E-Money

Prior to Decree 52, the concept of e-money lacked a precise legal definition, despite its growing prevalence in forms like prepaid cards and e-wallets. The absence of a clear framework for e-money led to confusion with terms like “cryptpcurrency” and “virtual currency” and left significant ambiguity on whether e-money includes certain instruments, such as online game cards and mobile money. Decree 52 addresses this issue by clearly defining e-money as value in Vietnamese dong (VND) stored electronically and prepaid by customers to banks, foreign bank branches, and e-wallet service providers. It also specifically designates e-wallets and prepaid cards as types of storage mechanisms for e-money.

Non-Cash Payment Services

Decree 52 categorizes non-cash payment services into services with and without client payment accounts. Payment services with client accounts involve various financial transactions like money transfers and card payments, while services without client accounts focus on transactions not requiring such accounts. The decree also expands the range of entities providing these services to include not only banks and financial institutions but also public postal service providers (as defined by the Law on Post). So far, regulations for non-cash payment services provided by public postal service providers have been outlined in Circular No. 38/2019/TT-NHNN dated December 31, 2019. Decree 52 now further formalizes the inclusion of public postal service providers, a move that emphasizes expanded access to financial services, particularly in underbanked areas.

In a bid to further clarify and regulate these payment services, the SBV is currently working on a draft circular that will replace Circular No. 46/2014/TT-NHNN dated December 31, 2014, on non-cash payment services. This circular aims to offer updated guidance on all aspects of non-cash payment services under Decree 52 to address the new practical challenges in the current non-cash payment landscape.

Intermediary Payment Services

Decree 52 defines intermediary payment service (IPS) providers as non-bank organizations licensed by the SBV to provide IPSs, which encompass financial switching services, international financial switching services, electronic clearing services, e-wallet services, collection and payment support services, and payment gateway services. Compared to the old IPS regime under Decree 101 and Circular No. 39/2014/TT-NHNN dated December 11, 2014 (“Circular 39”), Decree 52 removes electronic money transfer support services from the list of IPSs.

The decree also sets stringent requirements for obtaining an IPS license, encompassing capital adequacy, technical capabilities, and personnel qualifications. The most notable requirements for organizations applying for an IPS license include the following:

  • The organization must not be in the process of division, separation, consolidation, merger, conversion, dissolution, or bankruptcy.
  • For financial switching services and electronic clearing services, the organization must provide only IPSs.
  • The organization must fulfill minimum charter capital requirements of either (1) VND 50 billion (approx. USD 1,964,560) for e-wallet services, collection and payment support services, and payment gateway services, or (2) VND 300 billion (approx. USD 11,787,360) for financial switching services, international financial switching services, and electronic clearing services.
  • The organization must comply with information system security level 4 requirements for financial switching services and electronic clearing services, or level 3 for other IPSs.
  • The organization must meet specific technical and personnel requirements.

Decree 52 also introduces new regulations for the provision of IPSs with international elements. These affect:

  • Foreign service providers providing IPSs to nonresident customers and foreigners residing in Vietnam to perform payment transactions for goods and services in Vietnam; and
  • Providers of IPSs that customers use to perform payment transactions for foreign goods and services.

The SBV is currently preparing a draft circular that will replace Circular 39 on IPSs and is expected to be issued soon.

Safety and Security of Non-Cash Payments

Under Decree 52, payment service and IPS providers are responsible for ensuring the safety and confidentiality of transactions, conducting inspections of payment-accepting units, and actively managing risks to prevent the misuse of their services for illegal activities. IPS providers specifically must adhere to information system security requirements with varying levels of compliance depending on the specific services offered (level 4 for financial switching services and electronic clearing services, and level 3 for other IPSs). IPS providers should therefore also carefully review relevant regulations under the Law on Network Information Security and Decree No. 85/2016/ND-CP dated July 1, 2016, on the security of information systems by levels, for full compliance in this regard.

In addition to these requirements, payment service and IPS providers should also pay attention to the new, stringent requirements under Decision No. 2345/QD-NHNN dated December 18, 2023, on security measures for online payments and bank card transactions. To solidify the compulsory measures set out under this decision, the SBV is currently drafting a circular to replace Circular No. 35/2016/TT-NHNN dated December 29, 2016, which will further guide the requirements on safety and security for online banking services.

Other Notes

In addition to the above, Decree 52 also has the following key points:

  • Monitoring Activities: Decree 52 grants the SBV extensive supervisory powers over payment systems, payment services, and IPSs. The SBV is authorized to promulgate regulations, conduct remote and on-site supervision, and request information from relevant entities. Payment service providers and IPS providers must comply with these regulations and provide the requested information. Notably, the SBV has the authority to determine and supervise economically important payment systems to maintain their stability and security. To provide more guidance in this regard, the SBV is also currently working on a draft circular that will replace Circular No. 20/2018/TT-NHNN dated August 30, 2018, on supervision of payment systems.
  • Payment Agents: The SBV is developing a draft circular on payment agents for non-cash payment services as regulated under Decree 52. This initiative aims to enhance financial inclusion by enabling banks and foreign bank branches to expand their customer base and service reach without incurring the costs associated with expanding their physical networks. By partnering with payment agents, banks can offer basic financial services in remote areas, reducing travel time for customers and improving overall service efficiency.
  • Transitional Period: Decree 52 provides various transitional periods for different stakeholders to align with its new regulations, as follows:
    • Commercial banks and foreign bank branches have 24 months to comply with Decree 52 for international payment system participation;
    • IPS providers licensed for money transfer support services under Decree 101 can continue operations as agreed between the parties;
    • Financial switching service providers connected to international payment systems have 24 months to comply and apply for a new license under Decree 52;
    • Public postal service enterprises have 24 months to apply for approval to provide payment services other than through customer payment accounts; and
    • IPS providers licensed before Decree 52’s effective date can operate until their licenses expire, unless they apply for new licenses under Decree 52’s regime.

Outlook

Decree 52 introduces significant changes to the non-cash payment landscape in Vietnam, including the country’s first legal definition of e-money and expanded regulations for non-cash payment and IPS services. In light of the new regime under Decree 52, the SBV is also developing a number of new circulars to provide further guidance on implementing these regulations. Payment and IPS providers should therefore closely follow legal developments in this field to ensure full compliance with the fast-evolving regulatory framework.

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

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