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

July 7, 2021

A New Dawn for Cryptocurrency in Vietnam?

Subscribe to Updates

Over the past decade, cryptocurrency has been a consistently hot topic in Vietnam. A recent surge in the price of Bitcoin (BTC) from approximately USD 4,000 to nearly USD 65,000 in just over a year has turned up the heat more than ever. According to a recent report by Statista, Vietnam is ranked second among 74 countries surveyed in terms of the percentage of respondents who said that they used or owned cryptocurrency in 2020.

The considerable interest of Vietnamese users has in turn grabbed great attention from the government, specifically regarding how it can effectively regulate and potentially utilize this type of currency. Recently, the government issued Decision No. 942/QD-TTg dated June 15, 2021, approving the strategy for development of e-government toward digital government for 2021-2025 with orientation toward 2030 (“Decision 942”). Decision 942 raised a stir among Vietnamese investors as it seemed to hint at the government’s growing openness toward cryptocurrency, which to date has been largely opposed.

Legality of Cryptocurrency in Vietnam

For a general picture of cryptocurrency’s legal status in Vietnam, it can be briefly summarized that (i) there is no legal definition of cryptocurrency; and (ii) cryptocurrency is not yet explicitly recognized as either an asset/property or a means of transaction.

Thus far, the government’s opposition to cryptocurrency has been relatively clear. Under Official Letter No. 5747/NHNN-PC dated July 21, 2017, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) explicitly stated that cryptocurrency in general and BTC and Litecoin in particular are not legal currencies or means of payment in Vietnam; thus, any issuance, supply, or use of them as currency or a means of payment is prohibited, and subject to administrative or even criminal sanctions.

Later, on April 11, 2018, the Prime Minister issued Directive No. 10/CT-TTg to agencies including the SBV, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Public Security on increasing the management of activities related to BTC and other cryptocurrencies, with the aim to control, prevent, and deal with transactions related to cryptocurrency. In response, two days later, the SBV issued Decision No. 02/CT-NHNN, which requires credit institutions, payment intermediary organizations, and SBV units to strengthen measures to control and deal with transactions related to cryptocurrency.

Although cryptocurrency is not legal in Vietnam, an interesting case arose in 2020, when the Criminal Police Department proposed prosecution of 16 defendants in the case of a robbery of cryptocurrency (including BTC and other cryptocurrencies) equivalent to VND 35 billion, under the charge of “theft of assets/property”. This charge raised a contentious debate over whether cryptocurrency should be recognized as an asset/property under Vietnamese law, because otherwise, it would be impossible to accuse someone of “theft of assets/property” in this situation.

Does Decision 942 Open a Door for Recognition of Cryptocurrency?

While Decision 942 does not specifically mention cryptocurrency, it interestingly assigns the SBV to research, develop, and pilot the use of “virtual currency” (“tiền ảo” in Vietnamese) based on blockchain technology, without elaborating any further. It remains unclear whether such blockchain-based “virtual currency” under Decision 942 refers to cryptocurrency or any other virtual currency.

According to Associate Professor Dinh Trong Thinh, Senior Lecturer at the Academy of Finance, with this new pilot program, the government plans to issue a virtual VND (that is, a currency that is still Vietnamese currency, but has been issued and circulated in the digital space), and this is not related to cryptocurrency like BTC. The value of this new virtual currency, if codified and put into practice, would depend on the government’s decision, rather than fluctuating in price based on the market, like other cryptocurrencies. (See related article in Vietnam Finance.)

It should be noted that in March 2021, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance announced that they had established a research group on virtual assets and virtual currency, with the aim to achieve an appropriate policy and management mechanism for them.

Are these signs that the government is ready to formally allow cryptocurrency, and even embrace it? It will be interesting to see what further steps the government takes to respond to this emerging trend.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
Read More
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
Read More
April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that
Read More