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​ 

August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
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