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 9, 2026
As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities. The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data. Structure of the Consultation Process According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases: Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA. Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations. Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder
Read More
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More
April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More