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

September 3, 2019

Cryptocurrency Regulations in Mainland Southeast Asia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Introduction

The rapid global proliferation of cryptocurrencies—digital currencies using advanced cryptography (typically blockchain) to verify and secure transactions and maintain supply—has seen governments scrambling to regulate what some see as an opportunity and others see as a threat. The digital nature of cryptocurrencies has meant that investors faced with new regulations can quickly seek new jurisdictions to act as a safe harbor for their assets, while developing countries that have a varied history with fiat currency have responded to this high-risk capital inflow in a number of different ways.

In this article, we compare the cryptocurrency regulations (or lack thereof) in mainland Southeast Asia—an area of increasing interest to investors following restrictive policies in China, India, and elsewhere.

Country Overviews

Cambodia – Jay Cohen, Partner and Director, Cambodia

While there is no clear regulatory scheme in Cambodia for cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency-related activities, a joint statement on cryptocurrencies was released on May 11, 2018, by the National Bank of Cambodia (NBC), the Securities and Exchange Commission of Cambodia (SECC), and the General-Commissariat of the National Police. The release of this statement likely indicates that these ministries would be involved in the regulation of cryptocurrencies in the future, should Cambodia choose to regulate them.  

The statement makes it clear that unlicensed operations related to cryptocurrencies (e.g., propagation, buying, selling, trading, and settlement) are illegal. To date, however, neither the NBC nor the SECC have given guidance on how to apply for such a license. This could indicate that a licensing scheme for cryptocurrencies is being considered, but overall the NBC and SECC have shown reluctance to adopt cryptocurrencies in recent public statements.   

The statement also indicates that those who participate in cryptocurrency-related activities without obtaining a license from competent authorities would be subject to penalties in accordance with applicable laws. However, it is unclear what laws apply in this case, so the scope of punishments could range greatly in severity.

Laos – Dino Santaniello, Head, Laos

There is also no regulatory framework yet in place in Laos, but the Bank of the Lao P.D.R. (BOL) has issued two notifications and a warning regarding cryptocurrency.   

The first, Notification No. 314/BOL, dated August 29, 2018, encourages the Lao population to be more knowledgeable about cryptocurrency. To combat questionable or potentially misleading advertisements on social media and elsewhere promoting the use of cryptocurrencies, the BOL warned that cryptocurrency is not money and cannot be used to pay debts, while expressly identifying that there are no attendant regulations in Laos. The notification also explains the risks, lack of transparency, and potential negative ramifications of using cryptocurrencies for payment.

The BOL again addressed cryptocurrencies in Notification No. 382/BOL, dated October 30, 2018, which prohibits financial institutions in Laos from engaging in cryptocurrency-related activities or helping their clients to participate in various activities. However, no penalties for violating these prohibitions were clearly indicated. The positions of both notifications were subsequently reiterated in a BOL warning.

Some have interpreted this response as the BOL waiting to learn more about cryptocurrency before deciding upon its approach—merely urging caution rather than taking steps toward providing a clear legal framework. However, although cryptocurrency has not been declared illegal per se, the BOL’s position lays the groundwork for a potentially negative response.

Myanmar – Ross Taylor, Counsel   

In Myanmar, the only official statement on cryptocurrencies has been an announcement issued by the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) on May 3, 2019, which affirms that the CBM is the sole legal issuer and manager of domestic currency; that the CBM does not recognize any cryptocurrency as legal tender in Myanmar; and that the CBM has not given approval to any financial institutions to buy, sell, or exchange cryptocurrencies. Any financial institutions (bank and non-bank) that do not abide by the announcement’s provisions may face a variety of administrative sanctions up to and including the revocation of licenses under the Financial Institutions Law (2016), and consumers who buy, sell, or exchange cryptocurrencies do so at their own risk.   

Some other regulations are also pertinent here. For example, if buying and selling cryptocurrencies were used to avoid the foreign exchange regime, the party doing so could arguably be prosecuted for conducting a foreign exchange business without a license under the Foreign Exchange Management Law (2012). Similarly, if any such activity was deemed to involve money laundering, the act could be punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment. As for tax obligations, any profits made from cryptocurrency trading would be taxable in Myanmar as income upon examination by a tax officer.

Thailand – Praew Annez, Consultant       

Thailand leads the way as the only country in mainland Southeast Asia to have a regulatory regime for cryptocurrency. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) supervises cryptocurrency-related activities, which are regulated by the 2018 Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses (the “ICO Decree”). This regulates the offering and dealing of “digital assets,” including cryptocurrencies and digital tokens.    

The ICO Decree also sets requirements for ICO portals and digital asset businesses. An ICO portal is defined as an electronic system provider with the offering of newly issued digital tokens, while digital asset businesses include digital asset exchanges, digital asset brokers, and digital asset dealers. Under the ICO Decree, issuers of digital tokens must register with the SEC and obtain the appropriate approvals. This process includes the submission of a draft prospectus to the SEC.    

Additional requirements are set for issuers offering digital tokens to the public. When applying for approval, issuers must submit a registration statement and a draft prospectus, and must issue tokens according to the categories specified under the SEC approval.   

The ICO Decree sets a comprehensive structure of offenses subject to criminal sanctions and civil sanctions, which could include civil penalties, financial damages, prohibitions of involvement in cryptocurrency-related activities, and reimbursement of expenses incurred in investigating the offense.

Capital gains from the sale of digital assets are subject to income tax. For VAT purposes, digital assets are regarded as “goods,” which are subject to 7% VAT.

Vietnam  – Thao Thu Bui, Trainee Lawyer

In Vietnam, cryptocurrencies are commonly referred to as “virtual assets.” There are no legal definitions, and a regulatory framework is still lacking. However, cryptocurrencies are strictly prohibited from use as payment instruments in Vietnam.

On August 21, 2017, the prime minister issued Decision 1255 directing the Ministry of Justice, the State Bank, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Public Security to prepare reports explaining the legal status of “virtual assets” and “virtual currencies” and to recommend the amendment or issuance of relevant legislation. Almost two years later, the reports have either not yet been completed or have not been announced publicly. This delay may indicate that the government has not been able to adopt a clear stand on how to regulate cryptocurrencies in Vietnam.

In the meantime, the prime minister issued Directive 101 on April 11, 2018, after a series of cryptocurrency-related fraudulent activities. This directive ordered:

  1. the State Bank to direct credit institutions and intermediate payment providers not to carry out transactions associated with “virtual currencies”;
  2. the Ministry of Finance to direct securities firms not to engage in issuance, brokerage, and trading of “virtual currencies”; and
  3. the Ministry of Public Security to intensify its investigations into acts of mobilizing funds, multi-level marketing, and fraud in relation to “virtual currencies.”

Following this directive, the State Bank and the State Securities Commission issued warnings to lower-level banks, securities firms, and public companies not to engage in cryptocurrency-related transactions.   

Issuance, provision, or use of illegal payment instruments is subject to an administrative fine of up to VND 400 million (approx. USD 17,094) or imprisonment for 6 to 36 months.

Summary   

Although cryptocurrency regulations remain scant across mainland Southeast Asia, a quick comparison of the provisions that are in place shows that the region is not a uniformly welcoming environment for them either. Indeed, the only jurisdiction with a clear regulatory framework—Thailand—is the most expressly hospitable, with other countries issuing tentative warnings and cautionary prohibitions, rather than full regulatory frameworks.

Download Full Article

Industries

Technology

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More