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​ 

June 25, 2026
On June 18, 2026, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published two notifications in the Government Gazette establishing Thailand’s first formal certification framework for personal data protection standards under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notifications, which took immediate effect, introduce a voluntary certification framework aimed at promoting accountability, strengthening organizational data protection governance, and aligning Thailand more closely with international frameworks that recognize certification as a key compliance tool. Certification Criteria The first notification sets out the assessment criteria for organizations seeking certification. Applicants must undergo an evaluation against a framework comprising four assessment categories, 10 focus areas, and 128 assessment criteria covering key elements of a privacy management program. These include: Organizational oversight and internal policies and procedures. Human resource development, including staff training and awareness programs. Clearly defined operational processes and procedures covering data subject rights, transparency obligations, records of processing activities, and lawful basis management, as well as contractual safeguards such as data-processing and data-sharing agreements and risk assessments, including Data Protection Impact Assessments. Technical measures encompassing data security controls and breach response capabilities Based on the assessment results, organizations may be awarded either a PDPA Compliance Certificate or a higher-level PDPA Certificate accompanied by a certification mark. Application and Assessment Process The second notification establishes the application and assessment process for obtaining certification. Eligible applicants include government agencies and private-sector entities that demonstrate sufficient privacy governance maturity and meet the prescribed eligibility requirements. Applicants must submit their applications along with supporting documentation for review. Upon receiving an application, the Office of the PDPC will conduct a detailed evaluation, which may include both documentary review and on-site inspections. Incomplete applications may be rejected, though applicants are typically given a limited period to correct deficiencies before a final decision
Read More
June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
Read More
June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More