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 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More