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

May 13, 2024

Decree on Sanctions for Cybersecurity Violations in Vietnam Nearing Enactment

Subscribe to Updates

On May 2, 2024, Vietnam’s Ministry of Justice published on its online platform the most recent version of the draft decree on administrative sanctions for violations in the field of cybersecurity (“Draft Sanction Decree”) to gather feedback and contributions from the community and stakeholders. After receiving the Ministry of Justice’s assessment, the Ministry of Public Security (“MPS”), in charge of drafting the Draft Sanction Decree, may make further revisions before submitting it to the government for review and final decision on enactment. The decree is expected to have an effective date of June 1, 2024.

The stringent penalties for infringements involving personal data of the previous draft version remain in this Draft Sanction Decree—a sign of the proactive stance of the MPS in enforcing the Personal Data Protection Decree (“PDPD”).

Effective Date and Transitional Provisions

It is important to note that the Draft Sanction Decree does not impose any new obligations on organizations or individuals, and only sets out the administrative sanctions that could be imposed on violators as soon as June 1, 2024, which is indicated as the effective date in Article 49. This signals the MPS’s eagerness to begin taking enforcement actions against recalcitrant organizations and individuals that have not complied with the various obligations imposed on them under the Law on Network Information Security (enacted in 2015), the Law on Cybersecurity (enacted in 2018) and its guiding decree (Decree 53 – enacted in 2022), and the most recent PDPD (enacted in 2023).

Article 50.1 of the Draft Sanction Decree outlines the transitional provisions regarding administrative violations in the cybersecurity field. It clarifies that the decree does not have retroactive effect, by stating that violations occurring before its effective date, but discovered or under review after such effective date will be subject to the regulations on administrative sanctions in force at the time of the violation. Additionally, in cases where the Draft Sanction Decree either lacks sanctions or introduces lighter sanctions for past acts, those lighter provisions will prevail in handling the violations.

Adjustments to Fines and Penalties

The sanctions under the Draft Sanction Decree applicable to violations have been slightly adjusted, with changes to the amount of monetary fines, and the number of additional penalties and/or remedial measures applicable. Businesses will be happy to note that many of the fines in the chapter related to PDPD violations have been decreased compared to the previous draft. However, the maximum fixed monetary fine imposed by the Draft Sanction Decree is still VND 1 billion (approximately USD 40,000), as proposed in the previous draft, and the penalty of up to 5% of the violating enterprise’s turnover of the immediately preceding fiscal year in the Vietnamese market also still applies to certain extreme violations, including:

  • Second and subsequent violations of the regulations on personal data protection in marketing and advertising activities;
  • Second and subsequent violations of the regulations on illegal collection, transfer, purchase and sale of personal data; and
  • Disclosure or misplacement of the personal data of 5 million or more data subjects who are Vietnamese citizens.

In the case of cross-border disclosure or misplacement or cross-border transfer of the personal data of over 5 million data subjects who are Vietnamese citizens the fine can range from 3% to 5% of the enterprise’s prior fiscal year turnover in the Vietnamese market.

Additional penalties applicable to certain violations may also be imposed, including, among others, revocation of licenses for business lines requiring personal data collection, and confiscation of exhibits and means used for conducting violations. Remedial measures may also be imposed, including, among others, suspension from processing of personal data for 1-3 months; forcible destruction or unrecoverable deletion of personal data; and forcible return of illegal profits obtained from the violations; public apology. The Draft Sanction Decree reshuffled these additional penalties and remedial measures for some of the violations.

Other Changes to the Draft

Interestingly, the Draft Sanction Decree includes new language that would exclude weekends and national holidays from the 72-hour timeline to address requests related to data subjects’ rights and to notify the MPS of PDPD violations, unless the law stipulates otherwise. This might be a sign that the MPS is modifying its original stance and that the 72-hour timeline is referring to 72 hours of working days (i.e., 3 working days). The MPS also did not amend some references to a 48-hour timeline, which was introduced in the previous draft but was deemed to be a typo or a mistake.

Finally, the Draft Sanction Decree no longer includes Article 50.2 from the previous draft, which was meant to annul various penalties for administrative violations in the fields of post, telecommunications, radio frequencies, information technology, and electronic transactions under Decree No. 15/2020/ND-CP, as amended (“Decree 15”). It is thus expected that these sanctions will continue to apply even after the promulgation of the Draft Sanction Decree. However, according to the principle of handling administrative violations in Vietnam, a company cannot be fined twice for the same violation. Therefore, the authority may need to choose whether it wishes to apply the sanction under the Draft Sanction Decree or Decree 15.

Outlook

As this Draft Sanction Decree progresses through the final stages of adoption, stakeholders are encouraged to stay informed and promptly comply with the legal requirements applicable to them—especially with their obligations under the PDPD—before the Draft Sanction Decree takes force (expected to be June 1, 2024).

We will continue to monitor developments closely and provide updates as this important legislative process unfolds.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More