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​ 

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
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