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

January 5, 2026

Eight New Decrees Shaping the Architecture of Vietnam’s International Financial Centers

Subscribe to Updates

Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 dated June 27, 2025, of the National Assembly of Vietnam (the “IFC Resolution” – see our previous article) set out the foundational legal framework for the establishment and development of Vietnam’s first-ever International Financial Centers (IFC). In furtherance of this framework, on December 18, 2025, the government of Vietnam issued eight implementing decrees to provide detailed regulatory guidance and to operationalize the IFC Resolution in practice.

The Eight Implementing Decrees: An Integrated Regulatory Ecosystem

The new decrees governing the IFC include the following:

  1. Decree No. 323/2025/ND-CP on the establishment of the IFC.
  2. Decree No. 324/2025/ND-CP on financial policies applicable within the IFC.
  3. Decree No. 325/2025/ND-CP on labor, employment, and social security within the IFC.
  4. Decree No. 326/2025/ND-CP on land and environmental matters within the IFC.
  5. Decree No. 327/2025/ND-CP on entry, exit, and residence of foreign nationals in the IFC.
  6. Decree No. 328/2025/ND-CP on the International Arbitration Center of the IFC.
  7. Decree No. 329/2025/ND-CP on banking licensing, foreign exchange management, and anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) within the IFC.
  8. Decree No. 330/2025/ND-CP on the establishment and operation of commodity exchanges within the IFC.

Taken as a whole, these eight decrees translate the IFC Resolution into a coherent and fully operational legal regime governing the establishment, organization, and functioning of Vietnam’s IFC. Collectively, they demonstrate that Vietnam’s IFC framework is best understood not as a collection of isolated incentives, but as a deliberately designed and integrated regulatory system.

The Legal Architecture of the IFC: Four Interlocking Pillars

Read together, the decrees seem to be designed to address four core regulatory questions from the outset: (i) what the IFC is, from a legal and institutional perspective; (ii) who may participate in the IFC and what activities are permitted; (iii) how people, capital, and projects operate on a day-to-day basis within the IFC; and (iv) how disputes are resolved, with a level of legal certainty sufficient for cross-border and international transactions.

Viewed through this lens, the eight decrees collectively form four interlocking pillars, including (i) institutional foundations; (ii) market and financial regulation; (iii) operational enablement, and (iv) dispute resolution and enforcement. Each pillar performs a distinct regulatory function, and together they create the structural coherence necessary for the IFC to operate as a stable, transparent, and investable system.

Pillar 1: Institutional Foundation and Scope of Activities

At the core of the IFC regime is Decree 323, which establishes the Vietnam IFC as one integrated system with two locations, namely:

  • Ho Chi Minh City, positioned as a comprehensive international financial center, focusing on traditional and specialized financial services; and
  • Da Nang, oriented toward innovation-driven and emerging financial activities.

Crucially, Decree 323 also introduces the IFC Operating Regulation and confirms the principle that, in the event of inconsistencies between the IFC regime and other laws (other than the Constitution), the IFC rules prevail.

Another significant feature of Decree 323 is the List of Priority Sectors, Products, and Services for Development in the IFC, set out in an annex, which defines the categories of activities that the IFC is intended to accommodate, promote, and regulate. Most notably, Section 4 of the annex provides a detailed and explicit catalogue of priority activities in fintech and financial innovation, including the provision of infrastructure and products related to digital assets and decentralized finance (DeFi). The scope of these priority activities also encompasses other emerging financial models such as asset tokenization, stablecoins, Web3-based applications, and regulatory technology (regtech).

Taken together, these elements define what the IFC is, i.e., a legally distinct regulatory space operating within Vietnam’s legal system, but subject to a specialized governance framework.

Pillar 2: Entry Requirements, Financial Policies, and Risk Control

Once the institutional foundations and scope of priority activities are established, the IFC framework turns to the questions of who may participate in the IFC and what financial policies and activities may be undertaken, together with the associated risk management and control mechanisms.

Decree 324 elaborates the financial, investment, and operational mechanisms applicable to entities operating within the IFC. An important aspect of this decree is the registration, recognition, and termination of IFC membership, which serves as the legal gateway for accessing the IFC’s special regulatory treatment. In addition, Decree 324 introduces a relatively open framework for tax and accounting policies within the IFC, including the application of international accounting standards (IAS/IFRS), and provides the legal basis for a wide range of financial services, from securities and insurance to fintech and equity crowdfunding. The decree also develops the sandbox mechanism for fintech and innovation-driven financial services, as initially provided under Article 24 of the IFC Resolution. The criteria, conditions, scope of application, and procedures for registration, assessment, and licensing of sandbox participation are expected to be further specified by the IFC Executive Council.

Matters relating to the licensing and operation of banks, capital flows, and financial safety are addressed in Decree 329. This decree establishes the legal framework for a system of IFC member banks operating with greater flexibility than under the domestic banking regime, particularly in foreign exchange transactions and cross-border activities, while maintaining stringent compliance and risk management requirements aligned with international standards. Further, all IFC members are subject to obligations on anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing, and counter-proliferation financing under this decree.

Complementing this, Decree 330 introduces a dedicated legal framework for the establishment and operation of commodity exchanges within the IFC. It permits the formation of commodity trading platforms and the trading of a wide range of derivative instruments, including futures, options, and other derivatives. It is worth noting that Decree 330 clarifies that the goods permitted to be traded via commodity exchanges under Article 13 of the IFC Resolution include not only traditional commodities, but also certain digital assets, specifically cultural and artistic products structured as non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

Pillar 3: Operational Enablement and Human Capital

Beyond financial regulations, the IFC framework also addresses the practical conditions required for daily operation:

  • Decree 325 establishes a tailored labor and employment regime for the IFC, including flexibility in the recruitment and management of foreign professionals.
  • Decree 327 sets out special entry, exit, residence, and long-term stay arrangements for foreign investors, experts, and key personnel working in the IFC.
  • Decree 326 addresses land use and environmental matters, clarifying land allocation, land use rights, and environmental compliance for IFC projects.

These measures reflect a policy recognition that the IFC mechanism competes not only on tax or regulatory treatments, but also on ease of operation, availability of talent, and infrastructure readiness.

Pillar 4: Dispute Resolution

The final pillar concerns how disputes are resolved, an issue of particular importance for cross-border financial transactions.

Decree 328 establishes a specialized International Arbitration Center within the IFC. The decree permits, in defined circumstances, the application of foreign governing law and limits judicial intervention where parties have validly agreed to arbitration. This approach aligns dispute resolution within the IFC with international commercial expectations, while remaining embedded within Vietnam’s legal framework.

Outlook

The IFC Resolution and its eight implementing decrees mark a significant structural development in Vietnam’s financial regulatory landscape. Taken together, they establish a special legal foundation for the operation of the IFC and signal Vietnam’s intention to develop the IFC as a functioning, internationally oriented financial ecosystem, rather than a purely experimental or incentive-driven model.

At the same time, the framework reflects an expectation that implementation will be phased and adaptive. While the current decrees establish the core legal framework, further refinement through subordinate guidance and regulatory practice is anticipated as the IFC transitions from establishment to full operation. The breadth and internal coherence of the framework suggest that participation in the IFC will require careful structuring, ongoing compliance planning, and a clear understanding of how the IFC regime interacts with Vietnam’s general legal framework.

As the regime continues to evolve, market participants will need to closely monitor regulatory developments and supervisory approaches, and adopt a proactive and strategically informed legal approach to manage regulatory risk while positioning themselves to capture opportunities within Vietnam’s emerging international financial centers.

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Practices

Banking and Finance

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
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
Read More