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

November 28, 2025

New Developments in Vietnam’s Casino Policies for Local Gamblers

Subscribe to Updates

On November 26, 2025, the government of Vietnam issued Resolution No. 8/2025/NQ-CP to extend and expand the pilot program allowing Vietnamese citizens who meet certain conditions to gamble at three integrated casino resorts in Vietnam:

  • Corona Resorts & Casino Phu Quoc (An Giang Province) – Effective immediately, and continuing an ongoing pilot program that started in 2019.
  • The Grand Casino Ho Tram (Ho Chi Minh City) – New pilot program for five years starting November 26, 2025.
  • Van Don Integrated Casino & Tourism Complex (Quang Ninh Province) – New pilot program for five years from the date the casino receives its license.

The pilot program was originally established under Decree No. 03/2017/ND-CP on casino business, which also sets out the specific eligibility conditions for Vietnamese citizens. After the pilot period, these projects must stop allowing Vietnamese players until the government issues further decisions.

This expansion of the pilot program comes after Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) released a draft decree earlier this year proposing significant changes to the regulatory framework governing casino operations. These revisions, which focus on increasing fiscal contributions from local players and strengthening compliance obligations for casino operators nationwide, are detailed below.

Proposed Increase in Casino Entry Fees for Vietnamese Players

The draft decree increases the entry fees applicable to Vietnamese citizens permitted to play at casinos. Under the current regulations, Vietnamese players are required to pay an entry fee of VND 1 million (approx. USD 38) for 24 consecutive hours or VND 25 million (approx. USD 950) per month. The draft decree proposes increasing these fees to VND 2.5 million (approx. USD 95) for 24 consecutive hours and VND 50 million (approx. USD 1,900) per month, effectively doubling the existing amounts and marking the first major fee revision since the pilot program allowing Vietnamese players was introduced in 2017.

According to the government’s explanatory report, one of the purposes of this increase is to serve as a simplified mechanism for assessing players’ financial capacity, replacing the previously burdensome income-verification process and aligning with international practices. All revenue generated from these entry fees must be remitted to the provincial budget and will be allocated primarily to education, vocational training, healthcare, and other public welfare programs, with at least 60% designated for these priority sectors.

Strengthened Management and Compliance Requirements for Casino Operators

The draft decree also tightens the operational and compliance framework for casinos. Casino operators will be required to maintain customer identification records, entry logs, and transaction information for a minimum of five years to support any potential inspection or enforcement actions.

Casinos must also operate a continuous 24/7 surveillance system covering all critical areas and retain security footage for at least 180 days, with longer periods required if requested by authorities. Notably, operators must also implement backup storage measures to ensure uninterrupted retention of surveillance footage for the required period, even in cases of equipment failure.

Outlook

The draft decree, if adopted, will establish a more stringent regulatory environment for casino operators while providing clearer guidance for future investments in integrated resort developments, continuing Vietnam’s cautious and controlled liberalization of casino access for locals. Existing operators and prospective investors should begin reviewing their compliance systems, internal controls, and development plans to prepare for the forthcoming regulatory changes.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Real Estate

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
Read More
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
Read More
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education
Read More