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

July 10, 2025

Regulations on E-signatures and Trust Services in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

For companies and individuals doing business in Vietnam, a common question is whether electronic signatures (e-signatures) are legally recognized under Vietnamese law. This matter is governed by Law No. 20/2023/QH15 on Electronic Transactions issued on June 22, 2023 (ETL 2023) and its guiding legal documents such as Decree No. 23/2025/ND-CP dated February 21, 2025, and Circular 06/2024/TT-BTTTT dated July 1, 2024 (Circular 06).

Recognition of Validity of E-signatures in Vietnam

As a general principle, the ETL 2023 confirms that an e-signature cannot be denied legal validity solely due to its electronic form.

The law categorizes e-signatures into three types:

  • Type 1: Specialized e-signatures for organizations
  • Type 2: Public digital signatures for individuals and organizations
  • Type 3: Specialized digital signatures for government agencies

Among these types, only secure specialized e-signatures (a secure e-signature of type 1) and digital signatures (type 2) are explicitly granted the same legal validity as handwritten (wet) signatures. This distinction is particularly important in legal disputes and for transactions with government agencies. (For more details, please refer to our previous article.)

Domestic e-signatures

A domestic organization can choose to use secure specialized e-signatures (type 1) and/or digital signatures (type 2) while a Vietnam-based individual can choose digital signatures (type 2) for their transactions—particularly for those involving government agencies and transactions of high value and complexity which require stronger legal protection.

Specialized e-signatures (type 1) can be created by the organizations themselves, and additionally must be “secure” to be explicitly recognized as having the same legal validity as handwritten signatures. For clarity, “secure” specialized e-signatures are those certified (granted a safety certificate) by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST). (This was formerly the responsibility of the Ministry of Information and Communications, which was merged with MST under Vietnam’s 2025 administrative restructuring.)

Digital signatures (type 2) are issued to organizations and individuals by licensed public digital signature certification service providers. Other types of e-signatures could be legally recognized and protected when they meet all the requirements outlined in the ETL 2023.

Foreign e-signatures

Cross-border e-transactions raise the question of how foreign e-signatures are legally recognized and protected under Vietnamese law. While Vietnamese law does not provide explicit guidance, two main pathways for recognition can be inferred:

First, foreign organizations and individuals can obtain e-signature certificates from foreign e-signature certification service providers recognized in Vietnam, provided these providers meet statutory conditions and are duly recognized in Vietnam. However, to date, no foreign e-signature certification service providers have been officially recognized in Vietnam, creating a significant barrier to legal recognition of foreign e-signatures in practice.

Second, it is possible under Vietnamese law for (i) foreign organizations and individuals, and (ii) Vietnamese organizations and individuals whose Vietnamese e-signatures and e-signature certificates are not recognized abroad to apply for recognition of specific foreign e-signatures and e-signature certificates from MST. However, Circular 06 limits eligibility for recognition with regard to “foreign organizations and individuals” under the second pathway to only foreign organizations legally operating in Vietnam and foreign individuals residing in Vietnam. This effectively excludes foreign organizations and individuals without a local presence, who must rely on the first pathway.

Foreign E-signatures Accepted in International Transactions:

Article 27 of the ETL 2023 allows foreign e-signatures to be accepted in international transactions, but it remains ambiguous whether such acceptance equates to legal protection under Vietnamese law, or merely shifts the legal risk to the accepting party.

While foreign e-signatures in this context are not expressly granted the same legal status as handwritten signatures, one could argue that, provided they satisfy all the requirements set out in the ETL 2023, they should not be denied legal validity under the general principles established by the law.

Trust Services

Trust services—including timestamping, data message certification, and public digital signature certification—play a critical role in ensuring the authenticity of involved parties, integrity of data messages, and non-repudiation of e-transactions.

Timestamping services attach time information to data messages, with timestamps generated as digital signatures. Data message certification encompasses services for storing and verifying the integrity of data messages, as well as services of sending and receiving secure data messages. Public digital signature certification refers to certifying digital signatures (type 2) provided by licensed public digital signature certification service providers.

These trust services are regulated businesses and require providers to meet specific licensing criteria under Decree 23.

Outlook

Vietnam’s legal framework appears to offer a more workable approach for domestic e-signature deployment and use, while still presenting practical challenges for cross-border recognition of foreign e-signatures. However, as Vietnam continues to prioritize digital transformation, the digital economy, and digital society, and as the demand for e-transactions and e-signatures grows, these limitations are expected to be addressed in the near future to better support e-government and the digital economy.

In the meantime, the use of e-transactions and e-signatures is inevitable and unstoppable in today’s fast-paced digital era. Parties engaging in international transactions with Vietnamese counterparts should ensure they fully understand the legal requirements for the acceptance of foreign e-signatures, enabling them to fully leverage the benefits of digital transactions in their business operations.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
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
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More