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

September 10, 2019

Vietnam Issues New Circular on Foreign Exchange Control of Foreign Direct Investment Activities

Subscribe to Updates

The State Bank of Vietnam on June 26, 2019, issued Circular No. 06/2019/TT-NHNN on foreign exchange control of foreign direct investment activities in Vietnam (Circular 06). On September 6, 2019, Circular 06 replaced Circular No. 19/2014/TT-NHNN on the same matter, while also amending Circular No. 05/2014/TT-NHNN on opening and using foreign indirect investment capital accounts and Circular 16/2014/TT-NHNN on the use of foreign currency and Vietnamese dong accounts for residents and non-residents. Below are some notable points of Circular 06.

Entities Subject to Requirements on Direct Investment Capital Accounts

Although the current Vietnamese investment law (the Law on Investment of 2014) abolished the term “foreign direct investment” (FDI), Circular 06 still uses this term for the purpose of opening direct investment capital accounts (DICA) in certain forms of foreign investment in Vietnam. In particular, Circular 06 requires the following FDI enterprises, as well as foreign investors (individuals and entities), to open and maintain a DICA:

FDI Enterprises

(i) Foreign-invested enterprises established in accordance with investment regulations and granted an Investment Registration Certificate;

(ii) Enterprises not falling into (i) but having foreign ownership of 51% or more of the charter capital, including:

  • Enterprises in which foreign investors have acquired shares or contributed capital;
  • Enterprises formed as a result of restructuring (i.e., merger, demerger, consolidation, or separation); and
  • Enterprises newly established in accordance with specialized legislation (e.g., credit institutions, insurance companies, law firms, etc.).

(iii) Enterprises established by foreign investors for the purpose of operating public-private partnership (PPP) projects in accordance with investment regulations.

Foreign Investors

(i) Foreign investors participating in business cooperation contracts (BCCs); and

(ii) Foreign investors engaging in PPP projects but not establishing project companies.

Under Circular 06, if a foreign investor owns 51% or more of the charter capital of a company (F1) by setting up F1 or acquiring shares in a local company, then F1 is required to open a DICA. However, even if F1 owns 51% or more of the charter capital of another company (F2), F2 is not required to open a DICA.

Clearer Guidance on Opening and Using DICAs

The FDI enterprises and foreign investors mentioned above are required to open a DICA in a foreign currency (and a DICA in VND if they wish to do so) at a licensed bank in Vietnam.

Foreign investors participating in more than one BCC or PPP project must open a DICA for each respective BCC or PPP project.

For foreign loans made in a foreign currency other than the currency of the DICA, FDI enterprises are allowed to open another “bank account for taking and paying foreign loans” in such foreign currency at the same bank at which the DICA was opened.

If changing the bank at which the DICA was opened, FDI enterprises and foreign investors must close the current DICA at the current bank after transferring the balance in the current DICA to the new DICA opened at the new bank.

Transactions Required to be Routed via DICA

The below transactions, among others, must be routed via DICA:

(a) Capital contributions in cash (i.e., bank transfers) made by foreign investors to the charter capital of the relevant FDI enterprise;

(b) Payments for capital transfer transactions between a local seller and a foreign purchaser;

(c) Payments for investment project transfer transactions in BCCs and PPP projects between a local seller and a foreign purchaser, and between a foreign seller and a foreign purchaser;

(d) Profit repatriation to foreign investors; and

(e) Transactions relating to foreign loans of FDI enterprises (i.e., loan drawdown and repayment).

It is important to note that under Circular 06, payments for capital transfer transactions in FDI enterprises between a foreign seller and a foreign purchaser, and between a local seller and a local purchaser, are not required to be routed via DICAs.

Transitional Provisions

Within 12 months from the effective date of Circular 06 (i.e., by September 6, 2020), FDI enterprises and foreign investors under the following circumstances must convert their bank accounts into the appropriate types:

(a) For FDI enterprises currently having foreign ownership of 51% or more but maintaining a foreign indirect investment capital account, they must open a DICA instead.

(b) Enterprises which currently maintain a DICA must close the DICA, and each foreign investor must open an indirect investment capital account in the following circumstances:

  • Local enterprises having foreign ownership of less than 51%;
  • [Local] enterprises not required to have an Investment Registration Certificate, but already holding one based on their discretionary request; and
  • FDI enterprises having shares listed or registered to be traded on a Vietnam stock exchange.

In case the above enterprises maintain their DICAs for transactions relating to foreign loans, they are allowed to continue maintaining the DICAs for this purpose.

For more details on Circular 06, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

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