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 23, 2026

Vietnam Liberalizes Foreign Exchange for International Financial Center Operations

Subscribe to Updates

On December 31, 2025, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular No. 72/2025/TT-NHNN (Circular 72), establishing a streamlined foreign exchange framework for Vietnam’s International Financial Center (IFC). Circular 72, which took effect on the same day, implements core provisions of Decree No. 329/2025/ND-CP and marks a fundamental shift from ex ante licensing to ex post supervision for IFC member enterprises and foreign investors.

These changes are designed to accelerate capital flows, reduce compliance costs, and position Vietnam as a competitive regional financial hub by granting IFC members substantially greater autonomy in currency transactions, borrowing, lending, and investment activities.

Key provisions for IFC members to note are discussed below.

Use of Foreign Currency and Payments within the IFC

Vietnam generally requires the use of Vietnamese dong for transactions within the country, with limited exceptions. This can be burdensome for foreign investors, who may be unfamiliar with all the foreign exchange rules they must comply with.

Under the new regulation, IFC member enterprises and foreign investors gain the ability to transact, list prices, and settle obligations in foreign currency when dealing with other IFC members or offshore counterparties, avoiding currency risk and conversion friction.

With respect to individuals and organizations located within Vietnam who are not IFC members, the use of foreign currency must continue to comply with general restrictions on foreign exchange usage within Vietnam.

Dual-Track Account System for IFC Members

The new regulation introduces a two-tier account structure that differentiates transactions by purpose and counterparty. IFC member enterprises must use a designated foreign currency capital account at an IFC member bank for four specified activities:

  • Borrowing from offshore individuals and organizations
  • Lending to offshore entities and domestic borrowers
  • Outbound investing from the IFC
  • Investing elsewhere in Vietnam from the IFC

All other foreign exchange transactions—including operational receipts, vendor payments, currency conversion, and other investment—may be conducted through standard foreign currency payment accounts at any IFC member bank. The last category includes directly receiving investment from local and foreign investors, marking a substantial liberalization of foreign exchange rules.

When IFC member enterprises open foreign currency payment accounts at non-IFC commercial banks or foreign bank branches, they remain subject to the general restrictions set out under the current foreign exchange regulations, highlighting that this special treatment is only offered to IFC members.

Liberalized Borrowing and Lending with Limited Registration

For borrowing, IFC members may now borrow foreign currency from offshore lenders without the registration and amendment procedures with the SBV that are currently required outside the IFC. Instead, borrowers who are IFC members only need to fulfill declaration and reporting obligations with the SBV.

For lending abroad, the new regulations distinguish between IFC members wholly owned by foreign investors—who may lend offshore subject only to declaration and reporting requirements—and other IFC members, who must satisfy additional conditions on borrower eligibility, lending limits relative to equity, compliance with safety ratios, tax settlement, and approved due-diligence reports.

Streamlined Investment and Remittance Procedures

For inbound investment into the IFC, foreign investors must channel all IFC investment inflows, profit distributions, and lawful proceeds through a foreign currency capital account at an IFC member bank, eliminating the foreign currency-Vietnamese dong conversion requirement that previously applied to foreign investment into Vietnam.

When IFC members invest elsewhere in Vietnam outside of the IFC, they must transfer funds through the foreign currency capital account and follow procedures analogous to those for foreign investors, maintaining consistency with Vietnam’s foreign exchange policy.

For outbound investment from the IFC to foreign countries, it is similarly bifurcated as with lending abroad. Wholly foreign-owned IFC members conduct such investments without registration, whereas other IFC members must register and report amendments with the local IFC operating authority before transferring capital.

Practical Implications for Businesses

The new regime substantially shortens transaction timelines and lowers administrative overhead for IFC members. However, liberalization carries heightened self-compliance responsibilities. Enterprises must establish robust internal controls to ensure accurate declaration, timely reporting, and proper account segregation, particularly where capital and payment accounts coexist. During the initial implementation period, businesses should monitor guidance from the IFC operating authority and coordinate closely with IFC member banks to confirm procedural consistency and reporting formats, ensuring that the benefits of liberalization are realized without inadvertent regulatory exposure.

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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