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

March 15, 2024

Vietnam Revs Up Fintech Sector with Updated Draft of Sandbox Decree

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s fintech industry is booming, and the rapid emergence of tech startups and non-bank institutions offering innovative financial services has been outpacing existing regulations. This regulatory gap not only creates uncertainty for both innovators and consumers, but also poses a number of imminent risks in areas such as consumer protection, data privacy, cybersecurity, and anti-money laundering, among others.

The State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) is stepping up to tackle these challenges by accelerating the promulgation of a long-awaited Fintech Sandbox Decree with the issuance of an updated draft (“Draft Fintech Sandbox Decree”) on March 4, 2024. The Draft Fintech Sandbox Decree establishes a controlled environment where fintech companies and financial institutions can test solutions that do not fall squarely within the parameters of existing regulations. The pilot activities will be limited in scope, scale, and duration, with a number of precautionary measures in place. The SBV will supervise this “sandbox” closely, effectively mitigating risks and gathering valuable data to inform future regulations.

Who Can Participate in the Sandbox?

  • Traditional financial institutions (credit institutions): Banks and other institutions licensed to provide financial services can participate in the sandbox to test new offerings or refine existing ones.
  • Independent fintech companies: Startups and established companies specializing in fintech solutions can leverage the sandbox to pilot innovative ideas before seeking wider market adoption.
  • Other relevant organizations involved in the pilot: Depending on the specific solution being tested, other entities may also be involved in the sandbox.
  • Geographical scope: Limited to Vietnamese territory; cross-border testing is not allowed.

Focusing on Three Solution Categories

Earlier versions of the Draft Fintech Sandbox Decree included categories like blockchain technology and other innovative business models, but these were removed in the latest version. To allow the SBV to assess the associated risks and work on the solutions more effectively, this version focuses only on the following three solutions:

  • Credit scoring: Fintech companies can pilot new credit scoring models to assess the creditworthiness of individuals or organizations.
  • Data sharing via Open Application Programming Interface (“Open API”): Secured data-sharing mechanisms using Open APIs can be tested within the sandbox.
  • Peer-to-peer lending (“P2P Lending”): Platforms that connect lenders and borrowers can be piloted in the sandbox.

Participation Conditions

Fintech companies must meet specific criteria depending on the solution they are piloting. The criteria will vary depending on the complexity and potential risks associated with the solution. For example, P2P lending platforms might face strict requirements on cybersecurity and network information security.

All participants must submit a registration dossier and obtain a Certificate of Participation from the SBV.

Monitoring and Risk Control

The SBV will closely monitor activities, evaluate participation, and assess the effectiveness of the piloted solutions, with a dedicated team to oversee activities within the sandbox, ensuring that participants comply with applicable regulations and that pilots are conducted safely and effectively.

Participating organizations are required to submit regular reports and provide ad hoc information on the pilot process, operational indicators, risks encountered, and the results of the pilot implementation to the SBV.

Customer Protection

Participating organizations have a responsibility to ensure customer rights and interests. This includes informing them about potential risks associated with using the piloted solution, obtaining their informed consent, and clearly outlining data privacy practices.

Participating organizations must implement robust security measures to safeguard customer data collected during the pilot program.

For dispute settlement, organizations are required to establish a customer complaint handling department and have clear mechanisms in place to address any disputes or complaints arising from the use of their piloted solutions.

Sandbox Conclusion

The pilot period will last a maximum of two years, with the SBV having the authority to adjust the length based on the actual implementation. After the pilot period, the SBV will decide on the next steps based on participating organizations’ reports, its own monitoring data, and any feedback received from relevant state authorities. Options will include terminating the pilot, certifying its completion, or extending the pilot period.

Participation in the Sandbox Mechanism does not guarantee an operating license or market approval for the piloted solutions.

Outlook

Once it is officially passed, it is hoped that the Fintech Sandbox Decree will usher in a new era of controlled experimentation in the sector, fostering a dynamic fintech ecosystem where innovation can thrive alongside robust regulations. By balancing innovation with consumer protection, cybersecurity, and data protection, it has the potential to transform Vietnam into a hub for groundbreaking fintech solutions, all while safeguarding the integrity of the financial system and consumers’ interests.

Now that the sandbox program has been streamlined to include only the three most prominent fintech solutions, the SBV might be able to speed up the official issuance of the Fintech Sandbox Decree.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
Read More
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