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 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
February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
Read More
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
Read More