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​ 

August 21, 2025
On August 18, 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in collaboration with the Ministry of Finance, the Anti-Money Laundering Office, and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports, announced the launch of TouristDigiPay. The initiative, implemented under the SEC’s Regulatory Sandbox, allows foreign tourists to convert digital assets into Thai baht for use in everyday transactions in Thailand. Foreign tourists who opt to participate in TouristDigiPay must open two accounts once they are in Thailand: An account with a licensed digital asset operator to sell or exchange digital assets for Thai baht; and A tourist wallet account with a licensed e-money operator regulated by the Bank of Thailand. Funds from digital asset sales will be transferred into the tourist wallet, enabling tourists to make payments at participating merchants that accept e-money. Key Regulatory Requirements The TouristDigiPay project will operate for a period of up to 18 months, with the following conditions: Only licensed digital asset brokers, dealers, and exchanges integrated with licensed e-money operators are eligible to participate. Operators must implement anti-money laundering (AML) protocols that are proportionate to the assessed risk level. These include: Conducting know-your-customer and customer-due-diligence (KYC/CDD) checks on all users. For monthly transactions exceeding THB 50,000 per person, verifying the source of the digital assets and assessing AML risk using internationally recognized blockchain forensic tools or equivalent procedures. Suspending or rejecting services if digital assets are transferred from wallets flagged for AML concerns. Ensuring that conversion between digital assets and fiat includes safeguards such as matching account names and returning digital assets only to the original wallet. The following transaction limits apply to participants in the TouristDigiPay initiative: Payments to small vendors are capped at THB 50,000 per month. Payments to vendors who have completed the know-your-merchant (KYM) process are capped at THB 500,000 per
Read More
August 15, 2025
More than a decade after the issuance of Decree No. 52/2013/ND-CP (as amended by Decree No. 85/2021/ND-CP; collectively, “Decree 52”), Vietnam’s legal framework for e-commerce is under growing pressure to keep pace with the evolving digital economy. While Decree 52 has provided a foundational framework, it has shown certain limitations in keeping up with issues such as counterfeit goods, intellectual property enforcement, unqualified products, and emerging models like livestream selling and affiliate marketing. To address these regulatory gaps, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) has released the 2025 Draft E-Commerce Law (“Draft Law”) for public consultation. The Draft Law is intended to supersede the current framework under Decree 52 and establish a more detailed and comprehensive legal foundation for the regulations of e-commerce activities in Vietnam. It is currently expected to be submitted to the National Assembly for review and potential adoption during its 10th session in October 2025. In this article, we discuss the Draft Law’s most significant updates and legal developments in comparison to existing regulations, and assess the practical challenges that businesses may face in preparing for implementation in the near future. Platform Classification: Toward a More Nuanced Framework Unlike Decree 52’s simpler structure, which broadly categorized platforms into either (i) websites selling goods and services or (ii) websites providing e-commerce services, the Draft Law introduces a more detailed framework that aims to classify platforms based on their technical functions and business models. Specifically, the Draft Law introduces a four-tier classification system for e-commerce platforms, consisting of: (i) Direct Business Platforms, (ii) Intermediary Platforms, (iii) Social Networks with E-Commerce Functions, and (iv) Multi-Service Integrated Platforms. This approach reflects an effort to more accurately capture the complexity of today’s e-commerce landscape, including hybrid platforms such as TikTok Shop. While this approach reflects the growing complexity of
Read More
August 6, 2025
Thailand’s Digital Government Development Agency (DGA) has released drafts of two pivotal documents to guide Thai government agencies in adopting cloud technology and classifying data for cloud usage. These draft guidelines, open for public hearing through August 12, 2025, are part of the national “Go Cloud First” policy, which aims to accelerate digital transformation, improve efficiency, and ensure robust data security across the public sector. The new standards will have significant implications for both government agencies and cloud service providers operating in Thailand. Highlights of the draft guidelines are presented below. Government Cloud Usage Guidelines Cloud-first transformation: All government agencies are directed to prioritize cloud solutions for new IT projects, in line with the cabinet’s “Go Cloud First” policy. Cloud model selection: Agencies must assess their needs and select the most appropriate cloud deployment model—public, private, hybrid, or community cloud—based on the sensitivity of the data and operational requirements. Service types: The guidelines provide criteria for choosing between Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS), emphasizing the importance of using standard, non-customized services where possible. Cost management: Agencies are required to plan and separate cloud-related expenses, ensuring transparency and efficient budget allocation. Cloud migration: The guidelines outline the steps for migrating to the cloud and highlight the role of cloud service providers in facilitating the process, including supporting innovation and enabling smooth exit strategies. Procurement compliance: All cloud procurement must comply with public sector procurement laws and regulations. Only providers meeting government-mandated standards can be selected. Security and shared responsibility: The guidelines clarify the division of security responsibilities between cloud providers and government agencies. While providers manage infrastructure security, agencies remain responsible for data, application, and access controls. Legal framework: Agencies must comply with the Digital Government Administration Act, Cybersecurity
Read More
August 1, 2025
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) announced to the press on August 1, 2025, that it had issued eight new administrative fines under Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) in five cases of noncompliance by public and private entities. The enforcement actions reflect a growing commitment by the PDPC to penalize noncompliance across all sectors, regardless of organizational type or size. The total amount imposed to date was approximately THB 21.5 million (approx. USD 654,690), underscoring the financial risks tied to PDPA violations. The five cases—one involving a state agency and the remainder in the private sector—are summarized below. Case 1: State Agency Providing Online Services to the Public The order in this case stemmed from a cyberattack on a state agency’s web app, resulting in personal data of 200,000 data subjects being leaked to and sold on the dark web. The software developer was also found to have implemented no privacy by design, lacked an access control system, had no data breach prevention measures, and failed to conduct risk assessments or review existing security measures. Key noncompliance identified: Lack of appropriate security measures Weak password protection No risk assessment or ongoing review of security measures No data processing agreement with software developer that acted as data processor The state agency and the developer were each fined THB 153,120 (approx. USD 4,670). Case 2: Private Hospital This case involved a hospital that engaged an individual contractor to destroy patient medical record documents. However, the contractor stored the documents at their own premises, failed to follow the required destruction protocols, and ultimately used the medical records to wrap sweets, resulting in the leak of over 1,000 records during the destruction process. The contractor also failed to notify the hospital of the data breach. Although there was a
Read More