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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More