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 21, 2025

Vietnam’s Amended Securities Law: What You Need to Know

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s Law on Securities of 2019 was one of several laws amended (“Amended Securities Law”) under the wide-ranging Law No. 56/2024/QH15 passed by the National Assembly on November 29, 2024. The amendments came into force on January 1, 2025, with certain provisions related to professional securities investors and the eligibility criteria for public companies becoming effective on January 1, 2026.

Below are some of the key points of the Amended Securities Law.

Changes to Professional Securities Investors

Professional securities investors (PSIs) are investors who have adequate financial capacity or securities qualifications and can participate in private placements and private funds, among other investment activities. Under the Amended Securities Law, foreign investors, including individuals and organizations, are now automatically classified as PSIs, without having to meet any requirements regarding financial capacity. This loosening of requirements is expected to attract more foreign investment.

However, from January 1, 2026, individual PSIs will only be able to purchase, trade, and transfer privately placed corporate bonds that: (i) have been given credit ratings and are secured by collateral, or (ii) have been given credit ratings and covered by payment guarantees from credit institutions. Meanwhile, institutional PSIs will not be bound by these restrictions relating to privately placed corporate bonds.

Protecting Shareholders in Private Securities Issuance

The Amended Securities Law introduces additional conditions for private issuance of shares, convertible bonds, and warrant-linked bonds by public companies, and revises the required contents in the issuance plans from “criteria and number of investors” to “number of shares, offering price, or principles for determining the offering price.” This change promotes shareholder supervision and protects minority shareholders from overly powerful boards of directors.

Expanded Powers of SSC

The Amended Securities Law grants the State Securities Commission (SSC) new powers to suspend and cancel private placements of securities and adds new circumstances for the SSC to cancel public offerings.

The SSC may suspend a registered private placement of securities for up to 60 days: (i) if the offering documents contain misleading information or omit material information that could impact investment decisions and cause damage to investors, or (ii) if the distribution of the securities does not comply with statutory requirements. The issuer must announce the suspension within 7 business days from the suspension and recall the issued securities upon the investor’s request as well as provide a refund to the investor within 15 days from the investor’s request. If deficiencies leading to the suspension are corrected, the SSC will issue a written notice of withdrawal of the suspension. As a result, such private placement will be allowed to proceed.

The SSC may cancel a registered private placement of securities if (i) the issuer fails to address deficiencies leading to the suspension within the suspension period; (ii) the offering documents or the distribution of the private placement of shares are found to have violated the law while the issued shares are not yet listed or registered for trading on the stock exchange; or (iii) the offering documents or the distribution of the securities upon completion of private placement are found to have breached the law. Cancellation of the private placement does not apply to offered shares, shares converted from convertible bonds, or shares purchased from warrants that have been listed or registered for trading on the stock exchange after the private placement.

Under the Amended Securities Law, the SSC may now cancel a public offering if the offering documents or the distribution of the public offering are found to have violated the law after the public offering, but before completion of procedures to be listed or registered for trading on the stock exchange.

Liability Framework for Public Companies, Shareholders, and Advisors

Previously, issuers, underwriters, auditors, and “certifying organizations” were liable for the legality, accuracy, and sufficiency of securities-related documents and reporting during public offerings or when registering securities for listing or trading. The Amended Securities Law extends this liability to private offerings of securities, public disclosures by public companies or their shareholders, and reporting of secondary trading of securities by investors. Further, advisors involved in these activities may be exposed to greater liability for their failure to adhere to professional standards.

This change pushes public companies, their shareholders, and advisors to be more accountable and enhance the transparency in the securities market. They must ensure that all documents and information related to public disclosures and securities trading do not have misleading information and comprehensively include all material facts that could influence decisions by investors, authorities, and other stakeholders.

Defining “Securities Market Manipulation”

The Amended Securities Law updates the acts of “securities market manipulation” as outlined in the 2015 Penal Code to align the definitions of securities market manipulation under securities law and criminal law, closing any gaps between the two. This change aims to imposes administrative liability for market manipulation that does not reach threshold for criminal liability.

Other Changes

The Amended Securities Law adds additional grounds for the cancellation of public company status, which include a public company (i) failing to publish its audited financial statements or annual shareholder meeting resolutions, for two consecutive years; (ii) failing to register its shares with the Vietnam Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation; or (iii) failing to register its shares for listing.

Privately issued corporate bonds offered before January 1, 2026, will adhere to the 2019 Securities and the 2020 Law on Enterprises until the principal and interest are fully paid. Privately issued corporate bonds disclosed to the stock exchange before January 1, 2026, but not yet distributed will follow the same laws until distribution is complete, after which they will comply with the Amended Securities Law.

A public company repurchasing shares from employees in accordance with an employee stock ownership program does not need to reduce charter capital, but only needs to report the total number of repurchased employee shares at the nearest annual general meeting of shareholders. Accordingly, the Amended Securities Law is implicitly reviving treasury shares as previously outlined in the expired 2006 Securities Law, allowing public companies to hold treasury shares after the effective date of the 2019 Securities Law for this limited case of repurchased employee shares. This amendment is paired with an exception to the 6-month blackout period for issuing new shares after a share repurchase for repurchase of shares from leaving employees according to the employee stock ownership program.

Outlook

The Amended Securities Law aims to significantly strengthen governance, increase robustness, and provide better protection for investors in Vietnam’s securities market. This initiative should help address evolving challenges, upgrade the local market, and ensure alignment with international practice.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Capital Markets

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 19, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has overhauled its approach to related-party transactions (RPTs) by issuing new rules that simplify approval processes while expanding oversight. Capital Market Supervisory Board Notification No. TorJor. 46/2568 will replace the longstanding Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551, which has governed RPT compliance for over a decade. The new regulation takes effect on July 1, 2026. Any RPT matters approved by a company’s board of directors or approved for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551. The new RPT rules will introduce significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Consolidated Definitions Under the previous framework, key definitions relevant to RPT compliance were dispersed across multiple sources, including SEC notifications, Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) regulations, and provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act (before amendments). The new regulation consolidates these definitions into a single notification. Concepts such as “related party” and “connected person,” as well as relevant transaction categories, are now more systematically organized and written in greater detail. The SET has yet to issue corresponding regulations, which should include more detailed related disclosure requirements. Unified Threshold and Mandatory Board Approval The most significant change under the new regulation is the elimination of the multitiered approval framework based on transaction type. Instead of various categories, transactions are now classified as either (1) financial assistance provided to related persons, or (2) other RPTs in order to determine the level of corporate approvals and disclosures for each transaction size in these categories, but the concept remains the same. Under the previous regulation, RPTs were divided into small, medium, and large transactions, with differing approval requirements. The new regulation effectively merges the small and medium categories. As a result, all RPTs must now be approved by the board of directors as a baseline
Read More
February 19, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued a new regulation on material transactions (MTs) to govern asset acquisitions and disposals by listed companies and their subsidiaries. The new notification on MT criteria (No. TorJor. 45/2568) from the Capital Market Supervisory Board replaces the long-standing notification (No. TorJor. 20/2551) that has governed such matters. The SEC has also introduced parallel amendments to the country’s related-party transaction rules. The new regulation will take effect on July 1, 2026. Any MT matters approved by a company’s board of directors for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 20/2551. Following that date, the new MT rules will introduce several significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Expanded Scope of Material Transactions One of the key changes under the new regulation is the expansion of the definition of MTs, which now expressly covers financial assistance and certain lease and business lease arrangements that are not in the ordinary course of business of the listed company or its subsidiaries. For financial assistance, this includes lending, granting credit, providing guarantees, or entering into any arrangement that increases the company’s financial obligations, particularly where the recipient is facing liquidity issues or unable to repay debts. Other forms of financial support also fall within scope. However, whether the provision of collateral for others qualifies as an MT remains somewhat unclear, since no disposal of assets occurs for the provider of collateral. This issue remains to be carefully considered. For lease-related transactions, the MT rules now specifically include the lease or hire-purchase of all or part of a business or assets operated by or belonging to a listed company or its subsidiaries. New Exemptions The new regulation introduces clearer exemptions for transactions between a listed company and its subsidiaries or among subsidiaries, which
Read More
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More
February 4, 2026
On November 18, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft decree on administrative sanctions in the field of crypto assets and crypto asset markets (the “Draft Decree”), intended to implement Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP dated September 9, 2025, on the pilot crypto asset market in Vietnam (“Resolution 05”). While Resolution 05 sets out who may participate and under what conditions, the Draft Decree addresses a more practical question for market participants, i.e., what happens if those conditions are not met. In doing so, the Draft Decree offers important insight into how Vietnamese regulators intend to supervise, discipline, and ultimately shape the crypto market during the pilot phase. Regulatory Scope and Overall Sanctions Architecture The Draft Decree applies to both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals engaging in crypto-related activities in Vietnam’s market. Covered entities include: (i) crypto asset issuers; (ii) crypto asset service providers, including trading platforms and market operators; (iii) Vietnamese and foreign investors participating in the pilot market; and (iv) other organizations involved in the offering, issuance, or provision of crypto-related services in Vietnam. The breadth of this scope is deliberate. It appears to reflect a regulatory view that cross-border structures, offshore platforms, and indirect participation may not necessarily insulate market actors from compliance obligations once they operate within the pilot framework. For the crypto industry, this may mark a shift from regulatory ambiguity toward a more explicit articulation of jurisdictional reach. At first glance, the Draft Decree’s monetary penalties appear restrained. The maximum fine per administrative violation is capped at VND 200 million (approx. USD 7,700) for organizations and VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,800) for individuals. However, focusing solely on fine levels risks missing the point. The Draft Decree also places great regulatory weight on supplementary sanctions and corrective measures, including: (i)
Read More