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

July 5, 2024

Vietnam’s Draft Circular on Securities Transactions

Subscribe to Updates

In April 2024, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance published a draft circular concerning securities transactions, clearing and settlement of securities transactions, activities of securities companies, and information disclosure on the securities market (the “Draft Circular”) for public feedback. The Draft Circular, if adopted, will amend several regulations impacting public companies and the securities market. Some of the more notable amendments are discussed below.

Relaxing Pre-Funding Requirement for Foreign Institutional Investors

To place orders to purchase securities, investors are currently required to have sufficient cash in their securities trading accounts to pay 100% of the cost of the transaction, except in cases of:

  • Margin trading (applicable to Vietnamese investors only); and
  • Transactions in which there is a settlement guarantee or confirmation from the custodian bank on accepting the settlement request.

The Draft Circular allows foreign institutional investors (“FIIs”) to purchase securities without 100% pre-funding their securities trading accounts, based on a signed agreement with a securities company. However, the State Securities Commission of Vietnam (“SSC”) has the right to temporarily reinstate the 100% pre-funding requirement if measures for securities market stabilization are required.

The Draft Circular also specifies that securities companies must (i) assess the capacity of FIIs to determine the pre-funding requirement under relevant agreements signed between them, and (ii) be responsible to settle the shortfall of a securities purchase order through their proprietary trading account(s) if the FIIs are unable to fully pay for such securities purchase order, except in certain circumstances.

Further, a securities company cannot directly exempt or authorize other entities to exempt an FII from the 100% pre-funding requirement if the FII purchases securities of (i) such securities company, (ii) a company in which such securities company is a majority shareholder, or (iii) the parent company of such securities company.

The 100% pre-funding requirement for FIIs in securities trading under the prevailing laws is considered a bottleneck for Vietnam’s securities market. Thus, the proposed amendment of the Draft Circular will mitigate restrictions and attract more foreign investment.

English-Language Information Disclosure

Currently, public companies in Vietnam are required to make information disclosures in Vietnamese language only. To ensure the information access rights of foreign investors, the Draft Circular requires that, starting from January 1, 2025, public companies must make information disclosures in Vietnamese and English, subject to the type of public company and information to be disclosed.

Exception to Insider Trading Disclosures

Insiders of public companies, public securities investment companies, and public funds, and related persons of the insiders, are currently required to disclose information and submit reports regarding their planned insider sale or purchase of securities to their respective companies, the SSC, and the stock exchanges at least three business days before the expected insider transaction date.

The Draft Circular provides an exception to this information disclosure obligation for securities companies as related persons making payment on behalf of FIIs without 100% pre-funding of the securities trading account. As the payment obligations for the shortfall of the FIIs in these situations are automatically assumed by the securities companies, and must be settled immediately, the current disclosure timeline is not practical. Hence, the proposed amendment is considered reasonable for the operation of the securities companies.

Outlook

The Draft Circular, which is expected to be adopted in late 2024, aims to enhance information access rights and participation of foreign investors in the Vietnam securities market, which will help encourage foreign investment into this area in the coming years.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Capital Markets

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

November 24, 2025
A recent warning from the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) against cryptocurrency use upholds the country’s ongoing strategy of enforcing strict prohibitions on unauthorized cryptocurrency activities while also promoting the controlled development of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The CBM’s warning, issued November 16, 2025, reminded the public of announcements in May 2019 and a notification in May 2020 confirming that all online and offline cryptocurrency transactions are strictly prohibited. The CBM also clarified that no financial institution in Myanmar is authorized to deal with digital currencies. The warning highlighted global risks, such as money laundering, scams, tax evasion, hacking, and severe financial losses caused by price volatility and insufficient regulation. The CBM urged the public to use only legitimate banking channels and avoid illegal cryptocurrency activities. The warning comes five months after the CBM issued a notification announcing the formation of the Central Committee for the Issuance of a Central Bank Digital Currency. This committee includes senior CBM officials, representatives from relevant ministries and the banking sector, and technology experts. Its main role is to research CBDC models, test secure digital payment systems, and ensure that any future implementation aligns with Myanmar’s monetary policy and financial stability objectives. Taken together, these two actions illustrate the CBM’s continued pursuit of its dual strategy to promote innovation through CBDC development while prohibiting cryptocurrency use. Businesses should note that while CBDC pilot programs may appear in the future, cryptocurrencies remain off-limits.
Read More
October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
Read More
September 24, 2025
On September 12, 2025, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) officially released its AI Risk Management Guidelines for Financial Service Providers, building upon the draft guidelines issued in June 2025. The guidelines reflect a balanced approach, encouraging innovation while safeguarding financial stability and consumer protection. The guidelines are targeted at all financial service providers, including financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act, as well as payment providers under the Payment Systems Act. The guidelines apply to both AI systems developed in-house and those developed by third parties that are adopted for use by financial service providers. AI Risk Management Guidelines The two main pillars in managing AI risk are (1) governance of AI system implementation and (2) AI system development and security controls, consisting of the following key elements: 1. Governance Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Boards and senior management assume accountability for decisions and operations involving AI systems, and are responsible for defining roles and responsibilities for AI oversight. This includes establishing an AI system usage policy, designating personnel responsible for AI risk management, and building awareness of AI-related risk within the organization. Organizations are expected to foster internal capabilities to use AI securely and avoid overreliance that could compromise business continuity or customer service. AI system usage policy. Policies governing AI usage should align with organizational goals, regulatory obligations, and recognized responsible AI frameworks—such as the FEAT principles (fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency). These policies should be reviewed regularly to respond to technological advancements and evolving risk profiles. Risk management throughout the AI lifecycle. Risk management should encompass the entire AI lifecycle, from establishing risk appetite to implementing continuous risk assessment and control measures tailored to specific use cases. Financial service providers should assess risks and impacts of AI usage on operations and customer services.
Read More