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

February 4, 2026

Vietnam’s Draft Crypto Sanctions Decree: Enforcement Comes to the Pilot Market

Subscribe to Updates

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) temporary suspension of activities; (ii) revocation of licenses for defined periods; (iii) disgorgement of unlawful gains; (iv) mandatory corrective disclosures; and (v) orders to remove, suspend, or rectify noncompliant platforms, systems, or information.

Repeated violations, particularly of disclosure obligations, may be treated as aggravating circumstances, allowing authorities to escalate penalties within the statutory range rather than issuing multiple isolated fines. This signals a focus on patterns of conduct, not one-off technical breaches.

Key Sanctions: Scope, Type, and Penalty Levels

The sanctions applicable to key violations under the Draft Decree are outlined below. Unless stated otherwise, the prescribed penalties apply to organizations, with individuals subject to penalties at generally 50% of the amounts imposed on organizations for the same violations.

Sanctions Applicable to Crypto Asset Issuance and Offerings

Issuers that breach regulatory requirements – such as foreign ownership restrictions or disclosure obligations – may be subject to monetary fines ranging from VND 70 million to VND 200 million (approx. USD 2,700 to USD-7,700), with higher penalties applicable to serious violations, including unauthorized offerings or failure to publish a prospectus. In addition to fines, regulators may impose temporary suspension of issuance or offering activities, require corrective or supplemental disclosures, and order the disgorgement of illegal gains.

These measures underline a key regulatory priority: Offerings are viewed as the primary risk entry point for retail investors, and compliance failures at this stage are treated as fundamentally serious.

Obligations and Sanctions Applicable to Crypto Asset Service Providers

The Draft Decree also devotes substantial attention to crypto asset service providers, reflecting their central role in market integrity. Depending on severity, service providers may face fines from VND 30 million to VND 200 million (approx. USD 1,200 to USD 7,700) for breaches of operational, disclosure, and investor protection obligations. Sanctionable conduct includes failures in disclosure and reporting, deficiencies in KYC and account opening procedures, misleading marketing, inadequate monitoring of trading activities, improper segregation of client assets, and weaknesses in cybersecurity or system controls.

In more serious cases, particularly where investor interests or market integrity are affected, authorities may apply temporary suspension of services, license revocation for a specified period, and orders to correct, remove, or cease the use of noncompliant systems or information, in addition to monetary penalties.

Sanctions Applicable to the Operation of Crypto Asset Trading Markets

Operators of crypto asset trading markets are subject to some of the highest penalties under the Draft Decree. Fines of VND 70 million to VND 200 million (approx. USD 2,700 to USD-7,700) apply to violations such as failure to disclose market launch information, noncompliance with obligations following license revocation, or operating without proper authorization. Supplementary measures may include temporary suspension of market operations, revocation of operating licenses, and disgorgement of illegal profits derived from non-compliant activities.

Investor Conduct and Cross-Border Transaction-Related Violations

Notably, the Draft Decree does not focus exclusively on platforms and issuers. Investors themselves, both domestic and foreign, are within scope. Domestic and foreign investors may be fined VND 10 million to VND 100 million (approx. USD 400 to USD 3,800) for conducting transactions outside licensed platforms or breaching foreign exchange, account usage, or reporting requirements. In addition to monetary penalties, regulators may require rectification of noncompliant transactions, submission of corrective disclosures or reports, and, where violations show signs of criminal conduct, referral to competent investigative authorities.

Competent Authorities and Enforcement Framework

The Draft Decree confers broad and overlapping sanctioning powers on multiple authorities. In principle, sanctions may be imposed by provincial People’s Committees, financial authorities, securities regulators, and competent public security authorities, except that violations relating to foreign investors’ fund transfers and anti-money laundering obligations fall within the sanctioning competence of State Bank of Vietnam authorities.

The Draft Decree also limits sanctioning powers by authority level: Certain officials are capped at lower fine thresholds and may not impose supplementary sanctions. Where a violation attracts sanctions exceeding an authority’s competence, the case file must be promptly transferred to the competent authority for handling.

Notably, certain violations, including investors trading outside licensed platforms, the provision or promotion of crypto services without a license, operating beyond the scope of an approved license, and breaches of anti-money laundering regulations, may also be referred for criminal investigation if they exhibit signs of criminal conduct. In such cases, the relevant authority must transfer the case file to competent investigative bodies for further proceedings.

Outlook

Read as a whole, the Draft Decree reflects a measured yet unequivocally firm regulatory stance. While the pilot market is intended to foster innovation, it does so within clearly defined and actively enforced boundaries. Importantly, the enforcement toolkit is designed to correct conduct and screen out noncompliant participants, rather than to function as a purely punitive mechanism. For participants across the crypto ecosystem, including issuers, exchanges, service providers, funds, and sophisticated investors, the message is clear: Vietnam’s crypto pilot may be experimental, but its compliance expectations are not.

The Ministry of Finance is expected to finalize the Draft Decree and submit it to the government for approval, potentially clearing the way for enforceable administrative sanctions from early 2026.

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 25, 2026
On June 18, 2026, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published two notifications in the Government Gazette establishing Thailand’s first formal certification framework for personal data protection standards under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notifications, which took immediate effect, introduce a voluntary certification framework aimed at promoting accountability, strengthening organizational data protection governance, and aligning Thailand more closely with international frameworks that recognize certification as a key compliance tool. Certification Criteria The first notification sets out the assessment criteria for organizations seeking certification. Applicants must undergo an evaluation against a framework comprising four assessment categories, 10 focus areas, and 128 assessment criteria covering key elements of a privacy management program. These include: Organizational oversight and internal policies and procedures. Human resource development, including staff training and awareness programs. Clearly defined operational processes and procedures covering data subject rights, transparency obligations, records of processing activities, and lawful basis management, as well as contractual safeguards such as data-processing and data-sharing agreements and risk assessments, including Data Protection Impact Assessments. Technical measures encompassing data security controls and breach response capabilities Based on the assessment results, organizations may be awarded either a PDPA Compliance Certificate or a higher-level PDPA Certificate accompanied by a certification mark. Application and Assessment Process The second notification establishes the application and assessment process for obtaining certification. Eligible applicants include government agencies and private-sector entities that demonstrate sufficient privacy governance maturity and meet the prescribed eligibility requirements. Applicants must submit their applications along with supporting documentation for review. Upon receiving an application, the Office of the PDPC will conduct a detailed evaluation, which may include both documentary review and on-site inspections. Incomplete applications may be rejected, though applicants are typically given a limited period to correct deficiencies before a final decision
Read More
June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
Read More
June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More