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​ 

April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More
March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
Read More
March 27, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has publicly indicated that it is preparing a new regulatory framework for data center operators that may introduce foreign-ownership restrictions. In particular, the NBTC is considering reclassifying data center operations from a type 1 telecommunications business license to a type 3 license. If implemented, this change would subject data center operators to a significantly more stringent regulatory regime, especially in relation to foreign ownership and control. The NBTC has indicated that it intends to propose a draft framework to the NBTC board. This would be followed by a public hearing process, with a view to implementing the new rules within 2026. Under the Telecommunications Business Act B.E. 2544 (2001), as amended, telecommunications businesses operating under type 3 licenses are subject to foreign ownership restrictions, including a requirement that less than 50% of the total issued shares be held by foreign shareholders. In addition, type 3 licensees are subject to foreign dominance restrictions, which prohibit arrangements that allow foreigners to dominate the business. These foreign dominance restrictions are broad in scope and may capture various forms of direct and indirect control or influence. This includes circumstances in which a foreign national is able to influence or control the formulation of policy, management, or business operations, or the appointment of directors or senior executives. At this stage, the exact scope of the proposed rules remains unclear. Businesses with existing or planned data center operations in Thailand should therefore monitor upcoming NBTC developments in this regard and prepare for the expected public hearing process.
Read More
March 27, 2026
Vietnam’s emerging governance framework for artificial intelligence (AI) is developing through a multi-layered structure comprising three components: Policy instruments setting national priorities for AI development; Regulatory framework governing development, provision, deployment and use of AI; and Technical standards and voluntary guidelines. Policy level. At policy level, the foundation for a strategic framework for AI development and governance was laid in 2021 by the National Strategy for Research, Development and Application of AI until 2030, aimed at strengthening the national AI ecosystem and positioning Vietnam as a regional AI innovation hub. Subsequently, resolution No.57-NQ/TW (2024) identified AI as a key driver of science, technology, innovation and national digital transformation. AI was also designated as a strategic technology under decision No.1131/QD-TTg (2025) listing priority technologies across sectors. Regulatory framework. At the legislative level, the new Law on Artificial Intelligence took effect on 1 March 2026, establishing the core regulatory framework governing development, provision, deployment and use of AI systems. Controlled testing for emerging AI technologies is implemented under the Law on Science, Technology and Innovation. The AI Law is expected to be further operationalised through implementing instruments, most notably a draft decree guiding the AI Law, and draft decision of the prime minister identifying high-risk AI systems (both published in February 2026). A decision establishing priority datasets for AI development is also anticipated. Compliance obligations may also arise under sectoral regulatory regimes, including data protection, cybersecurity, banking, consumer protection, e-commerce and intellectual property, particularly where AI systems are used in automated decision-making or data-driven services. Technical standards and non-binding guidelines. Vietnam’s AI governance framework is also supported by technical standards and voluntary guidelines. A key instrument is decision No.1290/QD-BKHCN (2024), providing guidelines for responsible research and development of AI systems, and represents Vietnam’s first national AI ethics code. The Ministry of Science and Technology
Read More