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​ 

August 1, 2025
On July 30, 2025, Myanmar’s Cybersecurity Law No. 1/2025 came into effect with the State Administration Council’s issuance of Notification 113/2025. The law, which was enacted on January 1, 2025, aims to regulate various aspects of digital security and online activities. Below are some key provisions, implications, and penalties under the Cybersecurity Law. Extraterritorial penalties. The law contains an important provision that authorizes penalties against Myanmar citizens who are found guilty of violations, even if these occur outside the country’s borders. VPN definition and regulation. Virtual private networks (VPNs) are defined by this law as specific systems that function as backup networks by using technological means in order to ensure the safety of linking networks to each other. This definition sets the framework for subsequent regulations and penalties associated with VPN usage. The law does not restrict individuals or entities from using VPNs; it regulates VPN service providers. Penalties for unapproved VPN services. Establishing a VPN or providing VPN services without approval from the designated ministry (to be appointed later by the government) can result in significant penalties. For individuals, the punishment may be imprisonment for 1–6 months, a fine of MMK 1–10 million (approx. USD 476–4,760), or both, with the proceeds of the violation being confiscated. If the violator is a company or organization, the minimum fine will be MMK 10 million, and the proceeds will be confiscated. Government oversight. The ministry designated by the government is authorized to investigate and take control of cybersecurity services and digital platform services for national defense and security purposes, or upon request from a government department or organization in accordance with respective laws. Licensing requirements. The Cybersecurity Law introduces two types of licenses, valid for a period of 3–10 years, for (1) cybersecurity services and (2) digital platform providers. Digital platforms with
Read More
August 1, 2025
On July 21, 2025, Thailand’s National Cyber Security Agency (NCSA) released a draft amendment to the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019) for public hearing, aiming to address the rapid evolution of technology and increasing complexity of cyber threats. The proposed changes to the country’s cybersecurity framework would extend regulatory oversight to cloud service providers and data center operators hosting data for critical information infrastructure (CII) organizations regulated under the Cybersecurity Act. The NCSA will accept comments on the draft until August 5, 2025. Following the close of the public consultation period, the draft amendment will be subject to further revision during the legislative process. Key proposed amendments are discussed below. Expanded Critical Infrastructure Scope The Cybersecurity Act currently applies only to state agencies, supervising or regulating organizations, and designated CII organizations as announced by the National Cyber Security Committee (NCSC). It defines CII organizations as public or private organizations related to or providing national security, significant public services, banking and finance, information technologies, telecommunications, transportation and logistics, energy and public utilities, or public health. The draft amendment expands the scope of CII organizations to include public and private organizations related to or providing industrial work (to be further defined in subregulations) as well as service providers that store or possess data for CII organizations, such as cloud and data center service providers. CII organizations must comply with cyber threat reporting requirements and are subject to the NCSA’s interception powers. Updated Definitions and New Terminology The draft amendment more clearly distinguishes between “cyber threats” (which have yet to occur but have the potential of causing damage or impact) and “cyber incidents” (which have already occurred and have caused or are expected to cause damage or impact). The draft amendment also expands the definition of “cybersecurity” to explicitly cover both prevention
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 24, 2025
Thai authorities have escalated efforts to block unlawful cross-border digital asset business operators. On June 19, 2025, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) issued a notification empowering it to ban internet access to operations or services offered by digital asset business operators who lack licenses from the Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This ban, issued under the 2023 Royal Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crime, particularly aims to block Thai users’ access to services offered by unlicensed offshore digital asset providers via their own apps or websites or through public social media platforms. Compliance Requirements The notification requires internet service providers and social media platforms selected by MDES to immediately impose internet access restrictions on identified apps, websites, and IP addresses of illegal operators upon receiving MDES orders. Takedown Orders There are two tracks for competent officials at MDES to issue orders to operators: If the competent official is notified by the SEC of licensing noncompliance by a particular digital asset business operator, the competent official can issue a takedown order to the operator upon approval from the permanent secretary of MDES. If the competent official independently discovers, or receives a complaint from any third party other than the SEC, that a digital asset business operator may have violated licensing requirements, the competent official can ask the SEC to verify and confirm the relevant facts and noncompliance before seeking approval from the permanent secretary of MDES to issue the takedown order. Streamlined Enforcement Prior to this notification, the SEC could obtain takedown orders only from Thai courts under the 2007 Computer Crime Act to take down or block access to unlicensed digital asset platforms and apps. This was a relatively
Read More