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​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 17, 2026
On July 11, 2026, media reports conveyed key messages from Bank of Thailand (BOT) Governor Vitai Ratanakorn’s announcement of a sweeping regulatory crackdown on grey capital activities. The measures target high-value cash transactions, gold trading, and stablecoin flows, with new requirements set to take effect in the fourth quarter of 2026. The initiative aims to prevent financial institutions from facilitating shadow economy activity, money laundering—particularly through stablecoins—and capital flight, through enhanced compliance obligations on commercial banks across multiple transaction channels. Expanded Cash Controls Close the Deposit–Withdrawal Circuit New fourth-quarter guidelines will require individuals depositing THB 5 million or more in cash to formally verify the source of their funds. This builds on restrictions introduced in April 2026, which required anyone withdrawing 5 million baht or more in cash to provide their bank with verified commercial justification for why electronic transfers or checks could not be used. That initial measure caused high-value physical cash withdrawals to drop by 35 percent nationwide. The upcoming deposit-side requirement closes the circuit on large cash movements. The BOT is also assessing tracking mechanisms for high-value banknote swaps, specifically targeting individuals seeking to exchange large volumes of THB 1,000 notes into smaller THB 100 or THB 500 denominations without clear business justification. Governor Vitai emphasized that these measures require continuous deployment of multiple parallel strategies rather than short-term fixes. Tightened Bullion Reporting Frameworks Restrict Money Laundering Channels The BOT has also tightened reporting frameworks for gold trading to close money laundering loopholes and shield the Thai baht from speculative bullion volatility. Regulators identified a recurring pattern in which buyers purchased large quantities of gold through digital applications in the morning and then made same-day physical withdrawals from retail gold shops in the afternoon. Gold shops are reminded of their duties to flag and report cash
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More