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​ 

May 22, 2025
While digital technologies have significantly enhanced communication and information sharing, they have also created new opportunities for misuse, particularly for children, who are especially vulnerable to online abuse and exploitation. These risks are often difficult for parents and guardians to detect or prevent in a timely manner. To address these concerns, Thailand has drafted an amendment to the Criminal Code to introduce new provisions targeting offenses against children committed via online platforms. The objective is to close existing legal gaps and to provide more robust protections for children in the digital environment. The draft amendment focuses primarily on addressing online offenses against children and enhancing legal protections for children. The draft amendment proposed changes regarding the following issues: Jurisdiction and media misuse Expanding Thailand’s jurisdiction to cover sexual and liberty-related offenses committed against children outside the country. Adding offenses for misuse of media, including recording, publishing, or transmitting text, images, or sounds for unlawful or exploitative purposes. Offenses involving child exploitation Adding penalties for persuading, luring, or enticing children to engage in sexual or indecent conduct. Imposing harsher penalties for aggravated cases relating to child exploitation that result in serious harm or death. Adding penalties for sending or forwarding inappropriate sexual content to children with exploitative intent. Adding penalties for using threats involving sexual conduct to pressure or coerce victims. Removing ignorance of a child’s age as a possible defense for certain offenses (e.g., luring children or sending inappropriate content) when the child is under 13 years old. Special protections for vulnerable individuals Imposing harsher penalties for offenses committed against parents, persons under legal guardianship or parental authority, or individuals unable to protect themselves. Adding penalties to offenses such as luring children, sending inappropriate content, and cases involving serious harm or death. Child pornography Increasing liability for possession and
Read More
May 15, 2025
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) held an explanatory session on the draft principles and regulatory approaches of the country’s planned artificial intelligence (AI) law on May 2, 2025. This came after a lull of two years following the initial release of draft legislation on AI. In the session, the ETDA explained that the earlier drafts were modeled after the EU’s legal framework for AI, but given the evolving Thai legal and technological landscape, it is now necessary to revisit and refine the drafts to ensure they remain relevant and effective in the local context. To aid in this process, the ETDA will accept public comments on the draft principles of the AI law until June 9, 2025. Based on gap analysis and a comparative study of how different countries have addressed AI issues, the ETDA’s draft AI law principles are structured into five key areas. These are described below. 1. Risk-Based Requirements The draft principles outline a set of approaches that the legislation will take toward mitigating risk: Delegation of powers to enforcement agency or sectoral regulators The primary legislation will not directly specify a list of prohibited risks or high-risk types of AI. Instead, it will empower an enforcement agency or relevant sectoral regulators to determine and issue such lists. This approach allows regulators in each specific industry to assess the necessity of risk classifications within their respective sectors, based on the principle that sectoral regulators are best positioned to understand the specific risks in their domains. These regulators are expected to issue subordinate legislation in alignment with the overall framework. Meanwhile, the central enforcement agency will coordinate oversight across sectors and cover areas not under the jurisdiction of any specific regulator. Duties of high-risk AI providers Providers of AI deemed by the enforcement agency or sectoral
Read More
May 14, 2025
Following the amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in mid-April 2025, new measures were introduced by the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) in a hearing session held on May 13, 2025, to establish shared liability between online social media platform operators and other in-scope operators for damages arising from technological crimes. Stakeholders are being invited to submit their comments on the proposed new provisions directly to the ETDA by May 20, 2025. The concept of the new measures for social media platform operators is that to be released from liability for damages arising from technological crimes, social media platform operators must demonstrate compliance with the relevant technological crime prevention standards and measures prescribed by their respective regulators (“safe harbor rules”). Safe Harbor Rules Under the principles of the proposed safe harbor rules, social media platform operators and the relevant service providers would be required to comply with the following obligations: Immediate takedown and suspension of dissemination: Disable access, remove the content from the system, or suspend the relevant service within 24 hours of receiving an official notification from the Cyber Crime Investigation Bureau’s Anti-Online Scam Operation Center (AOC) that a service or social media platform is disseminating content that is or may be used to commit or support technological crimes. Establishment of notification channels: Establish a system or channel to receive notifications from the AOC. User registration and identity verification: Require user registration (including identity verification and authentication) before allowing content to be posted, with sufficient information to identify the user. Suspending dissemination of suspect advertisements: Disable access to advertisements reasonably suspected of involving or potentially involving the commission of technology-related crimes. Reporting: Report on actions taken, including details like account owner information, IP address, email, or phone number used for account
Read More
May 5, 2025
On April 29, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 94/2025/ND-CP with regulations on a controlled “sandbox” for innovative fintech solutions in the banking sector (Decree 94). The decree aims to promote innovation, modernize banking, and enhance financial inclusion while assessing risks and benefits of fintech solutions in a controlled testing environment. Fintech Sandbox Currently, the fintech sandbox focuses on three specific areas: Credit scoring Open API data sharing Peer-to-peer (P2P) lending Eligible participants for the fintech sandbox include: Credit institutions and foreign bank branches (except for P2P lending) Fintech companies operating in Vietnam Cross-border supply by foreign providers is not included in the sandbox framework. Eligible participants are permitted to provide fintech solutions only within the scope specified in the Certificate of Sandbox Participation issued by the State Bank of Vietnam in consultation with other ministries. P2P lending companies face specific restrictions within the fintech sandbox, including prohibitions against: Providing security for customer loans Operating as a customer (i.e., P2P lender or borrower) Providing P2P lending solutions to pawn shops The maximum sandbox period is two years, with the possibility of extension as permitted by law. The outcomes of the fintech sandbox will serve as a practical basis for authorities to develop and refine future fintech regulations. It is worth noting that participation in the sandbox does not guarantee that participants will meet relevant business and investment conditions that may be stipulated in future regulations. Decree 94 will take effect on July 1, 2025, signaling that the Vietnamese government intends to take a proactive approach to fostering fintech development. Implications Parties interested in participating in the fintech sandbox should begin preparing now to be ready to apply for a Certificate of Sandbox Participation when the decree takes effect.
Read More