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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

October 20, 2024
Following the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is reassessing regulations on the investments of mutual funds and private funds (collectively “Funds”). The SEC has launched a public consultation on new draft notifications introducing  the new asset classes that can be held by Funds, and aims to bring these rules into effect on January 1, 2025. The highlights of these changes are set out below. Eligible New Asset Classes The new asset classes that can be held by Funds can be categorized into two types—investment tokens and crypto assets—and the determination will focus on substance over form. Investment tokens: If the substance involves raising funds, regardless of what the assets are called, and they are legally issued and offered or approved by home regulators that are members of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), Funds can invest in these types of assets as transferable securities within the permitted ratio. Crypto assets: The eligible crypto assets which Funds are entitled to hold focus on crypto ETFs or offshore funds investing in crypto assets, and they are subject to investment limits. Funds can hold crypto assets directly, but only temporarily, and only for the purpose of purchasing, selling, or exchanging the crypto assets, not speculative purposes. The notifications state that Funds may hold Bitcoin/Ethereum for no longer than five business days and USDT/USDC for no more than one month. Investment Limits Typically, the rules segregate investment limits into listed and non-listed digital assets, and the limits depend on the sophistication of the investors in the Funds. In general, UI Funds (mutual funds offered to institutional investors or ultra-high net worth investors) can invest in these new asset classes without any limitations, although net exposure to other crypto assets  –  which
October 8, 2024
On October 1, 2024, the Thai cabinet acknowledged the recommendations proposed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to prevent corruption related to online gambling. The Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) has been assigned as the lead agency to collaborate with various relevant agencies to reach a consensus on the necessary amendments and updates to laws related to online gambling. In assigning the MDES this role, the cabinet emphasized the importance of the following key items: Establishment of a national committee. The national committee will be chaired by a minister and will comprise relevant agencies, including policymaking bodies, technology agencies, frequency management agencies, law enforcement agencies, and other experts. The committee’s primary responsibility will be to consider amending and updating laws related to online gambling. Urgent action on online gambling. As online gambling has been deemed a serious issue requiring urgent action, joint policies will be developed among relevant agencies such as the Royal Thai Police, the Bank of Thailand, and the Anti-Money Laundering Office to elevate the importance of online gambling issues. Public awareness and law enforcement. Public awareness campaigns are to be conducted to educate the public about the risks and legal consequences of online gambling, and laws against online gambling and related financial crimes are to be strictly enforced. Compliance with the Cybersecurity Act. It is necessary to ensure strict compliance with the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019). At the same time, government data systems are to be moved to cloud computing for enhanced data security. Next Steps The MDES is tasked with summarizing the results of the related discussions, actions taken, and overall opinions and submitting the summary to the cabinet secretariat for further presentation to the cabinet. These measures aim to address and mitigate the risks associated with online gambling and related corruption.
October 8, 2024
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) issued guidelines for managing advertisements on digital platform services (DPSs) earlier this year. These guidelines aim to prevent fraud, illegal product or service offerings, and inducements to commit illegal acts, and are likely to provide a basis for greater regulation of this issue in the future. Key obligations for DPS business operators under the guidelines are detailed below. Advertiser Screening and Data Collection Verification and collection: Business operators must establish processes for verifying and collecting advertiser data. This includes steps, methods, and required information for advertiser registration. Identity verification: Business operators should follow identity verification requirements for advertiser registration. This may include using identity verification results from other identity providers or conducting their own identity verification processes with a minimum identity assurance level (IAL) of IAL2. Data storage: Advertiser data must be stored in a machine-readable format. Business operators must maintain records for watchlists, blacklists, and whitelists. Prepublication Advertisement Review Review process: Business operators should review advertisements before publication. This review should consider factors such as prohibited or restricted advertisements, required permissions, and avoiding sensitive user data. Postpublication Monitoring Advertisement monitoring: Business operators must monitor published advertisements using automated systems, staff, or contracted personnel. Criteria for prioritizing reviews should be established. Reporting channels: Business operators must provide channels for users to report illegal or inappropriate advertisements. Reports must be promptly addressed, prioritizing cases involving intellectual property owners or multiple credible reports. Advertiser account monitoring: Business operators must monitor advertiser accounts. This includes considering factors such as the number of reports/flags received and compliance with service agreements and community standards. For more information on this initiative from the ETDA, or on any aspect related to Thailand’s regulations for DPSs, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected], Pornpan Wichawut at [email protected],
October 7, 2024
Peer-to-peer (P2P) lending has been introduced as an additional option in Thailand’s fintech landscape. This innovative lending model offers new opportunities for both lenders and borrowers, while also presenting unique regulatory challenges. This article explores the current state of P2P lending in Thailand, focusing on the regulatory framework and the requirements for platform providers, borrowers, and lenders. Regulatory Framework for P2P Lending In Thailand, P2P lending platforms fall under the purview of Revolutionary Council Decree No. 58, which regulates lending businesses. The Bank of Thailand (BOT) recognizes the potential benefits of P2P lending platforms in providing lenders with new investment opportunities and offering borrowers additional sources of funds. A “P2P platform provider” is defined as a person who provides an electronic system or network for peer-to-peer lending. To ensure the security and stability of the P2P lending system and provide sufficient protection for platform users, the BOT has established a regulatory framework with specific requirements for P2P lending platforms. Regulatory Sandbox Requirement One unique aspect of Thailand’s approach to P2P lending regulation is the requirement for platforms to participate in a regulatory sandbox before applying for a P2P lending platform license. This sandbox approach allows the BOT to closely monitor and assess the operations of P2P platforms in a controlled environment before granting full operational licenses. Requirements for P2P Platform Providers To obtain a P2P lending platform license, applicants must meet several criteria, including: The applicant may not be a financial institution. The company must be incorporated in Thailand. A minimum paid-up registered capital of THB 5 million is required. At least 75% of the voting shares sold must be owned by Thai nationals. These requirements aim to ensure that P2P lending platforms have a significant local presence and adequate capital to operate responsibly. Regulations for Borrowers and Lenders