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

August 11, 2026

Vietnam’s Draft Decree on Non-Cash Payments Would Relax Requirements for IPS Providers

Subscribe to Updates

On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below.

Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures

A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete.

The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days.

In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public Security before approving amendments to an IPS license.

Further, the draft decree clarifies license validity, renewal procedures, and continuing notification obligations, providing greater certainty regarding the lifecycle of IPS licenses.

Operating Conditions for IPS Providers

While reducing licensing burdens, the draft decree also introduces several targeted refinements to the ongoing regulatory framework applicable to IPS providers. The most significant supervisory reform is the introduction of a new partial license revocation mechanism, in contrast to the current framework, which only contemplates revocation of an IPS license as a whole. Under the draft decree, the SBV would be able to revoke one or more specific licensed services where the provider commits violations relating to those services, such as failing to maintain sufficient guarantee account balances for e-wallet services or repeatedly submitting inaccurate reports. This would provide the SBV with a more proportionate enforcement tool while allowing compliant business lines to continue operating.

Before launching services, providers must submit documentation demonstrating that their information system has achieved at least Level 3 security classification. While this requirement already exists under Decree 52, the draft decree clarifies the relevant documentation that must be submitted. In addition, it introduces a new obligation requiring providers to notify the SBV and submit an updated technical description if the technical solution described in their licensing dossier changes before operations commence. According to the SBV, this amendment is intended to align the regulatory framework with existing supervisory practice of reviewing the technical solution ultimately deployed before an IPS is launched.

The draft decree reinforces existing safeguards applicable to e-wallet services by clarifying that IPS providers must maintain guarantee payment accounts whose aggregate balance is at least equal to the total balance of customers’ e-wallets. It also confirms that the linking of e-wallets with customers’ payment accounts and debit cards will continue to be governed by detailed regulations issued by the SBV.

The draft decree also removes the current restriction limiting participants in a financial switching system to connecting with no more than two financial switching service providers. This amendment would provide greater flexibility in connectivity arrangements and payment infrastructure design, including for participants engaging in international financial switching activities.

Expanding Cross-Border IPS Market Access Channels

Beyond administrative simplification, the draft decree introduces several substantive amendments relevant to IPS market access and infrastructure. One notable proposal concerns foreign payment service providers seeking to collaborate with Vietnamese IPS providers. Under the current framework, foreign payment service providers can access the Vietnamese market only through contractual collaboration with commercial banks or foreign bank branches approved by the SBV to participate in the relevant international payment system. The draft decree would expand this framework by also allowing foreign providers to connect through licensed international financial switching service providers established in Vietnam, such as NAPAS, MobiFone, and any future licensed providers. According to the SBV, this amendment is intended to facilitate emerging cross-border payment models, particularly regional QR payment connectivity initiatives.

Taken together, the introduction of a framework for international financial switching services and the removal of the current two-provider connectivity cap could facilitate a more interconnected cross-border payment ecosystem and provide greater flexibility for institutions participating in international payment networks.

Outlook

The draft decree reflects an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to reforming Vietnam’s non-cash payment framework. By combining administrative simplification with targeted updates to the legal framework and a more refined supervisory regime, the SBV seeks to reduce regulatory friction for IPS providers while maintaining appropriate oversight. If adopted in its current form, the draft decree should improve legal certainty for IPS providers and support the continued development of Vietnam’s digital payment ecosystem.

IPS providers should review the proposed amendments carefully, particularly those affecting licensing procedures, cross-border payment arrangements, and ongoing operational compliance. Banks that collaborate with IPS providers should also consider the implications for their existing arrangements.

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More
March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
Read More
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More