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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

November 7, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to the latest edition of the Global FinTech Guide published by Multilaw. The guide provides a comprehensive overview of the legal and regulatory framework governing financial technology across major jurisdictions around the world. Compiled by experienced practitioners from Multilaw member firms, the Global FinTech Guide examines how technological innovation is transforming financial services and how regulators are adapting to developments such as digital payments, virtual assets, and online financial platforms. The publication offers comparative insights into regulatory regimes and presents detailed, jurisdiction-specific analysis for companies, investors, and entrepreneurs active in the FinTech sector. The Vietnam chapter, prepared by lawyers in Tilleke & Gibbins’ technology, media, and telecommunications team, surveys the key legal and regulatory developments shaping the country’s FinTech ecosystem. It covers the following areas: Payment services Asset and portfolio management Financial advisory and broking services (including robo-advisory and auto-trading) Trading platforms, social trading platforms, and signal following Crowdfunding, crowdinvesting, and crowdlending Distributed ledger technology (DLT) and cryptocurrencies Loan services, factoring, loan broking, and finetrading Identification Online banking services Initial coin offerings (ICOs) and token sales Insurtech Regtech and compliance management Know-your-customer (KYC) requirements Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand chapter to the Global FinTech Guide. The full guide is available on the Multilaw website.
November 7, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to the latest edition of the Global FinTech Guide published by Multilaw. The guide offers an overview of the legal and regulatory environment for financial technology across key jurisdictions worldwide. Prepared by leading experts from Multilaw member firms, the Global FinTech Guide explores how innovation is reshaping the financial sector and how governments and regulators are responding to emerging technologies such as digital payment services, cryptocurrencies, and online financial advisory platforms. The publication enables quick comparison of regulatory frameworks and provides detailed country-level insights for investors, startups, and established financial institutions engaging in FinTech activities. The Thailand chapter, authored by lawyers in Tilleke & Gibbins’ technology and financial services teams, outlines the country’s evolving regulatory landscape for fintech operations. It addresses the following topics: Payment services Asset and portfolio management Financial advisory and broking services (including robo-advisory and auto-trading) Trading platforms, social trading platforms, and signal following Crowdfunding, crowdinvesting, and crowdlending DLT and cryptocurrencies Loan services, factoring, loan broking, and finetrading Identification Online banking services Initial coin offerings (ICOs) and token sales Insurtech Regtech and compliance management Know-your-customer (KYC) requirements Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to the Global FinTech Guide. The full guide is available on the Multilaw website.
October 31, 2025
On September 29, 2025, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC Office) published its Regulations on the Review and Certification of Binding Corporate Rules B.E. 2568 (2025) (the Regulations). The Regulations provide clarity on the PDPC Office’s approach to reviewing and certifying binding corporate rules (BCRs) under Section 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), and aim to facilitate international data transfers within a group of undertakings or enterprises (a “corporate group”). In conjunction with this development, the PDPC Office also approved BCRs for two companies operating in Thailand on September 30, 2025. This milestone represents the first concrete progress since the PDPC’s Notification on Criteria for the Protection of Personal Data Sent or Transferred to a Foreign Country pursuant to Section 29 of the PDPA B.E. 2566 (2023) came into effect in March 2024. Some key features of the Regulations are set out below. Categorization of BCRs BCRs are classified into two types: (1) BCRs for Controllers (BCR-C) and (2) BCRs for Processors (BCR-P). The category must be clearly specified when submitting the BCRs to the PDPC Office. Documentation Requirement The applicant must prepare and submit the application (a standard template may be provided by the PDPC Office in the future) along with supporting documents for review and certification in the Thai language. If the supporting documents are in a foreign language, a certified Thai translation should be provided. The translation must be notarized by a notary public or qualified person. Supporting documents may include, among others, a binding instrument such as an intra-group agreement, or a list of entities subject to the BCRs. Expedited Process Requirement Organizations with existing BCR approvals under the EU or UK GDPR, or from countries announced by the PDPC under Section 28, may apply through an
October 26, 2025
AI-generated songs are now making waves in Vietnam on platforms like TikTok, with tracks such as “Say mot doi vi em” quickly gaining popularity and sparking widespread attention. This phenomenon raises a host of legal and ethical questions: Who is the author of these songs? Can they be protected by copyright? Who is responsible if there is an infringement? These questions are becoming increasingly urgent as AI music becomes more mainstream in Vietnam. Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Music in Vietnam Under current Vietnamese law, copyright protection is reserved for works that bear the mark of human creativity. The 2022 amendments to Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law reaffirm that only works created by humans are eligible for copyright. In practice, if a human meaningfully contributes to the creative process—by providing prompts, making selections, editing, or arranging—their contribution may be protected. However, if a song is generated entirely by AI without significant human input, it is unlikely to qualify for copyright protection. When an AI-generated song does not qualify for copyright protection, the question arises as to whether the person who writes the prompts, edits, or compiles the work can still be considered the owner of an asset under the Vietnamese Civil Code. According to Article 105 of the Civil Code 2015, assets include objects, money, valuable papers, and property rights. While AI-generated music that is not protected by copyright is not considered money or valuable papers, it may be regarded as an object (in the form of a digital file or recording) or as a property right if it can be possessed, used, transferred, or exploited for value. Use of AI-Generated Works Without Copyright Protection If a song is not protected by copyright, does that mean anyone can use it freely? Not necessarily. The absence of copyright does not mean the