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

June 19, 2024

Vietnam’s New Decree on Non-Cash Payments

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s financial landscape is set to further transform on July 1, 2024, when the government’s long-awaited Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024 (“Decree 52”), will officially replace Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Decree 101”).

Decree 52 marks an important milestone by introducing the country’s first-ever legal definition of e-money. In addition, the decree brings forth new updates to regulations governing payment and intermediary payment services, laying the groundwork for more comprehensive guidance that will be provided in draft circulars now being developed by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV).

Non-Cash Payment Instruments

The new definition of non-cash payment instruments under Decree 52 expands upon the previous definition in Decree 101. Notably, it clearly specifies the issuing entities as payment service providers, financial companies licensed to issue credit cards, and e-wallet service providers. Additionally, the new definition further clarifies that bank cards include debit, credit, and prepaid cards, and adds e-wallets to the list of non-cash payment instruments. Unlawful non-cash payment instruments are still defined as those that are not otherwise specified.

E-Money

Prior to Decree 52, the concept of e-money lacked a precise legal definition, despite its growing prevalence in forms like prepaid cards and e-wallets. The absence of a clear framework for e-money led to confusion with terms like “cryptpcurrency” and “virtual currency” and left significant ambiguity on whether e-money includes certain instruments, such as online game cards and mobile money. Decree 52 addresses this issue by clearly defining e-money as value in Vietnamese dong (VND) stored electronically and prepaid by customers to banks, foreign bank branches, and e-wallet service providers. It also specifically designates e-wallets and prepaid cards as types of storage mechanisms for e-money.

Non-Cash Payment Services

Decree 52 categorizes non-cash payment services into services with and without client payment accounts. Payment services with client accounts involve various financial transactions like money transfers and card payments, while services without client accounts focus on transactions not requiring such accounts. The decree also expands the range of entities providing these services to include not only banks and financial institutions but also public postal service providers (as defined by the Law on Post). So far, regulations for non-cash payment services provided by public postal service providers have been outlined in Circular No. 38/2019/TT-NHNN dated December 31, 2019. Decree 52 now further formalizes the inclusion of public postal service providers, a move that emphasizes expanded access to financial services, particularly in underbanked areas.

In a bid to further clarify and regulate these payment services, the SBV is currently working on a draft circular that will replace Circular No. 46/2014/TT-NHNN dated December 31, 2014, on non-cash payment services. This circular aims to offer updated guidance on all aspects of non-cash payment services under Decree 52 to address the new practical challenges in the current non-cash payment landscape.

Intermediary Payment Services

Decree 52 defines intermediary payment service (IPS) providers as non-bank organizations licensed by the SBV to provide IPSs, which encompass financial switching services, international financial switching services, electronic clearing services, e-wallet services, collection and payment support services, and payment gateway services. Compared to the old IPS regime under Decree 101 and Circular No. 39/2014/TT-NHNN dated December 11, 2014 (“Circular 39”), Decree 52 removes electronic money transfer support services from the list of IPSs.

The decree also sets stringent requirements for obtaining an IPS license, encompassing capital adequacy, technical capabilities, and personnel qualifications. The most notable requirements for organizations applying for an IPS license include the following:

  • The organization must not be in the process of division, separation, consolidation, merger, conversion, dissolution, or bankruptcy.
  • For financial switching services and electronic clearing services, the organization must provide only IPSs.
  • The organization must fulfill minimum charter capital requirements of either (1) VND 50 billion (approx. USD 1,964,560) for e-wallet services, collection and payment support services, and payment gateway services, or (2) VND 300 billion (approx. USD 11,787,360) for financial switching services, international financial switching services, and electronic clearing services.
  • The organization must comply with information system security level 4 requirements for financial switching services and electronic clearing services, or level 3 for other IPSs.
  • The organization must meet specific technical and personnel requirements.

Decree 52 also introduces new regulations for the provision of IPSs with international elements. These affect:

  • Foreign service providers providing IPSs to nonresident customers and foreigners residing in Vietnam to perform payment transactions for goods and services in Vietnam; and
  • Providers of IPSs that customers use to perform payment transactions for foreign goods and services.

The SBV is currently preparing a draft circular that will replace Circular 39 on IPSs and is expected to be issued soon.

Safety and Security of Non-Cash Payments

Under Decree 52, payment service and IPS providers are responsible for ensuring the safety and confidentiality of transactions, conducting inspections of payment-accepting units, and actively managing risks to prevent the misuse of their services for illegal activities. IPS providers specifically must adhere to information system security requirements with varying levels of compliance depending on the specific services offered (level 4 for financial switching services and electronic clearing services, and level 3 for other IPSs). IPS providers should therefore also carefully review relevant regulations under the Law on Network Information Security and Decree No. 85/2016/ND-CP dated July 1, 2016, on the security of information systems by levels, for full compliance in this regard.

In addition to these requirements, payment service and IPS providers should also pay attention to the new, stringent requirements under Decision No. 2345/QD-NHNN dated December 18, 2023, on security measures for online payments and bank card transactions. To solidify the compulsory measures set out under this decision, the SBV is currently drafting a circular to replace Circular No. 35/2016/TT-NHNN dated December 29, 2016, which will further guide the requirements on safety and security for online banking services.

Other Notes

In addition to the above, Decree 52 also has the following key points:

  • Monitoring Activities: Decree 52 grants the SBV extensive supervisory powers over payment systems, payment services, and IPSs. The SBV is authorized to promulgate regulations, conduct remote and on-site supervision, and request information from relevant entities. Payment service providers and IPS providers must comply with these regulations and provide the requested information. Notably, the SBV has the authority to determine and supervise economically important payment systems to maintain their stability and security. To provide more guidance in this regard, the SBV is also currently working on a draft circular that will replace Circular No. 20/2018/TT-NHNN dated August 30, 2018, on supervision of payment systems.
  • Payment Agents: The SBV is developing a draft circular on payment agents for non-cash payment services as regulated under Decree 52. This initiative aims to enhance financial inclusion by enabling banks and foreign bank branches to expand their customer base and service reach without incurring the costs associated with expanding their physical networks. By partnering with payment agents, banks can offer basic financial services in remote areas, reducing travel time for customers and improving overall service efficiency.
  • Transitional Period: Decree 52 provides various transitional periods for different stakeholders to align with its new regulations, as follows:
    • Commercial banks and foreign bank branches have 24 months to comply with Decree 52 for international payment system participation;
    • IPS providers licensed for money transfer support services under Decree 101 can continue operations as agreed between the parties;
    • Financial switching service providers connected to international payment systems have 24 months to comply and apply for a new license under Decree 52;
    • Public postal service enterprises have 24 months to apply for approval to provide payment services other than through customer payment accounts; and
    • IPS providers licensed before Decree 52’s effective date can operate until their licenses expire, unless they apply for new licenses under Decree 52’s regime.

Outlook

Decree 52 introduces significant changes to the non-cash payment landscape in Vietnam, including the country’s first legal definition of e-money and expanded regulations for non-cash payment and IPS services. In light of the new regime under Decree 52, the SBV is also developing a number of new circulars to provide further guidance on implementing these regulations. Payment and IPS providers should therefore closely follow legal developments in this field to ensure full compliance with the fast-evolving regulatory framework.

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Practices

Banking and Finance

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 17, 2025
On July 9, 2025, Thailand issued a notification that introduces comprehensive operational requirements for digital platform service providers operating as goods marketplaces, effective December 31, 2025 (i.e., 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette). The regulation’s official name is Notification of the Electronic Transactions Committee Re: Other Actions for Digital Platform Service Operators in the Category of Marketplace for Goods with Specific Characteristics under Section 18(2) of the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses that are Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022), B.E. 2568 (2025). Scope of Application The notification applies exclusively to goods marketplace operators formally designated by the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA), which on the same day designated 19 platforms that had previously notified the ETDA of their operations. The goods requiring enhanced oversight by these operators are limited to those regulated by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI). Development from Earlier Draft An earlier draft of the notification had included a requirement for offshore platforms to establish a local entity, but this requirement was removed from the final notification. Key Obligations Despite the removal of the local entity requirement, the notification imposes a range of additional obligations on designated goods marketplace operators: Transparency. Operators must implement robust transparency measures, including clear, accessible, and understandable disclosures to users in Thai. These disclosures must cover all relevant terms and conditions, comprehensive product information, and complaint management procedures. Operators must also submit an annual compliance report to the ETDA within 60 days after the end of their accounting period, including statistics on regulated goods. Business user registration and identity verification. Before permitting the sale or advertisement of regulated goods, operators must collect and verify business user information, including contact details, identification documents, registration
Read More
July 15, 2025
Thailand has established new safe harbor rules that require social media platforms to remove specified content within 24 hours of government notification. On July 5, 2025, the Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers was issued and took effect. This followed a hearing in May 2025 where only a select group of social media and online communication platform operators were invited to attend and comment on draft rules that could exempt social media platform operators from joint liability under the amended Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in cases involving victims of technological crimes. Safe Harbor Rules The notification stipulates procedures that must be followed in order to receive the protection of the safe harbor rules. Upon being notified by the Division of Prevention and Suppression of Cybercrime, Office of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) of the presence of false or misleading information that may lead to the commission of a technological crime, social media service providers must immediately take down the specified content, with a maximum allowable turnaround time of 24 hours from the time of receiving the notification. Social media service providers are required to promptly report the outcome of each takedown to the MDES Division of Prevention and Suppression. This shift in Thailand’s regulatory approach to social media content moderation establishes clear government oversight mechanisms while providing platforms with liability protection for compliance. As the new rules took immediate effect, social media platforms need to ensure that they have adequate systems and processes in place to comply with the requirements.
Read More
July 11, 2025
Vietnam’s recent embrace of “regulatory sandboxes” reflects a deliberate policy choice to balance the need for robust oversight with an equally pressing imperative to catalyze innovation. A sandbox is a controlled, time-bound framework in which businesses may pilot emerging technologies, products, or business models under relaxed or tailor-made regulatory requirements, thereby allowing regulators to observe risks in real time while innovators validate commercial viability without bearing the full weight of the traditional compliance regime. By issuing sandbox regulations, the government of Vietnam is signaling its commitment to accelerating digital transformation, attracting investment, and developing a knowledge-based economy, all while safeguarding financial stability, consumer protection, and national security. This strategy is embodied in a suite of instruments that together establish sector-specific sandboxes: Decree No. 94/2025/ND-CP on the Regulatory Sandbox in the Banking Sector (Fintech Sandbox Decree), effective July 1, 2025. Law on Digital Technology Industry (DTI Law), effective January 1, 2026, and Law on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI Law), effective October 1, 2025. Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 on International Financial Centers (IFC Resolution), effective September 1, 2025. In addition, a draft resolution on the pilot implementation of the crypto-asset market (Draft Crypto Pilot Resolution) is expected to introduce a dedicated sandbox for crypto-asset service providers later this year, further underscoring Vietnam’s holistic, forward-looking approach to regulating emerging technologies. Below is a brief summary of all the regulatory sandboxes, who they are open for, and what businesses are attracted. Fintech Sandbox Decree Under the Fintech Sandbox Decree, besides credit institutions and foreign bank branches, fintech companies operating in Vietnam can apply for a Certificate of Sandbox Participation issued by the State Bank of Vietnam to operate any of the following services in Vietnam: Credit scoring: A solution applicable to information technology systems of credit institutions, branches of foreign banks, and fintech
Read More
July 11, 2025
On June 10, 2025, Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court accepted for consideration a pivotal lawsuit concerning the regulatory obligations of administrative agencies over internet-based television broadcasting services, commonly referred to as over-the-top (OTT) services. This court’s decision in the case may set important precedents for how OTT platforms are regulated, especially regarding consumer protections and advertising practices. Background A user of an OTT television application initiated legal action against the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) and related officials, alleging that the lack of clear regulatory criteria and oversight allowed OTT operators to broadcast general television content while compelling users to view advertisements before and during programming. The plaintiff argued this constituted consumer exploitation and claimed that the responsible authorities neglected or delayed their statutory duties under the Act on the Organization to Assign Radio Frequencies and Regulate Broadcasting, Television, and Telecommunications Services B.E. 2553 (2010). Initially, the Central Administrative Court declined to accept the lawsuit. However, on appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court determined that the claim fell within its jurisdiction, noting that OTT television services—defined under section 4 of the governing act—are subject to the same regulatory framework as traditional television services, regardless of the transmission method (frequency, cable, internet, or other system). Implications for OTT Services The key implications for OTT services concern the following issues: Regulatory oversight: The court recognized that OTT television services are explicitly covered under Thailand’s broadcast regulatory regime. Regulatory agencies may be compelled to establish clear operational rules and oversight mechanisms for OTT providers. Consumer protections: The plaintiff’s claim that excessive or unavoidable in-program advertising constitutes consumer exploitation was acknowledged as a matter of public interest. This may prompt stricter advertising standards for OTT platforms. Licensing requirements: The case raises the prospect that OTT operators may be required to obtain licenses from the
Read More