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 2, 2024

With Illicit Personal Data Trading on the Rise, Vietnam Seeks Solutions

Subscribe to Updates

The pervasive global issue of illicit personal data trading has extended its reach into Vietnam, where such sensitive information is being sold at minimal costs. A 2023 report from the Ministry of Public Security revealed that over two-thirds of the Vietnamese population has fallen victim to unlawful data collection and distribution. In the past two years, authorities have pressed charges on five criminal cases involving the buying and selling of billions of items of personal data, encompassing a wide range of sensitive information such as names, phone numbers, email addresses, and more. Notably, a person’s profile can be acquired for just USD 1, while profiles of millions of business customers can be obtained for a mere USD 100.

Recognizing the severity of the problem, Vietnam has made serious efforts to combat illicit personal data trading by criminal means, encompassing both the legal framework and practical implementation.

 

Understanding the Criminal Legal Framework

Vietnam’s 2015 Criminal Code, as amended in 2017, functions as a pivotal legal instrument delineating offenses and their corresponding punishments. Under Section 2 of Chapter XXI of the Criminal Code (“Offenses Against Regulations on Information Technology and Telecommunications Networks”), individuals engaging in the illicit trading of personal data, depending on the nature of the data (e.g., information about phone number, address, or—more dangerously—bank account) and the nature of the infringing acts, may be charged under different crimes. The sanctions can include monetary fines; non-custodial reform; imprisonment; and/or prohibition from holding certain positions, practicing certain professions, or doing certain jobs.

For example, for the illicit trade of private information of an individual on a computer or telecommunications network, Article 288 of the Criminal Code specifies penalties including a monetary fine of up to VND 1 billion (equivalent to around USD 41,000); non-custodial reform of up to three years; imprisonment of up to seven years; and/or prohibition from holding certain positions, practicing certain professions, or doing certain jobs for up to five years.

In the eyes of some scholars and practitioners, these sanctions are an insufficient deterrent, as personal data is deemed highly sensitive and has the potential to substantially affect the individuals involved, as well as pose broader risks to security and public order. However, others would argue that these penalties are relatively harsh in Vietnam, where the average worker makes less than USD 4,000 per year, and could prove to be effective if they are widely and consistently applied in practice.,

 

Handling of Criminal Cases in Practice

In a recent case settled by the People’s Court of Hai Duong Province in December 2022, Mr. K (the offender) collected and distributed 3,848 files containing customers’ data from two financial companies in Vietnam. The total amount Mr. K gained from selling personal information was VND 458,952,000 (approx. USD 18,825).

Considering that Mr. K had full legal capacity for criminal liability and was clearly aware that his act was a violation of criminal law, but still intentionally committed it for personal gain, the People’s Court of Hai Duong Province applied Article 288 of the Criminal Code and ruled that Mr. K was subject to:

  • A suspended sentence of 24 months, with a probation period of 48 months from the date of first-instance decision;
  • A fine of VND 100 million (USD 4,100) to be paid to the state budget;
  • Confiscation of the illicit profits of VND 458,952,000 (USD 18,825) he obtained to be remitted to the state budget; and
  • Confiscation and sale of the exhibits used to commit a crime, comprising one computer desk, one computer hard drive, one USB drive, and one mobile phone, to be remitted to the state budget.

In another case settled by the People’s Court of Hanoi in March 2023, multiple offenders were involved, including, among others, a former police officer, the deputy head of the security department of a network infrastructure company, and an officer of the social insurance authority. The proceeds obtained by each offender from illicit trading of personal data ranged from VND 140 million (USD 5,750) to about VND 500 million (USD 20,550).

After examining all the case facts, the People’s Court of Hanoi imposed penalties ranging from a 20-month suspended sentence to six years of imprisonment, depending on the severity of the crime committed by each offender.

 

Outlook

The buying and selling of personal data in Vietnam remains a significant and growing concern, though the authorities have handled such violations quite severely, as reflected in the case examples above.

In November 2023, the Minister of Public Security, when questioned about the alarming situation of illicit trade of personal data, expressed his deep concern over the prevailing issues of exposure, leakage, and trading of personal information in Vietnam. The minister even proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to incorporate offenses related to disclosing, leaking, buying, and selling personal data, with the aim of enforcing strict penalties for these actions.

It is anticipated that with more stringent regulations and thorough measures in place to be enacted, unauthorized data trading will be effectively curtailed.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More