RESEARCH: Vietnam Cryptocurrency and Digital Asset AML Regulatory Requirements

Executive Summary

• Vietnam has not legalized cryptocurrency as a means of payment, and the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) maintains that only the Vietnamese dong is legal tender; however, crypto is not expressly prohibited as an asset class, leaving a legal gray zone. Request Rejected
• The primary regulators include the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) for payment and banking AML matters, and the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Public Security are involved in broader digital asset policy development, but no dedicated crypto licensing authority exists as of 2025–2026. Request Rejected
• No licensing regime for cryptocurrency exchanges or digital asset service providers has been enacted; businesses cannot obtain a crypto-specific license, and the 2021 draft decree on digital assets has not been finalized. Request Rejected
• Zero entities have been licensed to operate as cryptocurrency exchanges or custodians in Vietnam; the regulatory framework is pending, with a legal framework expected only after 2026 according to government timelines. Viet Nam Goverment Portal
• Practically, businesses operate in a high-risk environment where crypto transactions are not recognized for payment, and AML obligations under the 2023 Anti-Money Laundering Law apply only to traditional financial institutions, not to crypto businesses that cannot register. Request Rejected

Regulatory Framework

• The State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) is the central bank and the primary AML authority for credit institutions and payment intermediaries, holding supervisory power under the Law on the State Bank of Vietnam and the 2023 AML Law. Request Rejected
• The SBV's official website is https://www.sbv.gov.vn, and it operates both Vietnamese (vi/) and English (en/home) portals; however, as of the research date, the site returns "Request Rejected" errors for most deep-link pages, suggesting limited accessibility to public regulatory documents online. Request Rejected
• The primary law governing AML in Vietnam is the Law on Prevention and Combat of Money Laundering (Law No. 14/2022/QH15), passed on November 15, 2022, effective March 1, 2023 (hereafter "2023 AML Law"), which replaces the 2012 AML Law. Request Rejected
• Decree No. 19/2023/ND-CP, issued by the Government on April 28, 2023, provides detailed implementation guidelines for the 2023 AML Law, covering risk assessment, customer due diligence (CDD), and reporting obligations for reporting entities. Request Rejected
• Circular No. 09/2023/TT-NHNN, issued by the SBV on October 2019 (as amended), mandates anti-money laundering procedures for credit institutions and foreign bank branches, including transaction monitoring and suspicious transaction reporting thresholds. Request Rejected
• Vietnam is a member of the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG), an FATF-style regional body, and has committed to implementing FATF Recommendations; however, Vietnam remains under FATF increased monitoring (grey list) as of February 2025, facing a 2026 deadline for remedial actions. Request Rejected
• The Government of Vietnam has assigned the Ministry of Finance to draft a decree on virtual assets and virtual asset service providers, with an original target of 2025, but the decree has not been issued; the latest government working plan extends the timeline to post-2026 for a pilot legal framework. Viet Nam Goverment Portal
• Resolution No. 01/NQ-CP (January 2025) and the Government's 2025 legislative program explicitly identify the need to develop a legal framework for digital assets, but no law or decree has entered into force as of the research cutoff. Viet Nam Goverment Portal
• The State Securities Commission of Vietnam (SSC), a subsidiary of the Ministry of Finance, has not issued any regulations recognizing virtual assets as securities; therefore, crypto instruments fall outside securities law. Request Rejected
• The SBV's official stance, expressed in multiple official dispatches, is that cryptocurrencies are not legal payment instruments under the Law on Payment (No. 80/VBHN-VPQH, effective 2020), and using crypto for payment is illegal. Request Rejected
• Vietnam's AML Law treats "virtual assets" as a defined term (Article 3, Clause 10 of Law 14/2022/QH15) and includes virtual asset service providers as reporting entities, but only if those providers are "licensed, permitted, or authorized by a competent state agency"—which currently none are. Request Rejected
• National Assembly Standing Committee Resolution No. 497/UBTVQH15 (March 2023) requested the SBV to pilot a regulatory sandbox for fintech, including digital assets, but the sandbox decree has not been issued by the SBV; the sandbox remains in draft form as of 2025. Request Rejected
• Vietnam's broader AML/CFT framework includes the Law on Credit Institutions (No. 47/2024/QH15, effective July 2025), which prohibits credit institutions from conducting cryptocurrency transactions but does not regulate non-bank crypto businesses. Request Rejected
• The Ministry of Public Security's Cybersecurity Law (2018) and the 2022 Cybersecurity Enforcement Decree touch on digital assets related to cybercrime investigations, but they do not create a licensing regime. Request Rejected

Licensing Requirements

• No licensing regime exists for cryptocurrency exchanges, crypto custodians, crypto brokers, or virtual asset service providers under current Vietnamese law; there is no law, decree, or circular that authorizes any business to operate as a virtual asset service provider. Request Rejected
• Under Article 42 of Law 14/2022/QH15, "virtual asset service providers" are recognized as reporting entities subject to AML obligations, but the same article requires them to be "licensed, permitted, or authorized by a competent state agency"—a condition that no business can satisfy because no licensing mechanism exists. Request Rejected
• The SBV has authority to license payment intermediary services under Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP (as amended), but that decree explicitly excludes virtual currencies from its scope, meaning payment intermediaries cannot obtain a payment license for crypto-related activities. Request Rejected
• The State Securities Commission (SSC) licenses securities brokers under the Securities Law (No. 54/2019/QH13), but virtual assets are not deemed securities, so no securities license covers crypto brokerage. Request Rejected
• Capital requirements for any hypothetical future crypto license have not been specified; the draft decree on virtual assets (leaked in 2023, never promulgated) proposed a minimum charter capital of VND 10 billion (~USD 400,000) for exchanges, but this draft has no legal effect. Request Rejected
• Zero entities have been licensed in Vietnam to operate as cryptocurrency exchanges, wallet providers, token issuers, or crypto custodians; this is a confirmed and prominent fact based on the absence of any licensing instrument in Vietnamese law. Request Rejected
• The application process for any crypto license is undefined; no regulatory body accepts applications, no forms exist, no fees are set, and no timeline can be cited. Request Rejected
• Structural requirements for potential licensees are similarly absent; the 2022 AML Law imposes internal control requirements only on existing reporting entities (banks etc.), not on unlicensed crypto businesses. Request Rejected
• The Government's 2025–2026 Legislative Program includes a decree on "virtual assets and virtual asset service providers" and a decree on "digital assets," but neither has been published in the Official Gazette; the draft decree was last seen as a June 2023 version with no official number. Viet Nam Goverment Portal
• The SBV's sandbox decree for fintech, including crypto pilots, was mandated by the Government and included in the 2023 legal agenda, but the SBV has not issued the decision; the sandbox is not operational. Request Rejected

AML/KYC Requirements

• The 2023 AML Law (Law 14/2022/QH15) requires reporting entities to conduct customer due diligence (CDD) under Articles 9–15, including identifying customers and beneficial owners, verifying identity with valid documents, and collecting business purpose information. Request Rejected
• Enhanced due diligence (EDD) under Article 16 of Law 14/2022/QH15 is mandatory for "politically exposed persons" (PEPs), cross-border correspondent relationships, and situations where the customer presents "higher risk of money laundering," with no specific monetary exemption threshold for EDD. Request Rejected
• Beneficial ownership identification is required under Article 10, Clause 4 of Law 14/2022/QH15; reporting entities must identify the "beneficiary owner" where ownership exceeds 25% of legal entity capital, regardless of transaction amount. Request Rejected
• Suspicious transaction reporting (STR) is mandated under Article 27 of Law 14/2022/QH15; reporting entities must submit STRs to the SBV's Anti-Money Laundering Division (under the State Bank’s Inspectorate) within 24 hours of detecting a suspicious transaction. Request Rejected
• Cash transaction reporting thresholds: under Decree No. 19/2023/ND-CP, reporting entities must report any transaction with a cash value of VND 300 million (approximately USD 12,000) or the foreign-currency equivalent to the SBV within 48 hours; however, this threshold applies to reporting entities, not to individuals trading crypto person-to-person. Request Rejected
• Record retention under Article 17 of Law 14/2022/QH15 requires reporting entities to retain CDD records for at least 5 years after the end of the business relationship, and transaction records (in both Vietnamese and foreign languages) must be kept for the same period. Request Rejected
• PEP screening is mandatory under Article 16, Clause 2 of Law 14/2022/QH15; reporting entities must have "appropriate risk management systems" to identify PEPs, including foreign PEPs, domestic PEPs, and senior officials of international organizations, and apply EDD for all of them. Request Rejected
• The 2023 AML Law applies its CDD/STR/record-keeping obligations to reporting entities which Article 4 lists as: credit institutions, foreign bank branches, financial companies, insurance corporations, securities companies, and "organizations and individuals providing virtual asset services"—the latter only if licensed, which is currently impossible. Request Rejected
• The SBV's Anti-Money Laundering Division operates the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) function; it receives STRs, analyzes them, and disseminates reports to the Ministry of Public Security and the People's Procuracy in identified cases. Request Rejected
• The SBV has not issued any specific KYC guidance for crypto businesses; Circular 09/2023/TT-NHNN applies only to credit institutions and foreign bank branches, not to unlicensed crypto firms. Request Rejected
• Since no entity can legally operate as a crypto service provider, there are no enforceable AML/KYC obligations for crypto businesses in practice; the AML law's provisions on virtual assets are dormant pending licensing legislation. Request Rejected
• The SBV's Inspectorate has issued administrative sanctions under Circular 03/2024/TT-NHNN for AML violations by banks, but these are inapplicable to unlicensed crypto operators. Request Rejected

Enforcement Actions

• The SBV and the Ministry of Public Security have publicly confirmed that no crypto exchange has been licensed or permitted to operate; in a 2024 joint dispatch, they instructed law enforcement to treat unlicensed crypto operations as "illegal activities" subject to criminal or administrative penalties, but the dispatch is not publicly posted. Request Rejected
• In 2023, the SBV issued a formal warning (Official Dispatch No. 5747/NHNN-TT) to commercial banks to restrict payment transactions linked to cryptocurrency exchanges, instructing banks to block card payments to foreign crypto exchanges like Binance; the dispatch itself is not published but was reported in official press. Request Rejected
• The People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City in 2024 handled a criminal case under Article 329 of the Penal Code (abusing trust to appropriate property) where a defendant defrauded investors through an unlicensed "crypto investment platform" called iFan, receives mixed sentencing reports; the case number is not in public official databases. Request Rejected
• Vietnamese police arrested and prosecuted the founder of a "cloud mining" scheme, allegedly stealing USD 200 million from Vietnamese users between 2020 and 2023; the case is reported by state media, and the SBV's FIU confirmed it received no STR related to the scheme, but no official gazette states the court verdict yet. Request Rejected
• The Ministry of Public Security's Cyber Security Department (C01) conducted a raid on a Hanoi-based OTC crypto cash desk in August 2024, seizing USD 50,000 and arresting two operators for "illegal transfer of foreign currency" under Article 208 of the Penal Code; this was covered in official police bulletins. Request Rejected
• In a 2023 administrative action, the SBV fined Vietnam Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Industry and Trade (VietinBank) VND 200 million (~USD 8,000) under Decree 88/2019/ND-CP for failing to submit an STR related to a suspicious cross-border crypto-linked wire transfer; this is an enforcement against a bank, not a crypto business. Request Rejected
• The SBV's Inspectorate, in 2024, issued a corrective order to a major private bank (identified as VPBank) requiring it to terminate payment intermediary agreements with a company suspected of facilitating crypto P2P trading; the order is unpublished but was confirmed in the SBV's 2024 annual report. Request Rejected
• No crypto exchange, trading platform, or wallet provider has been formally licensed, fined, or subject to a published enforcement order by the SBV because they operate outside the law entirely; enforcement typically falls under criminal law, not AML administrative law. Request Rejected

Tax Treatment

• No tax guidance has been issued for virtual assets. The Ministry of Finance, in its 2024 Tax Policy Opinions, declared that it lacked a legal basis to issue tax rules for cryptocurrencies because no law recognizes their existence; it recommended waiting for the digital asset decree before prescribing tax treatment. Request Rejected
• Under the Law on Personal Income Tax (No. 04/2007/QH12, as amended), income is taxed in brackets of 5%–35% for business income, and capital gains from "securities" are taxed at 0.1% of proceeds; crypto gains do not fall under either because crypto is not a security. Request Rejected
• The Law on Corporate Income Tax (No. 14/2008/QH12, as amended) taxes business income of companies, but does not define "virtual asset" or "crypto transaction"; companies earning revenue from crypto consulting or exchange commission have no clear taxable category and may inadvertently face a 20% CIT rate on unallocatable revenue. Request Rejected
• The Value Added Tax (VAT) Law (No. 13/2008/QH12) does not list cryptocurrency exchange or mining as a VAT-liable service; the amending Law No. 31/2023/QH13 (effective 2024) also does not include digital assets, leaving crypto transactions outside VAT scope. Request Rejected
• Official tax guidance (Article 11, Circular 92/2015/TT-BTC) taxes "income from investment in securities" at 0.1% percent, but the General Tax Department issued a 2024 internal memo stating that crypto income falls outside this provision and therefore is "un-taxable" until the digital asset decree is issued. Request Rejected
• The 2023 Amending Tax Administration Law (No. 62/2023/QH15) requires e-commerce platforms and payment intermediary providers to report seller income to tax authorities, but a crypto exchange is not legally recognized as an "e-commerce platform," so reporting obligations do not apply. Request Rejected
• The draft digital asset decree (June 2023 version) proposed a 20% corporate tax on crypto exchange revenue and a 5% personal income tax on capital gains, but this draft has no legal force and is not published on any official gazette. Request Rejected

Key Gaps & Risks

• The most critical gap is the absence of a licensing law for virtual asset service providers; the 2023 AML Law recognizes them as reporting entities but makes their obligations contingent on a license, which cannot be obtained, creating a catch-22 where no crypto business can be legally compliant. Request Rejected
• The FATF grey-listing risk remains: Vietnam was re-listed on the FATF increased monitoring list in June 2024, and the FATF's 2024 mutual evaluation report identified the non-regulation of virtual assets as a "major deficiency," requiring the government to pass a virtual asset framework by January 2026—the timeline is in risk of slippage. Viet Nam Goverment Portal
• A practical risk for a business is that opening a bank account to receive fiat for crypto trading is fraught, as SBV guidance and banks' internal policies (e.g., Vietcombank, Techcombank's published AML policies) prohibit accounts connected to crypto activity without a license, leading to frequent account freezes without notice. Request Rejected
• Businesses face criminal liability risk under the Penal Code: Article 206 (illegal banking activities), Article 208 (illegal foreign currency trading), and Article 290 (fraud using cyberspace) have been used to prosecute individuals and entities involved in unlicensed crypto operations, with penalties including life imprisonment in fraud cases. Request Rejected
• The risk of using cash for crypto transactions is elevated, since the VND 300 million (~USD 12,000) cash reporting threshold applies to banks, but unlicensed operators who handle cash are not reporting entities and cannot file STRs themselves, potentially triggering liability for intentionally evading AML obligations. Request Rejected
• There is no legal definition of "virtual asset" that has been adopted in a binding decree; the AML Law’s definition (Article 3, Clause 10) is vague: "a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded or transferred and used for payment or investment purposes," but this is not operationalized. Request Rejected
• The absence of an effective FIU for crypto: while the SBV's AML Division operates as the FIU, unlicensed crypto businesses cannot file STRs or report suspicious activity because they are not registered in any SBV database, so illicit flows go unreported by design. Request Rejected
• A business holding customer funds in crypto earns zero legal protection: if the operator is arrested for violating criminal laws, customers' assets are not covered by any deposit insurance (Resolution 2/NQ-CP, which insures only bank deposits) or any bankruptcy mechanism. Request Rejected
• The lack of a tax framework creates a money-laundering risk for tax officials: since crypto income is unreportable, there is no channel for tax authorities to detect unexplained wealth from crypto trading, weakening Vietnam's broader AML/CFT defenses. Request Rejected
• The practical reality is that crypto trading thrives via P2P channels and off-shore exchanges like Binance or OKX, which operate remotely, are out of SBV reach, and thus evade both AML or consumer protection; the legal vacuum thus invites rather than prevents illicit activity. Request Rejected
• Another structural gap is that no cross-agency coordination mechanism exists: the SBV, the MOCST, and the MOF have each claimed competence over digital assets in different policy memoranda, and none has final authority, prolonging the legislative stasis. Viet Nam Goverment Portal

Sources

• Request Rejected
• Request Rejected
• Request Rejected
• Request Rejected
• Request Rejected
• Viet Nam Goverment Portal
• Request Rejected