Regulations on digital wallets in Vietnam

Digital wallets are an important tool for the development of e-commerce and fintech industries. The State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) has issued certain regulations on digitial wallets. However, these regulations seem to be inadequate.

Under Decree 101/2012, a digital wallet is regarded as a payment intermediary service (dịch vụ trung gian thanh toán) whereby the wallet user is issued a digital account associated with an electronic media (e.g., a mobile phone) and containing a monetary value. The monetary value in a digital wallet is secured by monies transferred from the user’s bank account to the wallet service provider’s account. User can only inject and withdraw cash from a digital wallet through the user’s account. Monies in the wallet service provider’s account can only be used to pay for goods or service providers or to return to the wallet user. The Law on Anti-money Laundering 2012 requires a digital wallet service provider as a financial institution with new technology to meet face-to-face with its clients when the clients first make a transaction with the service provider.

In light of the above regulations,

An user without a bank account cannot have a digital wallet in Vietnam. This could hinder the growth of digital wallet.
Direct money transfers between two digital wallets are not permitted. In practice, the SBV is allowing certain digital wallets to conduct direct monies transfer on a pilot basis.
An user cannot withdraw cash or inject cash directly to his/her digital wallet. This must be done via a bank account.
Monies in a digital wallet may not be used as security for lending.
A digital wallet provider is required to meet face to face with its customer whenever a wallet is issued.

5 September 2018 - Update to reflect the requirements under Anti-money laundering regulations.

Info

Comment

Vietnamese regulator’s imposing prohibition on cryptocurrency activities

Under a recent announcement in Official Letter No. 4486/UBCK-GSDC dated 20 July 2018, the State Securities Commission of Vietnam (SSC) requires public companies, securities companies, asset management companies, and securities investment funds (quỹ đầu tư chứng khoán) (i) not to conduct any illegal offering, transaction or transaction brokerage relating to virtual money (tiền ảo) which should include cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and to (ii) adhere to the legal regulations on anti-money laundering.

The above official letter was based on Directive 10/CT-TTg of the Prime Minister dated 11 April 2018. Both of them once again confirm the view of Vietnamese government on virtual money that was stated by the State Bank of Vietnam in its press release dated 27 February 2014 about Bitcoin in Vietnam:

(a) virtual money is not currency; and

(b) virtual money is not a legal tender.

Transfer of loan commitments between banks in Vietnam

Vietnamese banking regulations do not have clear mechanics for transfer of loan commitments between banks or credit institutions in Vietnam. In particular:

Under Circular 9/2015 of the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) on loan transfer, loan transfer is defined to mean the transfer of “the right to collect loan” arising from the lending operation by a bank (the Original Bank) to a loan purchaser, which may or may not be a bank. The definition of loan under Circular 9/2015 does not include loan commitment where a bank only commits to lend to a borrower but has not actually disbursed the loan. Accordingly, all the loan transfer mechanics under Circular 9/2015 do not directly apply to transfer of loan commitment.
One way for banks to overcome the lack of regulations on transfer of loan commitment is for the Original Bank to actually disburse the loan and then transfer such loan to another bank (New Bank) in accordance with Circular 9/2015. However, under Circular 9/2015, if the loan purchaser is a bank, then the SBV requires the New Bank to have a loan purchase license. Not all banks in Vietnam are granted a loan trading licence by the SBV.
Under the lending regulations (Circular 39/2016), a loan commitment could be understood to be an undertaking by a bank to handover to the client an amount of money to use. Therefore, it appears that a loan commitment is regarded as an obligation to lend by a bank (which, of course, is usually conditional on the borrower’s satisfying certain conditions precedent). Therefore, transfer of a loan commitment is regarded as a transfer of obligation and will require the consent of the borrower. Borrower’s consent is usually not a problem since any proper loan agreement will include a transfer clause which allows the bank to transfer any of its rights and obligations under the loan agreement to a third party.

New guidance on expedited proceedings for disputes arising from handling of non-performing loans in Vietnam

On 15 May 2018, the Supreme Court issued Resolution 3 on expedited proceedings for disputes arising from handling of non-performing loans (NPL) and security assets of NPL (Resolution 3). Resolution 3 is an implementing legislation of Resolution 42 of the National Assembly on NPLs (Resolution 42). Resolution 3 takes effect from 1 July 2018 and will expire when Resolution 42 expires in August 2022. Resolution 3 will apply to claims (1) accepted for hearing by the courts before 1 July 2018 but have not been brought to trial; and (2) accepted during its term but still in process when it expires. Resolution 3 cannot be based on to protest against effective judgment under retrial and cassation.

Resolution 42 allows disputes relating to security asset of an NPL to be conducted under expedited proceedings. Resolution 3 further clarifies that:

Disputes on obligations to hand-over security assets of an NPL is clarified to be dispute relating to the case where the securing party or the party holding the security asset (1) does not hand-over the security asset, or (2) does not hand-over correctly according to the request of the secured party or the party having right to enforce the security asset; and
Dispute on right to enforce security asset of NPL is clarified to be dispute on the determination of person having right to enforce the security asset of an NPL.

Vietnam Business Law