Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Bank accounts being deleted due to no digital ID
Executive summary
Vietnam’s State Bank-led “data-cleansing” tied to Project 06 prompted banks and regulators to disable or remove a very large number of bank accounts—commonly reported as “over 86 million” out of roughly 200 million total accounts—because those accounts were inactive or lacked biometric verification under new digital-ID rules [1] [2] [3]. Reporting frames the move as a compliance and fraud-prevention drive, but observers warn of broad social effects on the elderly, expatriates, small merchants, and people without ready access to biometric tools [1] [4] [3].
1. What happened: a large-scale cleanup tied to a national digital ID push
Vietnam launched Project 06 to build a unified population database and digital ID system; regulators and banks then reviewed accounts and began locking, freezing, or deleting accounts that were inactive or not biometrically linked, with many outlets and analysts saying the action affected "more than 86 million" accounts and left around 113 million active accounts from an earlier ~200 million total [1] [2] [3].
2. Official rationale: fraud reduction and compliance
Vietnamese authorities and state-aligned reporting describe the measure as a “system clean-up” intended to prevent high-tech crimes, curb fraud and money laundering, and bring banking records into alignment with chip-based ID cards and the VNeID app; banks were reported to have verified about 117 million customer records by mid‑2025 through biometric means [1] [5].
3. How it was implemented: biometric KYC and deadlines
Regulatory changes and bank actions expanded biometric e‑KYC requirements to both personal and, from July 1, 2025, corporate accounts; banks reportedly cross‑checked accounts against the national database and restricted online/QR/digital payments for unverified accounts, leading to mass freezes or deletions scheduled from September 1, 2025 [1] [4].
4. Scale and reporting differences: consistent headline, varying detail
Multiple independent and industry sources repeatedly cite “over 86 million” accounts affected; outlets differ on whether accounts were frozen, deleted, or closed and whether the action was immediate or staged—some describe immediate deletions while others emphasize staged freezes and customer-remediation channels [2] [6] [7].
5. Who is likely to be hurt: vulnerable groups and practical barriers
Analysts warn that algorithmic errors and one-size-fits-all enforcement disproportionately harm elderly people, small merchants, foreigners, and citizens living abroad who cannot complete biometric updates easily; reporting from observers says queues and branch visits were common as people tried to comply [4] [3] [8].
6. Counter-arguments and government framing
Proponents — including bank and regulator statements quoted in reporting — argue the action cleans up dormant/fraud-prone accounts, improves financial integrity, and is necessary to enable a secure cashless economy; official figures cited show substantial prior biometric verification progress (about 117 million records verified) to justify the campaign [1] [5].
7. International and political framing: liberty vs. security debate
Commentators link Vietnam’s move to a broader debate about digital IDs and state control of finance: some outlets and analysts portray the measure as an intensification of state power and centralized control over money, while others treat it as a technical compliance reform in line with global AML/CFT trends [9] [4] [2].
8. Quality of available reporting and open questions
Available sources agree on broad contours (Project 06, biometric KYC, ~86 million accounts), but differ on precise legal mechanisms (freeze vs delete), the timeline for remediation, metrics for “inactive” accounts, and how many account-holders permanently lost access; therefore readers should note reporting variations and that granular, official post‑action audits are not uniformly presented in the sources reviewed [1] [2] [3].
9. Practical advice and likely next steps
Reporting indicates banks implemented hotlines, branch processes and in‑person biometric updates to restore access for many customers; observers expect continued rhetoric around data governance and proposals to criminalize account rental as part of complementary measures [1] [5]. Available sources do not mention consolidated, independent post‑action audits quantifying permanent loss of funds or successful restorations.
10. Bottom line for readers
This episode illustrates a high‑impact enforcement of digital‑ID requirements: authorities and banks present it as fraud prevention after extensive biometric onboarding, while critics caution about exclusion and state control; both frames are present in current reporting, and precise outcomes for affected individuals remain incompletely documented in the available sources [1] [4] [2].