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.
Fact check: Did the state Bank of Vietnam close 86 million bank accounts as part of a process towards mandatory biometric verification?
Executive Summary
Vietnam’s central bank began enforcing new biometric verification rules in 2025 and multiple reports state that roughly 86 million inactive or unverified bank accounts were closed or deactivated as part of that enforcement drive; the figure appears repeatedly across contemporaneous reporting and joint summaries from the State Bank of Vietnam [1] [2] [3]. Coverage differs on precise phrasing—some outlets describe accounts as “closed,” others as “deactivated” or “untouched” pending verification—but the core fact reported across sources is that a large-scale sweep tied to mandatory biometric ID rules affected tens of millions of accounts by September 2025 [4] [1].
1. Big Numbers, Big Change: What the 86 Million Figure Actually Means
Multiple analyses and reports converge on the figure of 86 million accounts targeted in the enforcement push, with the State Bank of Vietnam framing the action as closure or deactivation of inactive and unverified accounts under new biometric requirements. Reports published in June through September 2025 present the number as part of a nationwide effort to standardize payment systems and promote a cashless economy; one report frames the move as closing inactive accounts by September 2025, another describes deactivation in a “fraud crackdown” linked to biometric linkage [3] [2]. The repeated appearance of 86 million across sources indicates a consistent official or widely cited estimate, though wording differs by outlet.
2. What the Rules Required: Mandatory Biometrics and Transaction Limits
The policy at issue linked account activity to biometric verification—facial recognition or fingerprints—connected to a government database and set authentication thresholds for higher-value transactions, with some reports specifying that transactions above defined limits must use biometric authentication. Sources state that the biometric mandate aimed to reduce fraud and align accounts with a national digital ID push, and that accounts failing verification or remaining inactive faced permanent closure or deactivation by September 2025 [1] [4]. The enforcement applied to unverified accounts broadly, not solely to active customers, which explains the large number cited.
3. Divergent Language: “Closed,” “Deactivated,” and “Untouched” Accounts
Coverage uses varying terminology—“closed,” “deactivated,” and “untouched”—which affects public perception. Some pieces report permanent closure of unverified accounts from September 2025 onward, while others use softer phrasing like deactivation pending verification or closure of dormant accounts. This variation reflects differences in reporting and possible distinctions in policy: some accounts labeled inactive were administratively closed, while others may be suspended pending further action [5] [6] [4]. The semantic difference matters legally and for account holders’ remedies, but the sources uniformly indicate widespread enforcement tied to biometric requirements.
4. Scale and Context: How 86 Million Fits into Vietnam’s Banking Landscape
Reports place the 86 million figure against an estimated total of roughly 200 million bank accounts in Vietnam, indicating that the sweep affected a substantial share of accounts, including many inactive or redundant ones. Sources note that after verification drives, only about 113 million personal accounts and roughly 711,000 organizational accounts were classed as active—figures presented by the State Bank of Vietnam in June 2025 [3]. That context shows the move was not an arbitrary purge but part of a broader normalization of account records under a cashless-payments and digital ID agenda.
5. Financial Inclusion and Pushback: Reported Reactions and Concerns
Coverage highlights debates about financial inclusion and access, with critics and analysts warning that closing or deactivating large numbers of accounts could disenfranchise people lacking easy access to biometric registration or causing friction for low-frequency account users. Some reports frame the policy as prompting interest in alternatives such as cryptocurrencies for those marginalised by the verification process [1]. Sources indicate both regulatory intent to curb fraud and civil-society concerns about exclusion, though the official line emphasized system integrity and modernization.
6. Timelines and Enforcement: When Actions Took Place
Sources cluster around mid-2025 for policy announcements and June–September 2025 for active enforcement, with public statements and media coverage in June indicating plans to close inactive accounts by September and later September reporting deactivations in process. Differences in publication dates correlate with evolving implementation: initial regulatory deadlines were reported in June, and by late September media described the operational phase leading to account closures or deactivations [3] [4] [1]. This timeline suggests the 86 million figure was both a planned target and an outcome as enforcement rolled out.
7. Reliability Assessment and What’s Missing from Coverage
The repeated figure across multiple contemporaneous sources strengthens credibility, but reporting inconsistencies—closed vs deactivated, precise legal remedies, exceptions for certain account types—indicate gaps. Some analyses do not corroborate the number or lack specifics on methodology for counting accounts [5] [7]. Missing elements include granular data on appeals, how many account holders completed verification, and official breakdowns by account type, which would clarify long-term impact and whether closures were administrative housekeeping or punitive enforcement.