Did Vietnam close 86 million bank accounts or is that number inaccurate?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Vietnam’s central bank and reporting outlets say the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) moved to deactivate or “clean up” more than 86 million bank accounts this year as part of biometric verification and anti‑fraud measures; the country has roughly 200 million accounts and about 113 million personal accounts remained active after verification, according to SBV figures reported in multiple outlets [1] [2]. International coverage frames the action as part of Project 06 and a wider push to make digital payments safer and cashless, while critics warn of financial exclusion and surveillance risks [3] [4].
1. What the official numbers say — a mass “cleanup,” not a secret purge
Vietnamese government and banking sources described the action as a system “data‑cleansing” to remove unverified or inactive accounts: the SBV and local press reported that “over 86 million” accounts were to be terminated or deactivated under rules requiring biometric updates, part of a plan addressing roughly 200 million total accounts [1] [5]. Multiple outlets repeat SBV statements that after verification 113 million personal accounts and some 711,000 organizational accounts remained active, implying the 86 million figure comes from the difference between registered and verified accounts [2] [1].
2. Why authorities gave for the move — anti‑fraud and cashless policy
The SBV framed the closures as necessary to prevent scams, strengthen compliance with anti‑money‑laundering and cybersecurity standards, and support Vietnam’s push to a cashless economy. Officials linked the measure to increasing noncash transaction volumes and ongoing efforts (Cashless Day, Project 06) to integrate biometric identity into payment systems [5] [2] [3].
3. How reporters and commentators interpreted the same facts differently
Mainstream and fintech outlets describe this as administrative housekeeping and regulatory enforcement [1] [2]. Crypto and privacy commentators portray the same numbers as evidence of coercive centralization or “biometric purge,” warning of surveillance and urging alternatives such as bitcoin; these pieces amplify anecdotal reports of users forced to travel to verify accounts and of hardships for rural or elderly customers [6] [7] [8].
4. The Project 06 context — a technical program with political stakes
Sources link the account removals to Project 06, Vietnam’s multi‑year program to build a unified digital identity and electronic authentication framework. Reporting notes Project 06’s goal to integrate population data, ID cards and biometric authentication by 2025–2030; outlets say the SBV’s moves are an implementation step in that larger scheme [3] [4].
5. What “closing” or “deactivating” means in practice — impacts differ by account status
Available reporting indicates many accounts were deemed inactive or lacked updated biometric information and were therefore deactivated or restricted for digital channels; some coverage says transaction limits were applied earlier in the year and full deletion or permanent closure was scheduled for those who did not comply by deadlines [3] [5]. Reports cite concrete harms: disruption to remittances, extra burdens for expatriates, and obstacles for the elderly and rural populations who have lower access to biometric enrollment [9] [8].
6. How certain is the “86 million” figure? — widespread but derived, not independently audited
Multiple outlets repeat “over 86 million” and present SBV‑linked figures [1] [2] [9]. But the number appears to be an aggregate from the SBV’s verification exercise (total accounts minus accounts confirmed active), not evidence of a single overnight seizure of funds announced in detail by an independent audit. Independent verification beyond SBV statements and media repetition is not present in the provided reporting [1] [2].
7. Competing narratives and implicit agendas to note
Pro‑regulatory accounts emphasize fraud prevention and modernization [5] [2]. Crypto and privacy outlets frame the same actions as proof of state overreach and a reason to adopt decentralized money, occasionally connecting the events to broader conspiratorial frameworks (World Economic Forum references appear in partisan commentary) — readers should note those outlets’ advocacy positions when weighing claims [10] [7] [6].
8. Bottom line for your original question
Available reporting shows the 86 million number is not fabricated; it is the widely cited figure used by the SBV and many media outlets to describe the scale of accounts deactivated or targeted for closure during the biometric verification drive [1] [2]. What the sources do not establish conclusively in the materials provided is the precise legal status of every affected account (temporary restriction vs permanent deletion) or an independent audit of how many account holders lost immediate access to funds — those details are not found in current reporting [1] [9].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the supplied set of reports; the documents largely repeat SBV figures and commentary and include advocacy pieces with strong editorial slants. Where sources disagree, I flagged competing interpretations and noted which claims come from government statements versus crypto/advocacy outlets [5] [6] [10].