What are the penalties for not having a digital ID in Vietnam?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the analyses provided, Vietnam has implemented strict penalties for non-compliance with biometric verification requirements, which effectively function as penalties for not having proper digital identification. The most significant penalty is the mass deactivation of over 86 million bank accounts that failed to comply with the new biometric data requirements [1].
The penalties follow a graduated enforcement timeline. Starting January 1, 2025, unverified accounts faced transaction restrictions, and full deactivation began on September 1, 2025 [1]. Account holders without proper biometric verification cannot log in, transfer funds, or use digital services until verification is completed [1]. This creates a de facto penalty of complete financial exclusion for those who fail to comply with the digital ID requirements.
For high-value online transactions and corporate customers, biometric verification has become compulsory, with legal representatives of corporate accounts required to register their biometric data by July 1, 2025 [2]. Customers who fail to meet this requirement are restricted to in-person transactions only [2], creating significant operational limitations.
The enforcement has been particularly harsh, with sources indicating that users who don't comply with biometric verification by the deadline will lose access to their money [3]. This represents a complete financial lockout rather than a traditional fine or fee-based penalty system.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The analyses reveal several important contextual factors that highlight the complexity of Vietnam's digital ID enforcement. Foreign residents and those with dormant accounts face particular risks of exclusion [3], suggesting that the penalties disproportionately affect certain populations. One documented case shows a user who had to fly back to Vietnam specifically to prevent their account from closing [3] [4], illustrating the extreme measures some individuals must take to avoid penalties.
The sources indicate that there are different levels of digital ID requirements, with references to a "Level 2 e-ID" being necessary for certain activities, such as acting as a legal representative for an enterprise in Vietnam [5]. This suggests a tiered system of digital identification rather than a simple binary requirement, though the specific penalties for different compliance levels are not clearly detailed in the analyses.
An important missing perspective is the government's rationale for these measures. While the sources focus on the enforcement and its impacts, they don't provide substantial information about Vietnam's stated objectives for implementing such strict biometric requirements or how officials justify the mass account deactivations.
The analyses also lack information about appeal processes or remediation options for those affected by account deactivations, leaving unclear whether there are pathways for individuals to regain access to their funds beyond completing biometric verification.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question asking about "penalties for not having a digital ID in Vietnam" may inadvertently frame the issue in a way that doesn't capture the full scope of Vietnam's enforcement approach. The question implies traditional penalty structures (fines, legal consequences), but the reality appears to be systemic exclusion from financial services rather than conventional penalties.
The framing could also be seen as potentially minimizing the severity of the situation. Rather than simple "penalties," what's occurring is the wholesale deactivation of millions of bank accounts, which represents a much more dramatic form of enforcement than the term "penalties" might suggest.
However, the question itself doesn't contain obvious misinformation - it's seeking factual information about a legitimate policy concern. The bias may lie in the incomplete picture presented by focusing solely on penalties rather than the broader context of Vietnam's mandatory biometric identification system and its implementation challenges.
The sources consistently report the same core facts about account deactivations and biometric requirements, suggesting the information is reliable, though they lack comprehensive coverage of the government's perspective or long-term policy objectives behind these measures.