Vietnam has closed 86 million bank accounts for refusing digital ID
This fact-check may be outdated.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
The claim that Vietnam has closed 86 million bank accounts for refusing digital ID is strongly supported by multiple independent sources. The State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) has indeed deactivated over 86 million bank accounts as part of a comprehensive national push for biometric verification and digital identification compliance [1] [2].
The closures are specifically tied to Vietnam's mandatory facial biometric identification system, which requires account holders to undergo biometric authentication to maintain access to their banking services [1]. This represents a sweeping crackdown on accounts that fail to comply with the new digital verification requirements, affecting tens of millions of Vietnamese citizens and businesses.
The policy implementation appears to be part of a broader digitization strategy within Vietnam's banking sector. Sources indicate that Vietnamese banks are embracing artificial intelligence and digital transformation initiatives, which includes shutting down physical branches while simultaneously implementing stricter digital verification protocols [3]. This technological shift extends beyond individual accounts to corporate entities, with Vietnam requiring corporate e-ID for digital procedures starting from July 1, 2025 [4].
The biometric verification mandate represents a significant expansion of Vietnam's digital identification infrastructure. The country has been actively promoting biometric technology growth, with international companies like HID exploring opportunities in Vietnam's expanding biometric market [5]. This suggests the account closures are part of a systematic government effort to establish comprehensive digital identity verification across the financial sector.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original statement lacks crucial context about the timeline and implementation process of these closures. While the sources confirm the 86 million figure, they don't specify whether these accounts were closed immediately or if account holders were given opportunities to comply with the biometric requirements before closure.
Financial freedom advocates, particularly within the cryptocurrency community, have seized upon this development as evidence supporting Bitcoin adoption. Bitcoin advocates are citing Vietnam's biometric mandate as a compelling reason to hold Bitcoin for financial freedom and security, positioning cryptocurrency as an alternative to government-controlled banking systems [6]. This perspective frames the account closures not merely as a compliance issue, but as a fundamental threat to financial autonomy.
The sources also fail to address the practical implications for affected account holders. There's no information about whether individuals can reopen accounts after completing biometric verification, what happens to funds in closed accounts, or how this policy affects Vietnam's large unbanked population who may lack access to biometric registration facilities.
Additionally, the international context is missing. The sources don't compare Vietnam's approach to similar digital ID initiatives in other countries or discuss whether this represents a regional trend in Southeast Asia. The potential economic impact on Vietnam's financial sector and consumer confidence also remains unexplored.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
While the core claim is factually accurate, the original statement contains subtle bias through omission. By stating accounts were closed "for refusing digital ID," it implies active resistance or defiance by account holders, when the reality may be more complex. Some account holders might have been unable to comply due to technical barriers, lack of access to biometric registration facilities, or insufficient awareness of the requirements.
The statement also lacks temporal context, presenting the closures as a completed action without indicating whether this is an ongoing process or if account holders have opportunities for remediation. This framing could mislead readers into believing the closures are permanent and irreversible.
Cryptocurrency-focused sources [6] may have inherent bias in their reporting, as they benefit from narratives that promote Bitcoin adoption as an alternative to traditional banking. Their framing of the closures as evidence for cryptocurrency necessity should be viewed with appropriate skepticism.
The absence of government perspective or official statements from Vietnamese banking authorities represents another potential bias. The sources primarily present the closures from external viewpoints without including official justifications, implementation details, or government responses to criticism. This one-sided reporting could contribute to incomplete understanding of the policy's rationale and execution.