Vietnam’s biometric facial recognition requirement and the subsequent loss of over 86 million bank accounts closures has come down on the aggressive side of the bank account policy which has created divided opinions on the level of state intervention and financial freedom. The policy came into effect on September 1, 2025, the policy’s center focus is on Fighting Bank Fraud and Money Laundering. It has drawn ire from bitcoin and cyber currency advocates who see these policies as repressive, harking on the absolute need of putting control over finance as well as money systems due to the fraud and fraud digital age. The policy adds to the already existing paradox between control of the state and the autonomy of an individual. The control vs autonomy paradox is becoming stronger and stronger. The screenshots of the centralized accounts and the over million yet to be verified accounts, that complete the account closure policy, shed light on the rest of the account policy.
The Biometric Mandate and Its Impact
The new requirements by State Bank of Vietnam must all account holders to perform biometric facial recognition along with extra verification for online transactions of more than 10 million Vietnamese dong (about $379). Since September, non-compliant accounts, which are over 86 million, became subject to closure which captures a considerable share of the 200 million bank accounts across the country. The policy is a response to the increasing frauds which is the result of Generative AIs and advanced spoofing techniques. The most significant incident was the case of the May 2025 AI money laundering attack which used fake facial pictures to fraudulently obtain around 1 trillion Vietnamese dong (39 million USD).
Although the Center Bank of Vietnam has defended the policy as a security measure, a number of accounts claim that it has resulted in unnecessary obstacles, particularly for inactive accounts and foreign residents. A former foreign contractor, for example, expressed his frustration with attending an HSBC biometric verification appointment outside of Vietnam, which was the only remote verification available. The absence of non-resident verification exemplifies the policy’s logistical complexities, and has given more fuel to the criticism that non-residential policies adopted by the Center Bank result in excessive interference to people’s access and control over half of their personal finances.
Bitcoin Advocacy Gains Momentum
Supporters of Bitcoin have pointed to Vietnam’s recent actions to underscore the currency’s potential to escape governmental overreach. As in the case of Marty Bent, the closure of accounts hovering over almost everybody—possibly making the accounts unrecoverable by September 30 and after—proves the necessity of a fence-free financial system. Although it is far from certain whether the funds will be irrecoverably lost, Bent pointed to Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela, Cyprus, Nigeria, and even India as more than sufficient capital control to make the argument. These Bent thinks are the reasons Bitcoin should exist to give people more financial autonomy.
Bitcoin environmentalist Daniel Batten wholeheartedly agreed with and added to these conclusions, now stating the biometric requirement fuels the central banks in Vietnam with very sophisticated financial monitoring tools. By mandating the face tracking system, the policy provides surveillance of financial transactions, pooling data into a system of unprecedented granularity. These information Batten and his peer supports provide to Bitcoin as the mechanism to protect people from the central banks as well as provide people with the fence-less financial system.
Balancing Security and Accessibility
The advancement of generative artificial intelligence and intricate techniques for deceitful conduct, for example, evading liveness detection, tend to be the motivating factors for Vietnam’s adoption of biometric verification. Measures to Vietnam’s biometric verification system, as described by The State Bank of Vietnam, are safeguards for the Vietnam financial system, especially after the highly publicized $39 million laundering case. On the other hand, there are some critics who say the policy is prejudiced against some, such as foreign nationals and dormant account holders. As advanced by a Vietnam-based crypto executive, impact of the new policy on the local population is negligible. Most of the local residents have adapted to the new system. However, as pointed out by AICEAN’s Chief Marketing Officer, the absence of remotely accessible verification systems is a considerable hurdle for foreign nationals, especially those residing overseas.
The Broader Implications
It's true that the Vietnam biometric banking has an implication of a country wide trend on a global scale of improving digital security in banking systems. On the contrary, there are also concerns about privacy, accessibility, and financial inclusion. The closure of millions of accounts illustrates the fundamental flaws in the centralized financial system, in which compliance failures result in the inability of access to one's funds. On the other hand, proponents of Bitcoin argue that such systems illustrates the necessity and usefulness of Bitcoin as an uncentralized monetary system which gives an individual the ability to access and control their funds without the need of a third party or an intrusive verification system.
During this period of digital transformation, Vietnam continues to grapple with the biometric banking policy's security versus individual autonomy conundrum. The biometric policy's primary purpose of minimizing fraud opens the door to traditional banking system weaknesses. The other extreme of the Bitcoin argument is that it is systemically unobstructed by any government restrictions and is configured to establish financial autonomy in a borderless, high surveillance state.