From the Government's Resolution: The Law on Anti-money Laundering is moving to a new stage

Just over three years after the Law on on Anti-money Laundering (AML) 2022 came into effect, the Government issued Resolution No. 66.23/2026/NQ-CP[1] to remove difficulties arising in the process of implementing AML regulations to meet the urgent requirements of implementing international commitments related to information exchange according to tax requirements. The application period of the Resolution is not long[2], but the policy implications of this document may go far beyond the transition period it governs.

If you look at the whole, it can be seen that Vietnam's AML Law is shifting in three major directions. 

The content of Resolution No. 66.23/2026/NQ-CP is different, not only handling technical issues in the implementation of the Law on AML 2022 but also reflecting quite clearly the direction of improving Vietnam's laws in the coming years. What is of interest is not how many regulations the Resolution has amended, but rather what approach the State is moving towards in managing money laundering risks.

Vietnam's AML Law shifts in three major directions

If you look at the whole, it can be seen that Vietnam's AML Law is shifting in three major directions. First, the focus of management no longer stops at controlling each transaction but shifts to transparency who actually controls the flow of money and assets. Second, customer recognition will no longer be a one-time procedure but a continuous monitoring process throughout the business relationship. And finally, compliance will increasingly be assessed through the risk management capacity of the enterprise rather than the completion of administrative procedures.

The first two shifts will have a direct impact on how businesses organize compliance activities in the coming time.

Beneficial owner transparency will become the focus

The most notable point of the Resolution is the amendment of regulations related to  beneficial owners. This is not only a change in terminology but also reflects a change in the objects that the law wants to control.

For many years, AML activities have mainly focused on identifying the person who is directly in the name of the transaction or the person who owns the property on paper. However, along with the development of cross-border investment models and complex ownership structures, the person in name is not always the one who decides the use of the asset or the ultimate beneficiary of the transaction.

Therefore, international standards in the field of AML increasingly consider the identification of the person who is actually in control as a more important requirement than the identification of the person in question. Resolution No. 66.23/2026/NQ-CP also goes in this direction by amending the concept of beneficial owners in the direction of emphasizing actual control, while adding provisions on information collection and retention for legal agreements in the form of trusts and structures of a similar nature.

From a management perspective, this is a significant shift. The regulator will no longer only be interested in declaring who is a shareholder or capital contributor, but will increasingly focus on determining who has the final decision on the operation of the enterprise.

This trend is likely not to stop within the scope of the AML Law. As the requirement for transparency on beneficial owners is strengthened, other areas of law such as enterprises, investments, securities or business registration may also continue to be adjusted in the direction of a clearer disclosure requirement for final control.

For businesses, especially foreign-invested enterprises, investment funds or corporations with multi-tiered ownership structures, this change will have a direct impact on capital raising and M&A activities. clarify the entire chain of ownership, voting rights, the right to appoint managers and the actual control mechanisms.

Therefore, transparency of beneficial owners will gradually become a criterion of good corporate governance, rather than just an obligation arising from the AML Law.

Customer recognition will become an ongoing process

Another important change of the Resolution lies in the approach to Know Your Customer (KYC) activities.

In fact, many businesses still consider KYC to be a procedure that is carried out at the beginning of establishing a relationship with a customer. After completing the initial dossier, the information is usually only updated when a large transaction arises or when the enterprise actively reviews the dossier.

Resolution No. 66.23/2026/NQ-CP shows that this approach will change. According to the new regulations, customers must be classified according to the level of risk and identification information must be updated in different cycles corresponding to each risk group. The higher the risk, the more often the review must be carried out. At first glance, this is just an adjustment to the deadline for updating information. But in essence, the law is shifting from a "one-time verification" model  to a "continuous customer administration" model. This change comes from the fact that customer risk is always volatile. An enterprise can change its ownership structure, expand into a new business field, or incur transactions in high-risk areas after a short time. If businesses still rely on dossiers made many years ago, their ability to detect meaningful changes to the AML work will be very limited.

Therefore, customer information will no longer be kept as a static set of records, but must be managed in a way that is able to update, collate and timely reflect changes related to ownership structure, representatives, fields of activity or factors that may change the level of risk. This means investing for customer data systems and information management will no longer only serve digital transformation or improve business efficiency.

From compliance to risk management

If the first two shifts of the Resolution change the objects and methods of management, the third shift is the change with the most long-term significance. That is the fact that Vietnam's anti-corruption law is gradually shifting from the mindset of checking regulatory compliance to assessing the risk management capacity of enterprises.

This is also a trend in line with international practices. Instead of requiring all businesses to apply the same level of control, the current standards are based on the principle of risk-based approach. In other words, businesses must understand their own risks before choosing the right controls.

Resolution No. 66.23/2026/NQ-CP reflects this orientation quite clearly. The classification of customers according to the level of risk no longer only serves customer identification activities but becomes the basis for deciding the frequency of updating information, the scope of appraisal and the level of supervision for each business relationship. This will change the way businesses build compliance programs.

Many businesses believe that as long as they fully develop internal regulations, issue forms and keep records, they have completed their AML obligations. However, this approach is becoming increasingly irrelevant as methods of hiding assets and cash flows become more sophisticated.

In the future, what the regulator is likely to be interested in will no longer be how many internal processes the business has, but how the business has assessed the risk, why customers are classified as low or high risk, what basis to apply enhanced identification measures and whether the control system actually detects these unusual transactions or not.

In other words, the quality of the governance system will be more important than the quantity of compliance documentation. This is also a change that brings many benefits to businesses. When resources are allocated according to risk level instead of being applied to all customers simultaneously, businesses can significantly reduce compliance costs while still improving control efficiency. For small and medium-sized businesses, this is a much more practical approach than building complex processes that are less likely to be implemented in practice.

For businesses with cross-border investment activities, this change has even greater significance. 

AML will be more closely associated with corporate governance

The objective of this Resolution is not only to remove obstacles in the implementation of the Law on AML but also to meet international commitments on information exchange as required by tax. This shows that AML is no longer an independent legal field but is increasingly becoming a part of the financial transparency governance system.

This trend is also in line with the development of international law. Over the years, standards on AML, transparency of beneficial owners and the exchange of tax information have become increasingly closely linked. The information businesses collect to identify customers not only serves the purpose of AML but can also be used to meet requirements for tax administration, anti-financial fraud or due diligence in investment transactions.

Because information about beneficial owners will be related to corporate governance and M&A. Customer identification data will be associated with data governance and personal data protection. The risk assessment system will become part of the internal controls. The AML program will therefore be more and more deeply integrated into the corporate governance system instead of only being the responsibility of the legal or compliance department.

For businesses with cross-border investment activities, this change has even greater significance. In many deals today, investors and international financial institutions not only assess the financial situation but also consider the level of transparency of the ownership structure, the quality of the risk management system and the ability to comply with international standards. A business with a good governance system will often create greater trust, shorten the due diligence process and improve access to capital.

What businesses need to prepare now

Resolution No. 66.23/2026/NQ-CP only takes effect during the transitional period and many contents will continue to be completed when amending the Law on AML. However, what businesses need to pay attention to is not whether each specific regulation is kept the same or not, but the policy trend has been shaped quite clearly.

For businesses subject to reporting, this is the right time to review the ownership structure, evaluate the customer identification system, update internal regulations towards a risk-based approach, and strengthen data governance. These jobs not only help businesses be ready when new regulations are legislated, but also contribute to improving governance efficiency right in the current period.

More importantly, businesses also need to change the way they look at AML. This is no longer a procedural legal obligation, but is becoming a criterion reflecting the level of transparency and quality of governance. In the context that investors, banks and international partners are increasingly attaching importance to compliance factors, the capacity of AML governance will have a direct impact on the ability to raise capital, expand cooperation and develop sustainably.

Conclusion

For businesses, the greatest value of the Resolution lies not in its validity period but in the ability to forecast early requirements that will soon become legal norms. Businesses that proactively improve their governance systems from today will not only minimize compliance risks but also create advantages in accessing capital, attracting investors and expanding international operations. In a business environment where transparency is increasingly becoming a measure of competitiveness, early preparation is always much less expensive than adapting when new requirements have become a legal obligation.