Vietnam Eyes Streamlined Casino Entry Fees as Control Mechanism, Not Local Gambling Ban

Vietnam’s recent proposal to reintroduce local access to casinos through a simplified entry fee system is being interpreted not as an outright barrier to locals, but rather as a more efficient regulatory tool designed to streamline oversight and revenue monitoring.

Industry voices suggest the move reflects a strategic pivot in policy direction, aiming to emulate Singapore’s controlled model of casino access while avoiding the more open systems seen in Cambodia and the Philippines.

Tim Nguyen, Director of Fortuna Investments, said that the Ministry of Finance’s new draft decree marks a departure from cumbersome wealth verification processes trialed previously. “Vietnam’s entry levy proposal is very much a filtering mechanism,” Nguyen said. “It’s not designed as a tax for revenue — though it does collect some — but as a social safeguard.”

The draft legislation introduces a two-tiered fee structure for local casino access: VND2.5 million (approximately $100) for a 24-hour pass and VND50 million (around $2,000) for a monthly pass. This system would replace the previous policy tested at Phu Quoc’s Corona Resort & Casino, which required Vietnamese nationals to provide proof of a minimum monthly income of VND10 million ($400), in addition to paying a VND1 million ($40) entrance fee.

According to Nguyen, the new flat-fee structure simplifies entry, eliminating bureaucratic obstacles that proved difficult for both customers and operators under the previous scheme. “The flat-fee model removes bureaucratic friction and provides a more straightforward way to regulate local participation,” he explained. “For high rollers, a daily fee of VND2.5 million is not a big deterrent. Many will prefer this to showing income documents.”

Nguyen also believes the fee structure will have a deterrent effect on less frequent or lower-income players. “The fee increase is a strong barrier,” he said. “Occasional visitors may find it too expensive, limiting small-scale gambling.”

The VND50 million monthly pass, Nguyen noted, targets a different demographic—those who are financially capable and deeply engaged. “Paying upfront shows strong commitment, which may also help casinos stabilize revenue,” he said.

As of January 1, 2025, no Vietnamese casinos are legally permitted to admit locals, with the expiration of the pilot program at Phu Quoc. Under the new draft regulations, Vietnamese citizens seeking casino access must meet several criteria: be at least 21 years old, be legally competent, pay the required access fee, and not be subject to exclusion requests filed by family members or by themselves.

The draft decree also mandates that all casino transactions—including wagers and payout conversions—be conducted in Vietnamese dong. Furthermore, any casino development project must meet a minimum capital requirement of $2 billion to be eligible for an investment registration certificate.

It remains unclear whether all large-scale casinos will be eligible to participate in this updated framework. However, local media reports suggest that both the central government and the ruling Politburo have given their preliminary approval to the policy.

When asked whether Vietnam’s wealthy class is substantial enough to support a thriving casino sector under this system, Nguyen pointed out that the answer hinges on multiple factors. “It depends on the size of the wealthy population, casino business models, and long-term sustainability,” he said.

Nevertheless, Nguyen emphasized that the policy direction is becoming increasingly apparent. “This brings Vietnam closer to Singapore’s model — tightly controlled but allowing wealthy locals to gamble — while avoiding Cambodia and the Philippines’ more liberal systems.”

As Vietnam moves toward formalizing the proposal, the country appears to be taking a measured, regulated approach to integrating locals into its gaming industry—balancing the need for economic growth with the imperative of social responsibility. 

By fLEXI tEAM