Primary sources register

AIFC law is a special regime anchored in Kazakhstan's constitutional order, based on English common-law principles. It is the precedent for how a centre obtains delegated rulemaking — it has no legal force in Viet Nam.

Separates authorisation for Regulated Activities from authorisation for Market Activities (operating an exchange or clearing house). AFSA approves an AMI's business rules separately. Client-asset protection and enforcement are separate regimes.

Schedules define which instruments are Specified Investments — the first gate for classifying any token.

Classification turns on these definitions. A token can fall into different categories depending on the rights it carries.

Investment Tokens are traded and cleared on regulated market infrastructure with DLT-specific controls — not under the crypto-asset regime.

Whether a meat or seafood token is a Qualified Investment Token is fact-dependent (contract terms, delivery, settlement). Nothing in MOTF makes such a token licensed automatically.

Security tokens carry full securities disclosure duties; tokenisation does not reduce them.

Shows how the legal register — not only a ledger entry — determines who owns an investment.

A separate regime from AMI/MOTF. Choosing DAA vs AMI vs MOTF depends on token classification, not preference.

Practical view of what AFSA expects from a DATF applicant.

Investor protection applies to token offerings and brokerage as to any other investment.

Settlement tokens and cash legs may be money services rather than investments.

Token venues are high-risk for AML; obligations apply to issuers, venues and custodians.

Shows a sandbox with hard caps and exit plans — not a waiver of law.

Practical sandbox model.

Shows documentary evidence a regulator expects before testing.

Recognition is a discretionary AIFC decision. It is not a passport; Viet Nam would need its own recognition basis.

A pooled commodity token may accidentally be a fund.

Budget input for licensing in Kazakhstan, if an AIFC entity is used.

Relevant if the Kazakhstan-side issuer or SPV is an AIFC entity.

Bankruptcy-remote holding of goods or receivables for token holders.

Token transfer terms may be AIFC-governed, but this does not transfer property in goods located in Viet Nam.

Relevant to trade finance tokens secured on goods or receivables.

KYC and supply-chain data will flow Kazakhstan ↔ Viet Nam.

KZT/USD legs on the Kazakhstan side.

Without statutory finality, an on-chain transfer can be unwound in insolvency.

Essential for CCP and derivatives clearing.

AIFC Court judgments are not automatically enforceable in Viet Nam.

A candidate forum for Kazakhstan-side disputes.

Investment Tokens are regulated investments — not unregulated crypto.

Rules change frequently; always check version history and effective dates.

The primary enabling law. VIFC already has a statutory basis — the question is what additional rules and permissions are needed.

Defines who the VIFC counterpart regulator is and how members are admitted.

The most directly relevant existing anchor for meat and seafood contracts. Whether tokenised contracts fit within it must be verified.

Governs cash legs, settlement tokens and FX conversion.

Determines whether parties may choose foreign law and forum for token contracts.

Affects pilot economics, not legal permission to operate.

Practical basis for settlement and reserve accounts.

A specific national pilot route. It cannot be assumed to cover all VIFC tokens; interaction with the IFC regime is unresolved and must be flagged.

English summaries are for reference; the Vietnamese original prevails.

Signals policy intent; verify against Decree 330/2025 text.