Safeguarding Older Residents' Personal Money and Belongings in Residential Long-Term Care in Viet Nam: Lawful Authority, Secure Handling and Transparent Records

Safeguarding Older Residents' Personal Money and Belongings in Residential Long-Term Care in Viet Nam: Lawful Authority, Secure Handling and Transparent Records

An older resident asks a care worker to buy several personal items during a routine shopping trip. She gives the worker some cash and explains what she would like. The items are purchased and delivered, but no receipt is available. A few days later, the resident believes some of her money is missing.

The worker remembers returning the change but cannot recall the exact amount. The resident's son asks the facility to explain what happened. The manager discovers that there is no consistent procedure for recording small purchases made on behalf of residents.

There may have been an innocent mistake. The money could have been misplaced, the change calculated incorrectly, or the transaction poorly communicated. Yet without a reliable record, it is difficult to establish what happened or resolve the concern fairly.

Situations like this illustrate a financial safeguarding challenge in residential long-term care. Staff may help older people purchase personal items, keep belongings safe, handle small amounts of cash, or communicate with relatives about financial matters. These activities can appear minor compared with health and personal care, but they involve ownership, trust, individual rights, and organizational accountability.

For residential care providers in Viet Nam, safeguarding residents' money and belongings means more than preventing theft. It involves understanding who has lawful authority to act, respecting personal choices, maintaining appropriate safeguards when property is entrusted to the organization, and responding fairly when concerns arise.

The challenge is to provide protection without taking unnecessary control over residents' financial lives. People should be able to retain as much independence as possible while receiving appropriate support against loss, misuse, exploitation, and avoidable disputes.

Personal Money Is Not the Same as Care Fees

A residential care agreement may establish charges for accommodation, meals, personal assistance, healthcare-related services, or other agreed activities. Those payments are governed by the relevant contractual and legal arrangements.

Residents' personal money and belongings are different. They may include cash for everyday purchases, money held in bank accounts, jewelry, clothing, identification documents, mobile phones, mobility aids, photographs, and other possessions.

Some items have considerable financial value. Others may be worth little to anyone else but remain deeply important to the person who owns them.

A familiar piece of jewelry may have been kept for decades. A photograph may preserve an important family memory. Glasses, hearing aids, and mobility equipment can be essential to communication and independence. Their significance cannot always be measured by replacement cost.

Moving into a residential care facility does not automatically transfer ownership of personal property to the provider. Nor does receiving assistance with everyday activities give staff unrestricted authority to decide how a person's money should be spent.

Similarly, the relative who signs the care agreement or pays the monthly fees does not necessarily have legal authority over all the resident's personal assets.

This distinction matters whenever a facility receives money or property from residents. Payments made to the provider for agreed services should be distinguished from funds or belongings that remain the resident's property and may have been entrusted to the organization for a specific purpose.

Financial safeguarding is therefore not simply another part of billing or contract administration. It concerns the protection of the individual's property rights throughout the care relationship.

Preserving Independence Should Come First

Not everyone entering residential care needs assistance managing money.

Some older people require extensive physical support but remain capable of making purchases, managing accounts, and deciding how to use their possessions. Others may need limited help because of impaired vision, reduced hand dexterity, difficulty traveling, or unfamiliarity with digital payment systems.

An individual's abilities and support needs may also change over time.

The starting point should be an understanding of what the resident can manage independently, what assistance they wish to receive, and whether there are circumstances requiring additional lawful safeguards.

A resident who can manage personal spending should not automatically be expected to surrender cash, bank cards, or valuables to the facility. Similarly, needing help with a purchase should not necessarily mean losing the right to choose what is purchased.

Support can take different forms. A worker may accompany someone to a shop, help read a price label, explain a payment process, or assist with communication while the resident makes the decision.

These activities differ from taking possession of the person's money or making financial decisions on their behalf. Assistance can strengthen independence, but poorly designed arrangements can also unintentionally replace it.

A scoping review by Steurer, Trukeschitz, and Schneider, published in Ageing & Society in May 2026, examined how third parties help adults with long-term care needs manage money.

The researchers examined scientific and non-scientific publications covering arrangements ranging from occasional assistance with purchases to formal substitute decision-making. They identified differences in how these arrangements are formalized, how much the person receiving assistance participates, the type of care involved, and the role of digital technology.

The review identified considerations for good practice, including collaboration and support for autonomy. It also highlighted important research gaps, particularly concerning financial assistance within formal care settings.

These findings are relevant to residential care in Viet Nam, although they do not establish that any particular money-management model is universally superior.

For providers, the practical lesson is that greater control does not necessarily mean better protection. Assistance needs to reflect the person's wishes, abilities, lawful decision-making authority, and the circumstances of the transaction.

Understanding Who Has Lawful Authority

One of the most sensitive questions in residential care is who may legally make decisions about a resident's money or property.

The answer cannot be determined solely by age, diagnosis, family relationship, or physical dependency.

Viet Nam's Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13 provides the general framework concerning civil act capacity, ownership, representation, and guardianship.

Adults generally have full civil act capacity unless a legally recognized exception applies.

A diagnosis of dementia or another cognitive condition does not automatically mean that someone has legally lost the ability to manage property or enter into transactions.

Articles 22 and 23 of the Civil Code address different circumstances involving loss of civil act capacity and difficulties in cognition or behavioral control.

These provisions involve legally prescribed assessments and court decisions. Article 23, for example, concerns adults who experience difficulties in cognition or behavioral control but are not necessarily in the same legal category as someone who has lost civil act capacity.

The relevant court decision determines the applicable arrangements, including guardianship and the rights and obligations involved.

Care workers and relatives should not replace these legal procedures with informal conclusions based on diagnosis, behavior, or assumptions about aging.

The Civil Code also distinguishes representation established by law from representation based on authorization. Articles 135–138 contain relevant provisions concerning these arrangements.

An adult child may assist a parent with financial matters, but that relationship does not automatically confer unrestricted authority to withdraw money, sell property, or undertake other transactions involving the parent's assets.

Likewise, being the person who pays residential care fees does not necessarily establish authority to manage the resident's personal finances.

Where a facility receives instructions from someone acting on behalf of a resident, it should establish the relevant authority and understand its scope.

An authorization to arrange ordinary purchases should not automatically be interpreted as permission to undertake substantial financial transactions.

Where guardianship applies, the guardian's powers and responsibilities must be understood according to the individual's legal status, the applicable law, and any relevant court decision.

Article 59 of the Civil Code contains provisions concerning the management of property belonging to persons under guardianship, including safeguards for transactions involving that property.

A residential care facility does not become a resident's legal guardian simply because it provides accommodation and everyday assistance.

When authority is uncertain or disputed, appropriate legal clarification is preferable to proceeding on assumptions about family relationships or organizational responsibility.

Deciding Whether the Facility Should Hold Personal Property

Residents may ask a facility to keep cash, identification documents, jewelry, or other possessions for safekeeping.

Some may prefer this arrangement because they are concerned about losing valuable items. Others may have difficulty using secure storage independently.

However, accepting custody of personal property creates responsibilities that require appropriate procedures and oversight.

Before agreeing to hold an item, the provider should consider whether the arrangement is necessary, appropriate, lawful, and within its actual capabilities.

There is no general reason to assume that every resident must surrender valuables or personal money to the organization.

Some individuals may prefer to retain direct control, while others may benefit from an agreed safekeeping arrangement.

Where the facility accepts property, it should be clear what has been received, who provided it, the purpose of the arrangement, who may access it, and how it will be returned.

The scope of the arrangement matters. Holding a limited amount of cash for agreed everyday purchases is different from managing a person's savings, investment accounts, or substantial financial assets.

More extensive financial management may create legal and operational responsibilities beyond those ordinarily associated with residential care.

An organization should not describe itself as offering comprehensive financial management unless it has established the appropriate lawful basis, professional capability, and safeguards.

It should also consider whether a simpler arrangement would preserve more independence.

For some residents, access to secure personal storage or limited assistance with transactions may be preferable to placing their property under the provider's control.

The level of organizational involvement should be guided by what the resident actually needs, rather than what is administratively easiest for the facility.

Clear Records Matter When Residents Entrust Money to Staff

When a facility agrees to hold or handle residents' personal money, reliable records become an important safeguard.

They help establish what was received, how the money was used, how much remains, and who was responsible for each transaction.

Without accurate records, even an honest mistake may become difficult to explain.

For routine cash transactions, a facility may use a controlled record identifying the amount received, the purpose of the purchase, expenditure, supporting receipts, change returned, and remaining balance.

Where appropriate, the record may also identify the worker who handled the money and the person who verified or acknowledged the transaction.

The process should remain proportionate to the amount involved and the resident's circumstances.

A resident who can participate may wish to review the expenditure and confirm that the purchased items and change are correct.

Where physical or communication difficulties make ordinary acknowledgement difficult, the provider should consider accessible alternatives and suitable verification arrangements.

A signature should not automatically be treated as evidence that the resident understood a transaction if they could not reasonably review the information.

Staff should not obtain signatures on blank records or retrospectively reconstruct transactions as though they had been verified at the time.

Receipts can help resolve questions, although not every transaction produces the same type of documentation. Providers should establish how exceptions are recorded rather than allowing undocumented purchases to become routine.

It is also important to distinguish a transaction that was properly authorized from one that was simply recorded afterward.

Good documentation can show what happened, but it does not, by itself, establish that the person handling the money had lawful authority to do so.

These controls are examples of sound organizational practice. They should not be presented as a single mandatory cash-handling form or statutory transaction procedure applicable to every residential care facility in Viet Nam.

Actual legal, accounting, and contractual obligations depend on the organization and the arrangement involved.

Nevertheless, transparent records can protect residents, relatives, workers, and providers by making transactions easier to understand and concerns easier to resolve.

Personal Spending Should Remain the Resident's Decision

An older person may wish to purchase toiletries, snacks, clothing, books, gifts, or other personal items.

These choices may seem ordinary, but they contribute to independence, identity, and enjoyment of everyday life.

A residential care provider should not assume that every personal purchase requires managerial approval simply because a worker is assisting.

The starting point should be the resident's preferences and lawful authority to make the decision.

When assistance is requested, the worker should understand what the person wishes to buy, how much may be spent, and what support has been agreed upon.

If items are purchased on the resident's behalf, the person should be able to understand what was obtained and how much money was used, with appropriate communication support where necessary.

Personal funds should not be diverted toward the provider's operating expenses or used for the benefit of staff or other residents without an appropriate lawful basis.

At the same time, not every purchase that other people consider unnecessary is evidence of exploitation.

Someone may choose to spend money on an item that has personal meaning or brings enjoyment.

The provider's role is not to replace the resident's preferences with its own opinion about sensible spending.

However, repeated unexplained expenditure, pressure from another person, or transactions inconsistent with the resident's expressed wishes may justify further enquiry.

A responsible approach protects freedom of choice while remaining attentive to genuine concerns about coercion, undue influence, or misuse.

Personal Belongings Deserve More Than an Inventory

Money is only one part of the safeguarding issue.

Residents may bring glasses, hearing aids, dentures, mobile phones, walking aids, clothing, jewelry, photographs, and other possessions into residential care.

Some belongings are valuable primarily because they support everyday functioning.

Losing a hearing aid can affect communication. Misplacing glasses may make reading or moving around more difficult. The loss of a familiar mobility aid may interfere with independence.

Other possessions may be important because of memory or emotional attachment.

Facilities should therefore consider the practical and personal consequences of lost belongings, not simply their monetary value.

An inventory can be helpful when the organization formally accepts items for safekeeping or when shared living arrangements create foreseeable risks.

However, an excessively detailed record of every personal possession may be intrusive and impractical.

The scope of documentation should reflect its purpose and the level of risk.

Where items are formally entrusted to the facility, descriptions should be sufficiently clear to support identification and accountability.

Residents should also understand how to access their possessions.

An arrangement intended to protect valuables may become unnecessarily restrictive if the person cannot retrieve their own property when reasonably needed.

The facility should distinguish between items retained by the resident, belongings temporarily handled by workers, and property formally entrusted to the organization.

If an item is moved for cleaning, repair, safekeeping, or another legitimate reason, there should be a reliable way to return it to the correct person.

Shared spaces may require additional attention when several residents use similar devices, clothing, or assistive equipment.

The aim is to prevent avoidable loss without turning the resident's personal living environment into an unnecessarily restrictive inventory system.

Bank Cards and Digital Payments Create Additional Risks

Financial assistance increasingly involves electronic transactions.

Older people may use banking applications, electronic wallets, online transfers, or payment cards to purchase goods and services.

These tools can support independence, but they may also create difficulties for someone with limited digital experience, visual impairment, or cognitive challenges.

A resident may ask a worker to explain a payment notification, help navigate an application, or read information displayed on a phone.

Such assistance differs from allowing an employee to obtain unrestricted access to the resident's financial accounts.

Staff should not assume that a trusting care relationship authorizes them to retain bank cards, use account credentials, or conduct transactions without the necessary authority and safeguards.

Passwords, personal identification numbers, one-time passwords, and biometric authentication create particular risks.

A prudent approach is to avoid unnecessary worker access to these credentials and use arrangements that allow the resident or another appropriately authorized person to remain in control.

Where direct financial access is genuinely necessary, the provider should establish the relevant lawful authority and obtain appropriate advice on the safeguards required.

Electronic records also need careful handling.

A payment screenshot may reveal account information, balances, transaction details, or other personal information that should not be circulated unnecessarily.

Organizations should avoid informal practices in which a particular worker becomes the only person who knows how to access a resident's money.

The 2026 review by Steurer and colleagues identifies digitalization as an important dimension of third-party money management, including the challenges faced by people whose abilities or circumstances make digital financial services difficult to use.

For Vietnamese care providers, the relevant lesson is that digital payments do not automatically eliminate safeguarding risks. They may simply change the form those risks take.

Gifts, Loans, and Conflicts of Interest

Close personal relationships sometimes develop between residents and care workers.

An older person may appreciate a particular caregiver and wish to offer a gift. A worker may be asked to purchase something on the resident's behalf or help manage a small financial transaction.

These interactions require appropriate professional boundaries.

Facilities should establish clear expectations concerning gifts, borrowing, lending, personal purchases, and financial relationships between employees and residents.

The arrangements should protect residents from undue influence while also protecting workers from misunderstandings or accusations arising from unclear practices.

A caregiver should not exploit a relationship of dependency to obtain money, gifts, loans, or other personal advantages.

However, a resident's voluntary wish to give something should not automatically be treated as evidence of incapacity or wrongdoing.

The circumstances matter. A small gesture of appreciation and a substantial transfer of money or property present different levels of risk.

The fact that a resident offers a gift does not, by itself, resolve questions concerning voluntariness, legal authority, conflicts of interest, or the organization's rules.

Particular care is needed where workers become involved in wills, inheritance matters, substantial donations, or property transfers. Employees should not influence such decisions for personal benefit.

Where residents seek independent legal or financial advice, the facility may help them contact appropriately qualified professionals without attempting to direct the outcome.

Australia's Aged Care Code of Conduct provides a useful international reference through its emphasis on honesty, transparency, integrity, appropriate boundaries, and protection from exploitation.

Those regulatory obligations apply within the Australian framework. They should not automatically be treated as identical legal rules governing every gift or financial transaction in Viet Nam.

The broader principle remains relevant: a relationship established to provide care should not become an opportunity for financial exploitation.

Family Involvement Requires Clear Authority

Families often help older residents manage money and personal belongings.

An adult child may purchase items, arrange payments, or assist with financial decisions under an appropriate arrangement. This support can be valuable, particularly when the resident has difficulty accessing shops, banks, or digital services.

However, family involvement does not eliminate the need to respect the older person's rights and preferences.

A relative may ask the facility to prevent a resident from accessing cash because they believe the person spends too much. Another may demand that all valuables be handed over, even though the resident has not agreed.

Family members may also disagree about who should receive financial information or make particular decisions.

These situations require careful handling.

A facility should not determine authority solely according to who is most assertive, pays the care fees, or visits most frequently.

Where a legally authorized representative or guardian is involved, the organization should verify the relevant authority and its limits.

Where the resident retains the lawful ability to make a particular decision, that person's wishes should remain central.

Workers should avoid becoming informal judges in family property disputes.

When ownership, representation, or financial authority is unclear, appropriate legal or administrative advice may be necessary.

Confidentiality also matters. A family member's concern for the resident does not automatically justify access to every bank statement, transaction record, or personal financial document.

The aim is to support legitimate family participation without allowing assumptions about family roles to replace the resident's lawful rights.

Recognizing Possible Financial and Material Abuse

Financial exploitation can be difficult to recognize because it may occur through transactions that appear ordinary.

An older person may seem to agree to an expenditure while feeling pressured by someone on whom they depend.

A worker may repeatedly borrow small amounts without clear repayment. A relative may control access to money or documents in ways the resident does not understand or accept.

Other concerns may involve missing valuables, unexplained withdrawals, spending that does not appear to benefit the resident, or transactions that cannot be reconciled.

NICE guideline NG189, Safeguarding Adults in Care Homes, identifies financial and material abuse as an important safeguarding concern.

Recommendations 1.4.20–1.4.22 address organizational systems for protecting money and possessions and describe circumstances that may indicate financial abuse.

These include missing property, inadequate records, restricted access to personal assets, unusual financial decisions, and situations in which residents are not appropriately involved in decisions about their money.

The guidance also recognizes that the absence of adequate systems for handling residents' money and possessions can itself represent an organizational safeguarding problem within the framework of care in England.

These principles are useful for identifying risks, but they should not be treated as proof that misconduct has occurred in a particular case.

Money may have been misplaced. An item may have been taken home by a relative with permission. A purchase may have been authorized but poorly documented.

An unfamiliar transaction is not necessarily fraudulent. A fair response requires understanding the circumstances and available evidence before reaching conclusions.

The source of exploitation may also vary. Concerns may involve employees, relatives, visitors, other residents, or external parties.

Organizations should avoid assuming that financial harm always originates from one particular group.

Residents who raise concerns deserve to be heard, including those living with dementia or communication difficulties.

A cognitive diagnosis does not automatically make someone's account unreliable.

Workers should consider the information available, provide suitable communication support, and seek qualified assistance when the circumstances require it.

Effective safeguarding allows concerns to be raised early, without requiring residents to prove wrongdoing before anyone responds.

Responding When Money or Property Is Missing

When a resident reports missing money or belongings, the facility should respond promptly, respectfully, and proportionately.

The first task is to understand what has been reported and whether there is an immediate risk of further loss or exploitation.

The concern should not be dismissed as forgetfulness simply because the resident is older or has cognitive impairment.

Relevant records should be reviewed, and the organization should try to establish what was last confirmed about the money or item.

Where the facility formally held the property, custody records may help determine when it was received, accessed, or returned.

Where the resident retained possession, the provider may have less information. Staff should acknowledge uncertainty rather than claim knowledge they do not have.

If misconduct is suspected, suitable protective action may be necessary while the concern is examined.

The organization should also consider possible conflicts of interest. A report involving a worker or manager should have an appropriate route for escalation beyond the person implicated.

Receipts, transaction records, relevant communications, and other potentially important information should be preserved in accordance with applicable law.

Documentation should distinguish between the resident's account, staff observations, and facts that have been independently verified.

An internal review should not replace legally required reporting or interfere with an investigation by competent authorities.

Where suspected theft, fraud, coercion, or another potentially unlawful act is involved, the provider should follow the appropriate legal procedures and competent-authority pathways.

Not every discrepancy constitutes a crime, and the facility should avoid premature conclusions about criminal responsibility.

Equally, serious suspected exploitation should not be treated merely as a routine customer service complaint.

The response should protect the resident, preserve relevant information, and allow the circumstances to be assessed fairly.

Making It Safe to Raise Concerns

Residents need accessible ways to raise concerns about money and belongings.

Some may prefer speaking with a familiar care worker. Others may wish to contact a manager, another trusted person, or an appropriate external authority.

A resident may hesitate because they depend on the employee involved for personal care. Someone else may fear that raising a concern will damage relationships with relatives or staff.

These barriers deserve attention.

Information about complaints should be understandable to residents with different communication abilities, and opportunities for private discussion should be available where appropriate.

People should know that genuine concerns will be considered fairly and that intimidation or retaliation is unacceptable.

Workers also need an appropriate way to report suspected financial misconduct without undue pressure.

The organization should distinguish routine accounting discrepancies from safeguarding concerns while recognizing that an apparently minor issue may require further attention if additional information emerges.

A resident should not lose access to lawful complaint procedures or external remedies merely because the facility has initiated an internal review.

Clear reporting arrangements help protect residents and employees, but they do not replace the investigative or enforcement powers of competent authorities.

Protecting Personal Financial Information

Financial safeguarding may involve sensitive personal information.

Records can reveal bank account details, transactions, identity documents, spending habits, family relationships, and information about a resident's health or support needs.

These details require appropriate protection.

Viet Nam's Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Government Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP both took effect on January 1, 2026.

They form part of the legal framework governing personal data processing.

Organizations should identify the relevant legal grounds and implement suitable safeguards for collecting, accessing, storing, retaining, and sharing residents' financial information.

Helping someone make a purchase does not automatically justify unrestricted access to that person's bank statements or other private records.

Similarly, a desire to prevent financial misuse does not authorize unlimited surveillance of residents or employees.

Access should reflect legitimate responsibilities and applicable legal requirements.

Financial information should not be circulated unnecessarily through informal messaging groups, personal email accounts, or shared documents available to people without a relevant reason to access it.

Where records need to be disclosed to an authorized representative or competent authority, the organization should follow the applicable rules.

Paper records, receipts, identity documents, photographs, and electronic transaction information all require suitable protection.

The purpose is to maintain reliable records while respecting the privacy of the person to whom the information relates.

Viet Nam's Legal Framework for Protecting Residents' Property

The legal foundation for protecting residents' personal money and belongings begins with their rights as individuals.

Viet Nam's Law on Older Persons No. 39/2009/QH12, as amended and consolidated in Document No. 23/VBHN-VPQH dated February 26, 2026, includes important protections.

Article 9 identifies prohibited conduct affecting older people.

These prohibitions include infringing or obstructing the exercise of ownership and other lawful rights, as well as exploiting the care or support of older people for personal gain.

The article also prohibits retaliation or threats against people who assist older persons or report and help prevent unlawful conduct affecting them.

These provisions are directly relevant to safeguarding older residents from financial exploitation.

However, the Law on Older Persons should not be interpreted as establishing every operational procedure for receiving, holding, or recording personal money.

The Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13 provides the broader legal framework for ownership, civil transactions, capacity, representation, and guardianship.

Articles 22 and 23 concern particular legally recognized circumstances involving civil act capacity and difficulties in cognition or behavioral control.

Articles 135–138 address representation, while Articles 58 and 59 contain relevant provisions on guardianship and the management of property belonging to persons under guardianship.

The rights and restrictions applicable in an individual case depend on the person's legal circumstances, the relevant authorization or court decision, and other applicable provisions.

A residential care agreement does not automatically override these rules.

Nor should the provider assume that an informal instruction from a relative establishes unrestricted authority to manage or transfer the resident's property.

Depending on the circumstances, contractual, civil, criminal, and other laws may also apply.

Potential theft, fraud, coercion, or unlawful appropriation should be assessed through the appropriate legal framework rather than classified informally by the care facility.

The provider's own legal status also matters.

A public social assistance facility may have different organizational and financial arrangements from a non-public facility or another provider of residential services.

The applicable obligations should be determined according to the organization's legal classification, activities, and contractual relationships.

Understanding Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP Correctly

An important regulatory development is Government Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP, issued on October 23, 2026, concerning the operation and management of social assistance facilities.

The decree is scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2026. As of November 3, 2026, it has been issued but is not yet legally effective.

Decree No. 103/2017/ND-CP, as applicable and amended, remains part of the current framework until the new decree takes effect.

Decree 395 addresses different categories of social assistance facilities and establishes provisions concerning their functions, operation, management, and responsibilities.

Article 8 concerns financial and asset management within social assistance facilities.

For public facilities, it refers to the applicable framework governing public service units.

For non-public facilities, it addresses matters including the management of state-supported funding, transparent use of financial resources, financial reporting, and relevant organizational rules.

These provisions primarily concern the finances and resources of the facility itself.

They should not be interpreted as automatically authorizing a provider to take possession of or manage every resident's private money and belongings.

Personal assets belonging to service users remain distinct from the provider's own financial resources.

The decree also addresses arrangements for protecting people receiving services when a facility is required to suspend or discontinue operations.

Article 15 includes provisions concerning the handover of relevant records, medicines, property, and documents in the circumstances covered by that article.

These requirements highlight the importance of accounting for property when care arrangements or organizational responsibilities change.

However, they should not be presented as a comprehensive daily cash-handling code for all residential care providers.

Organizations within the decree's scope should prepare for the provisions applicable from December 7, 2026, while continuing to comply with existing law.

The new framework does not remove the need to respect individual ownership and representation rights under the Civil Code and other applicable legislation.

Nor should it be assumed to govern every residential accommodation or care arrangement identically.

For providers, the important distinction is between legal obligations imposed by applicable regulations and operational safeguards adopted to improve accountability and protect residents.

What International Evidence Can Contribute

International research and guidance offer useful principles for protecting residents' financial and material interests.

NICE guideline NG189, Safeguarding Adults in Care Homes, published in 2021, addresses the identification and management of abuse and neglect in residential care settings.

Recommendations 1.4.20–1.4.22 specifically address financial and material abuse.

They highlight risks associated with inadequate arrangements for protecting money and possessions, missing property, restricted access to personal assets, and financial decisions made without appropriate involvement of the resident.

The guidance also identifies circumstances that may warrant concern about exploitation or undue influence.

These recommendations are relevant to organizational quality improvement, but their legal and safeguarding context is that of England.

They should not be treated as automatically establishing the same statutory procedures in Viet Nam.

The 2026 review by Steurer and colleagues provides another perspective.

It found that third-party money management ranges from informal assistance to formal legal arrangements and that practices differ in the degree of collaboration, formalization, type of care provision, and use of digital technology.

The authors emphasized the importance of preserving personal autonomy and identified substantial gaps in evidence, particularly concerning formal care settings.

The Australian Aged Care Code of Conduct offers a further reference through its requirements concerning honesty, transparency, dignity, self-determination, professional conduct, and protection from exploitation.

These principles can inform staff policies, although Australian regulatory obligations apply within their own legal framework.

ISO 25557:2026, Ageing Societies — Care Quality for Older Persons at Home and in Care Facilities, provides a broader reference for person-centered care, safety, self-determination, and organizational quality.

It is not a specialized standard for banking, financial custody, or investment management. It should not be interpreted as establishing universal procedures for handling residents' personal funds.

Taken together, these sources support an approach that combines respect for individual rights with transparent processes, proportionate safeguards, and appropriate organizational oversight.

Their value lies in informing better practice while allowing implementation to reflect Vietnamese law and local service conditions.

Making Financial Safeguarding Part of Governance

Financial safeguarding should not depend entirely on the honesty or memory of individual workers.

Employees may act responsibly and still make mistakes when arrangements are informal or poorly documented.

Providers should establish clear responsibilities for any money or property they agree to handle.

Staff need to understand which activities are permitted, who may authorize transactions, how records are maintained, and when concerns require escalation.

Where the organization holds money or conducts transactions on a resident's behalf, management may consider safeguards such as separation of responsibilities, periodic reconciliation, and independent review.

The depth of control should reflect the amount involved and the level of risk.

A small one-time purchase may not require the same procedure as substantial funds held over an extended period. However, repeated small transactions may create significant cumulative risk when documentation is unreliable.

Facilities should also avoid concentrating all financial responsibilities in one person when appropriate oversight is feasible.

For example, the person handling money may be different from the person periodically reviewing transaction records.

Controls should not make residents' access to their money unreasonably difficult.

Good governance must balance two competing concerns: inadequate protection that permits loss or misuse, and excessive control that unnecessarily restricts independence.

Staff training should address both.

Employees need to understand ownership rights, lawful authority, accurate recordkeeping, confidentiality, appropriate boundaries, and the importance of listening to residents' concerns.

Managers should provide guidance when staff encounter unfamiliar requests or financial discrepancies.

A policy is useful only when it can be followed in everyday practice and when the organization responds appropriately when something goes wrong.

Measuring Whether Residents' Money and Belongings Are Protected

Quality measurement can help providers understand whether their safeguards work.

The purpose should be to identify weaknesses and support improvement, not to create unnecessary surveillance or paperwork.

A practical review may examine whether property formally entrusted to the facility is accurately recorded, whether transactions can be reconciled, and whether residents can obtain understandable information about funds held on their behalf.

Management may also consider how quickly discrepancies are assessed, whether concerns are resolved fairly, and whether serious or recurring problems reach the appropriate decision-makers.

Repeated losses involving similar items, recurring unexplained cash differences, or concerns concentrated in a particular process may indicate weaknesses requiring attention.

However, the number of missing-property reports alone is not a reliable measure of organizational integrity.

An increase in reports may reflect improved awareness or greater confidence in raising concerns. A low reporting rate may indicate fewer problems, but it may also reflect limited communication, reluctance to complain, or inadequate reporting channels.

Residents' experiences should therefore be considered alongside operational records.

Someone may experience no financial loss but still feel unable to access their own money or make ordinary purchases without unnecessary approval.

Another person may value the reassurance of voluntary safekeeping but become frustrated if personal belongings are difficult to retrieve.

Both experiences matter because safeguarding should protect autonomy as well as property.

A meaningful review should help establish whether the right people retain decision-making authority, whether assets entrusted to the organization are accounted for, and whether concerns are addressed transparently.

Perfect-looking records are not the ultimate goal. The question is whether the system protects residents in practice.

Building Proportionate Safeguards in Viet Nam

Residential long-term care providers in Viet Nam differ considerably in size, legal status, resources, and administrative capacity.

Some organizations have finance departments, internal audit functions, and established property-control procedures. Others are smaller facilities where care workers and managers perform several operational responsibilities.

Safeguarding arrangements should reflect these differences.

A smaller facility may not require a complex asset-management platform, but it should understand what resident property it holds, who is responsible, and how transactions and concerns are recorded.

A larger organization may need more formal authorization, reconciliation, oversight, and audit arrangements.

Both should recognize that not every resident needs assistance managing money.

Where individuals can make their own financial decisions, the organization should respect that independence and provide help only where appropriate.

Where more substantial assistance is required, its lawful basis and scope should be established.

Providers also need to recognize when specialist advice is necessary.

Questions involving disputed authority, guardianship, substantial assets, inheritance, suspected coercion, or possible criminal conduct should not be resolved through informal decisions by care workers.

Legal, financial, administrative, or competent-authority involvement may be needed, depending on the circumstances.

International guidance can help providers develop sound principles, but implementation should remain consistent with Vietnamese law, residents' preferences, and the organization's actual capabilities.

The most effective safeguards are those that residents can understand, workers can apply, and management can oversee reliably.

Protecting Property While Preserving the Person

Personal money and belongings may appear less central to long-term care than clinical treatment, mobility assistance, or everyday personal care.

For older residents, however, they are closely connected to independence, identity, security, and dignity.

The ability to decide how to spend a small amount of money, keep a meaningful possession nearby, or access personal belongings without unnecessary permission can make a real difference to daily life.

When someone requires assistance, that support should not automatically become control.

A residential care provider needs to distinguish between helping a person use their money and assuming authority over it.

Where property is entrusted to the facility, arrangements should be lawful, clear, secure, and transparent. When concerns arise, residents deserve a fair response based on reliable information and appropriate protection.

For residential long-term care in Viet Nam, strengthening these arrangements is an opportunity to connect individual rights with practical quality governance.

Financial safeguarding is not simply about preventing theft. It also involves protecting people from undue influence, supporting meaningful choices, managing entrusted assets responsibly, and ensuring that dependency on care does not become a source of financial vulnerability.

A trustworthy residential care organization should be able to answer two questions: Can residents continue to exercise appropriate control over what belongs to them? And when the organization accepts responsibility for their money or possessions, can it demonstrate that those assets have been handled lawfully, securely, and transparently?

The quality of care is reflected not only in how organizations support people's health and everyday needs, but also in how carefully they respect the personal rights and possessions that remain part of their lives.

Key References and Regulatory Context

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2009). Law on Older Persons No. 39/2009/QH12, as amended. Particularly Article 9 concerning prohibited conduct affecting older people's rights and property.

Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2026). Consolidated Document No. 23/VBHN-VPQH — Law on Older Persons. Issued February 26, 2026.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2015). Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13, as amended and applicable. Particularly Articles 22–23 concerning civil act capacity and difficulties in cognition or behavioral control; Articles 58–59 concerning guardianship and property management; and Articles 135–138 concerning representation.

Government of Viet Nam. (2017). Decree No. 103/2017/ND-CP on the Establishment, Organization, Operation, Dissolution and Management of Social Assistance Facilities, as amended and applicable.

Government of Viet Nam. (2026). Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP on the Operation and Management of Social Assistance Facilities. Issued October 23, 2026; scheduled to take effect December 7, 2026. Particularly Article 8 concerning financial and asset management of facilities and Article 15 concerning protection of service users when operations are suspended or discontinued.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2025). Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15. Effective January 1, 2026.

Government of Viet Nam. (2025). Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP Detailing Certain Articles and Measures for Implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection. Effective January 1, 2026.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2021). Safeguarding Adults in Care Homes. NICE Guideline NG189. Particularly Recommendations 1.4.20–1.4.22 concerning financial and material abuse.

Steurer, B., Trukeschitz, B., & Schneider, U. (2026). Third-Party Money Management for Adults With Long-Term Care Needs: Current Practices and Challenges — A Scoping Review. Ageing & Society, 46, e54. Published online May 8, 2026. DOI: 10.1017/S0144686X26100798.

Australian Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The Aged Care Code of Conduct. Guidance concerning integrity, honesty, transparency, professional boundaries, and protection from exploitation.

International Organization for Standardization. (2026). ISO 25557:2026 — Ageing Societies — Care Quality for Older Persons at Home and in Care Facilities.

United Nations General Assembly. (1991). United Nations Principles for Older Persons. Resolution 46/91.

About Healthy Longevity Vietnam

Healthy Longevity Vietnam (HLVN) is a VietnamWellcare initiative advancing evidence-informed and context-appropriate approaches to longer, healthier lives in Viet Nam. Its work connects prevention, healthy aging, care quality, health systems, implementation, and collaboration, with a focus on supporting health, function, participation, and well-being across the life course.

Within this broader mission, HLVN explores opportunities to improve the quality, safety, integration, and responsiveness of care for older people across healthcare, home, community, and long-term care settings.

Disclaimer

This article is intended for general educational, financial safeguarding awareness, quality improvement, and organizational development purposes. It does not constitute individualized legal or financial advice, authorization to manage another person's assets, an official regulatory interpretation, or a mandatory national standard for handling residents' money and belongings in Viet Nam.

Ownership rights, civil act capacity, representation, guardianship, financial transactions, property custody, and the management of residents' assets must be determined according to applicable Vietnamese law and the individual's legal circumstances.

An older person's age, care dependency, disability, or diagnosis of dementia does not automatically remove their legal rights or grant relatives, care workers, or residential care organizations authority to manage their property.

Organizations should not assume that providing accommodation or personal care authorizes them to access bank accounts, hold payment credentials, control personal funds, transfer assets, or make financial decisions on behalf of residents.

The documentation, reconciliation, custody, and internal control practices discussed in this article are examples of evidence-informed organizational safeguards. They should not be interpreted as identical statutory procedures or mandatory transaction limits applicable to every residential care facility in Viet Nam.

Where property is entrusted to a provider, the applicable rights and responsibilities depend on the organization's legal status, the arrangement involved, the authority of the parties, and relevant laws and contractual terms.

Suspected financial abuse, theft, fraud, coercion, or other potentially unlawful conduct must be addressed through the applicable legal and competent-authority procedures. An internal facility review cannot replace legally required reporting or official investigation.

Residents' financial and personal information must be handled in accordance with applicable confidentiality, personal data protection, and other relevant legal requirements.

Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP was issued on October 23, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2026. It must not be treated as already legally effective on the review date of this article. Its provisions concerning financial and asset management of social assistance facilities do not automatically establish authority over residents' private property.

International research, standards, and foreign regulatory guidance are presented as reference points for evidence-informed quality improvement. They do not replace Vietnamese law or create automatically applicable powers, duties, reporting procedures, or property-management arrangements.

Residential care providers should develop locally appropriate policies in consultation with qualified legal, financial, social care, quality management, and other relevant professionals, and seek clarification from competent authorities where necessary.

Information and regulatory context reviewed as of November 3, 2026.