Response: Consultation Paper on Proposed Amendments to the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance Relating of the Use of Certain Titles
Release Date: 2025-07-11
| Supervision of Markets Division | Email Delivery |
| Securities and Futures Commission | section34amlo.consultation@sfc.hk |
| 54/F One Island East | |
| 18 Westlands Road | |
| Quarry Bay | |
| Hong Kong |
Response: Consultation Paper on Proposed Amendments to the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance Relating of the Use of Certain Titles
Question 1: Do you agree with the proposal to amend section 34 of the SFO as described in paragraphs 12(a), 13 to 16 above? If no, please explain why.
Response 1: Our association supports this amendment as it can effectively prevent the improper use of titles, thereby enhancing investor confidence. Reasons include: (1) Closing existing loopholes (such as "trading platforms" not being restricted), (2) Covering settlement-related titles (such as "clearing house").
Question 2: Do you agree with the proposal to add a new provision under Part 5B of the AMLO as described in paragraphs 12(b), 13 to 16 above. If no, please explain why.
Response 2: Our association supports this amendment, as adding a new provision helps strengthen anti-money laundering measures and protect market integrity. Reasons include: (1) Unified regulation of virtual asset platforms to prevent money laundering loopholes; (2) Restricting misleading behavior by misusing the names of well-known platforms.
On the other hand, it may increase compliance burdens for businesses, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. Reasons include: (1) Overlap with parts of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, potentially leading to redundant approvals; (2) The narrow definition of non-securities virtual assets might result in omissions.
Question 3: Do you have any comments or concerns about any of the proposed titles set out in Table A or Table B in paragraph 13 above? If yes, please elaborate.
Response 3: Our association supports this amendment, as clear title restrictions can reduce confusion and enhance market transparency. Reasons include: (1) Comprehensive coverage of mainstream terms (such as "crypto asset" tokens); (2) Symmetrical design of Chinese and English terms reduces ambiguity.
On the other hand, some title restrictions may be overly broad, affecting legitimate business operations. Reasons include: (1) Lack of a dynamic updating mechanism, making it difficult to adapt to new vocabulary; (2) Terms like "tokenised assets" lack industry consensus.
Question 4: Do you have any other comments regarding the proposals discussed in paragraphs 12 to 16 above? If yes, please elaborate.
Our association supports this amendment, and other suggestions may further refine the regulations, enhancing the applicability of the law. Reasons include: (1) Open feedback reflects regulatory flexibility; (2) Dual authorization ensures seamless regulation when the nature of assets changes.
Additionally, our association is concerned about the complexity of implementation and its impact on the market. Reasons include: (1) Unresolved issues with cross-border platform name regulation; (2) Lack of a transitional compliance arrangement.
For any questions or further information, please feel free to contact Dr. Jayden Han ( / email: ) or myself (phone: / email: ).
Mofiz Chan
Chairman
Hong Kong Securities and Futures Professionals Association