23 January 2026 Mr. Christopher Hui, GBS, JP Secretary for Financial Services & the Treasury Financial Services & the Treasury Bureau 24/F, Central Government Offices Tim Mei Avenue, Tamar Hong Kong
Dear Chris,
Re: FSTB and SFC Consultation on Legislative Proposal to Regulate Virtual Asset (VA) Advisory and Management Service Providers
The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce welcomes the opportunity to express views on the captioned consultation.
We welcome the proposal to extend the VA regulatory regime to encompass VA advisory and management service providers, recognizing this as a crucial step towards fostering the development of Hong Kong as a global digital asset hub. Strengthening this framework will enhance Hong Kong’s competitiveness by providing a level playing field and the regulatory certainty required for businesses to operate with confidence under the 'same activity, same risks, same regulation' principle.
With respect to practical implementation, we also recommend maintaining the flexibility to adjust the scope of regulated activities as the market evolves—for example, in areas such as real-world asset (RWA) tokenization—and would welcome further clarity on the enforcement of marketing prohibitions across digital and cross‑border channels. Such a balanced approach will safeguard investors while fostering the agility required for the long-term sustainability of Hong Kong’s evolving virtual asset ecosystem.
We hope you will find our comments useful to your deliberations.
Yours sincerely,
Patrick Yeung
CEO
Encl.
Consultation by Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (FSTB) and Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) on Legislative Proposal to Regulate Virtual Asset Advisory Service Providers and Virtual Asset Management Service Providers (December 2025) Submission by The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC)
1. HKGCC supports the extension of the virtual asset (VA) regulatory regime to VA advisory and VA management services. Our answers to the consultation questions are set out below. Q1. Do you agree with the proposed definition and scope of VA advisory services? 2. Yes. Maintaining clear and robust definitions is critical to safeguarding investor confidence, facilitating the responsible growth of the VA ecosystem in Hong Kong, and reinforcing the city’s position as a leading hub for virtual assets. Aligning the VA advisory services regulatory framework with the Type 4 regulated activity under SFO, as proposed in the consultation paper (CP), helps to ensure regulatory clarity, and facilitates adoption by market participants. 3. We recommend that the FSTB and SFC continue actively monitoring market developments in Hong Kong and globally and, if necessary, adjust the proposed scope of allowed activities. It is important to retain flexibility to refine the definition and scope of VA advisory services as the market evolves, while ensuring that these definitions remain relevant. This approach will be essential to securing the long-term sustainability and success of Hong Kong’s VA ecosystem. To this end, we recommend that the Hong Kong regulators continue to work collaboratively with industry stakeholders in identifying areas where regulatory adjustments or guidance may be warranted. 4. For example, it is not clear whether or how real-world asset (RWA) tokenization would fit within the new regulatory framework. Advising on this activity - which is an increasingly popular one – presents new business opportunities, but also carries significant risks, and it is important to ensure that there are no gaps or inconsistencies in the new regulatory framework. Guidance on this issue would be welcome, as RWA tokenization has the potential to create substantial value for Hong Kong businesses, including those in traditional sectors. A clear and consistent regulatory framework, as the CP states, “will further advance Hong Kong’s position as a comprehensive and trusted digital asset hub”.[1] Q2. Are there any other exemptions which may be appropriate? 5. As of now, we have not identified any additional exemptions that appear to be appropriate. Q3. Do you have any comments on the regulatory requirements to be imposed on VA advisory service providers? 6. We agree with the approach of the consultation that the proposed regulations should align with the “same activity, same risks, same regulations” principle. With this in mind, we agree also that the proposed regulatory requirements for VA advisory services providers should align with those for Type 4 licensed corporations or registered institutions. Moreover, to ensure consistency, VA advisory service providers should be subject to the Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/Counter-Financing of Terrorism (CFT) obligations in Schedule 2 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap.615) (AMLO), specifically regarding customer due diligence (CDD) and record-keeping. 7. Given that nascent nature of the VA ecosystem and the inherent risks stemming from its characteristics, we recommend that the regulators explore whether there are additional risks that need to be addressed by adjusting the proposed regulatory requirements. To this end, we invite the FSTB and the SFC to continue working with market participants, academia and standards setting institutions on the issue. Q4. Do you agree with the proposed definition and scope of VA management services? 8. Yes. The definition of VA management services appears to be aligned with those for securities, in accordance with the “same activity, same risks, same regulations” principle. This helps to ensure regulatory clarity and facilitates compliance by market participants. 9. However, the same comment made in response to Q1 applies, regarding the need for the FSTB and SFC to continue actively monitoring market developments in Hong Kong and globally and, if necessary, adjust the scope and definition of VA management services. As noted in our response to Q1, guidance on whether, and if so how, RWA tokenization fits within the new regulatory framework would be welcome. Q5. Are there any other exemptions which may be appropriate? 10. As of now, we have not identified any additional exemptions that appear to be appropriate. Q6. Do you have any comments on the requirements relating to VA management? 11. We agree with the CP’s approach that the proposed requirements should align with those applicable to Type 9 licensed corporations or registered institutions relating to VA management. We also support the requirement for VA management service providers to observe the AML/CFT obligations stipulated in Schedule 2 to the AMLO, specifically regarding CDD and record-keeping. 12. Aligning the regulatory requirements for VA management service providers with those for VA advisory service providers, as well as with SFC Type 4 and Type 9 licensed corporations, will ensure predictability, bolster investor confidence, and ensure consistency with the “same activity, same risks, same regulation” principle. 13. We recommend that the FSTB and SFC continue engaging with market participants, academia, and standards-setting institutions to ensure that the Hong Kong regulatory regime is fit for purpose. We believe that the requirements should safeguard market integrity and investor protection, while also supporting market development. It is important to avoid regulatory overlaps or overly- prescriptive requirements. Q7. Should VA management service providers be required to hold VAs of the private funds they manage via SFC-regulated VA custodians? 14. Consistent with the approach we recommend in answer to Q6 above, we believe that VA management service providers, should, as a general rule, be required to hold VAs of the private funds they manage through SFC-regulated VA custodians. However, to provide market participants with regulatory flexibility without compromising market integrity or investor protection, we propose that the SFC consider allowing self-custody on a case-by-case basis. This should be contingent on applicants demonstrating that they have robust safeguards in place, in line with the “same activity, same risks, same regulations” principle. Q8. Do you have any comments on the licensing or registration application fee and annual fee for a licensee or registrant providing VA advisory services or VA management services? 15. We agree with the proposed licensing or registration fee and annual fee structure, and do not have any additional comments.
Q9. Do you have any other comments on the VA advisory and VA management service providers licensing regimes? 16. We agree in principle that, in the absence of licensing or registration with the SFC, any person should be prohibited from actively marketing VA advisory or management services to the Hong Kong public.[2] Such a prohibition will be necessary to make the new regime effective. Guidance would also be welcome on whether this includes marketing through channels such as YouTube, Tik Tok short videos, sports sponsorships, and internet banners, and if so, how the SFC proposes to enforce the prohibition in such cases, particularly where the business in question is located overseas. HKGCC Secretariat January 2026
[1] CP para 51. [2] CP para 70.
Top