在很多情況下，答案是：可以。
結婚地點通常並不是決定性因素。
更重要的是：
– 香港是否具有司法管轄權
– 婚姻是否法律上有效
– 香港是否適合處理離婚的實際後果

對於涉及多個司法管轄區的夫婦來說，一開始選擇正確地點非常重要。
若在錯誤地點提出申請，或行動過慢，可能引發：
– 管轄權爭議
– 成本增加
– 程序延誤
– 財務結果受影響

家庭法

簡單結論

如婚姻在舉行地點屬合法有效，
而香港法院具有司法管轄權，
>香港一般可以處理該離婚申請。


換言之，即使婚禮在：
– 倫敦
– 峇里
– 東京
– 曼谷
– 溫哥華

> 也不代表你必須在該地離婚。

同樣地，配偶為外籍人士 並不會自動排除香港的管轄權。
國籍並非關鍵因素。


真正需要考慮的是：
– 香港是否可以審理案件
– 香港是否是最合適的處理地點

香港何時具有司法管轄權？

如在提出離婚申請當日，任何一方符合以下條件之一，香港法院便可受理：
– 以香港為住所（domiciled）
– 在過去三年一直在香港慣常居住（habitually resident）
– 與香港具有實質聯繫（substantial connection）

因此：
– 持有香港身份證或護照 並不一定足夠
– 有些永久居民可能已不再視香港為其家
– 相反，外籍配偶亦可能因家庭生活重心在香港而符合條件
如管轄權不明確，法院可能要求進一步證明及解釋。

婚姻在第三地舉行是否重要？

通常不重要——
前提是婚姻在當地法律下屬有效，且能提供證明。
最基本的證據包括：
– 正本結婚證書
– 或經核證副本

對跨境夫婦而言，文件準備往往被低估：
– 如證書為外語，可能需要翻譯或進一步證明
– 如證書遺失，程序會變得更複雜

>重點很簡單：
在討論策略前，先確保婚姻能清楚證明。

一年限制（One-Year Rule）

在香港，一般需結婚滿 一年 才可提出離婚申請。
這一點雖然看似簡單，但經常被忽略，尤其在：
快速海外結婚
回港後短時間內關係破裂

即使婚姻在海外進行，
仍需符合此門檻方可提出申請。

香港高資產離婚：超高淨值人士的資產保障與婚前協議

決定是否在香港提出離婚前，還需考慮什麼？

管轄權只是第一步。
跨國夫婦亦應考慮：
是否有其他國家同樣具管轄權
是否存在競爭訴訟（parallel proceedings）
子女或主要資產是否位於海外
香港判決是否易於在其他地區執行

實務上，真正的問題往往不是：
「香港可否處理？」

而是：
「應否在香港開始，還是其他地方？」
這是一個法律論壇選擇（forum）問題，

對以下方面有重大影響：
– 財務分配
– 子女安排
– 時間成本
– 法律費用

常見誤解

1. 必須在結婚地離婚
> 通常錯誤

2. 只有兩個香港人才能在香港離婚
> 錯誤

3. 跨境案件隨便選一個地方申請即可
> 風險極高

在跨境家事案件中，
第一步策略往往決定整個案件走向。

為何這對企業東主及跨境人士特別重要？

對於創辦人、管理層及跨境專業人士而言，
離婚不只是結束婚姻，更可能影響：
– 海外物業
– 公司股權
– 花紅及遞延薪酬
– 銀行資產
– 信託安排
– 贍養費責任

因此，「是否在海外結婚」不只是行政問題，
而是整個資產及風險分析的起點。

結語

如你與香港有聯繫但在海外結婚，
香港很可能仍可處理你的離婚申請。

關鍵不在於結婚地點，而在於：
– 婚姻是否有效
– 香港是否具管轄權
– 香港是否最佳處理地點

越早釐清這些問題，
可選擇的策略通常越多。

TITUS 可如何協助您

如你的婚姻涉及跨境因素，例如：
– 外籍配偶
– 海外結婚
– 多地資產

TITUS 可協助你：
– 評估香港是否適合提出離婚
– 分析不同司法管轄區的策略
– 規劃下一步法律及財務影響


聯絡我們

The post 如果在海外結婚，可以在香港離婚嗎？ appeared first on Titus.

Most “fund formation” pain is not legal theory. It’s execution.

The structure looks fine on a diagram, but then:

– bank onboarding stalls,

– counterparties ask basic questions no one prepared for,

– approvals are unclear,

– records are scattered,

– and the fund becomes unmanageable as soon as it gets busy.

This is what we mean by a “bankable” structure: a fund or private investment vehicle that can be explained, evidenced, and operated cleanly year after year.

If you’re exploring a Hong Kong structure, start with our Investment Funds practice page:

—

The 3 pillars of bankability

Pillar 1: A control story that makes sense (who can do what)

Banks and counterparties want to know:

– who has authority to instruct movements of money,

– who approves investments and disposals,

– what internal approvals exist (and whether they’re documented),

– how conflicts are handled.

This is governance, not “legal decoration”.

If you’re structuring a holding stack, our Corporate & Commercial practice often supports this layer:

Pillar 2: Records that exist before you need them

When onboarding or a review happens, you don’t get time to build records retroactively.

In practice you need:

– an approvals log (what was approved, when, by whom),

– an investor onboarding pack (CDD, declarations, source-of-wealth/source-of-funds support),

– clean accounting cadence (monthly/quarterly),

– audit readiness.

If regulatory mapping is relevant, our Regulatory practice can help:

Pillar 3: Asset and cash safekeeping mechanics (especially for OFCs)

If you’re using an OFC, custody and safekeeping design is central to whether the structure works.

Start with:

—

The “Bankable Structure Checklist” (forwardable to clients)

1) Governance Pack

– structure chart (entities + roles)

– signatory matrix (bank + internal approvals)

– delegated authority rules (what management can do without board approval)

– conflicts policy

– template minutes / written resolutions

2) AML & onboarding narrative pack

– source-of-wealth/source-of-funds narrative that matches the structure

– supporting documents organised and consistent

– investor classification approach (where relevant)

3) Operational cadence

– monthly bookkeeping rhythm

– quarterly governance review

– annual audit timeline

– compliance calendar (filings, renewals, registers)

—

Why this is where TITUS × IMSG becomes a better partner model

Many firms can draft documents.

Fewer firms help clients keep the structure clean and credible over time.

TITUS supports legal formation and operating documentation for funds:

Our sister team – IMSG supports the operating layer that keeps structures “alive”:

– company secretarial and filings,

– accounting/tax coordination,

– internal controls and reporting rhythm,

– practical readiness for banking and counterparties.

—

Which vehicle is easiest to keep bankable?

It depends on facts, but broadly:

– HoldCo + SPVs: simplest operationally if governance is designed properly.

– LPF: bankable when roles/records/authority are tight.

– OFC: bankable when custodian + investment manager sequencing is done early.

If you’re choosing, start here:

 Hong Kong Funds & Private Investment Vehicles guide

—

Next step: quick call with our Principal

If you want to discuss a client fact pattern or your firm’s recurring needs, we can set up a quick Zoom call with Michael Titus (Principal, TITUS): https://titus.com.hk/our-people/michael-titus/

Send 2–3 time slots to us via:
Email: info@titus.com.hk, or
Whatsapp: +852 9702 3003

—

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be sought for your particular circumstances.

RELATED READING

– Pillar guide: Hong Kong Funds & Private Investment Vehicles guide

– LPF guide: LPF (Limited Partnership Fund) guide

– OFC guide: OFC (Open-Ended Fund Company) guide

– DIPN 61 (plain English): DIPN 61 explained (Unified Fund Exemption)

The post How to Build a “Bankable” Hong Kong Fund or Private Investment Vehicle (AML, Records, Controls) appeared first on Titus.

“0% carried interest” is one of the most misunderstood headlines in Hong Kong funds marketing.

The reality is more nuanced:

– there is a carried interest concession regime,

– it has effective dates and conditions,

– and it’s designed to reward genuine asset management activity with real substance and governance.

If you’re considering a Hong Kong fund platform, start here:

—

What is “carried interest” (plain English)?

In private equity and similar strategies, carried interest is typically the performance-linked share of profits allocated to the manager/sponsor after certain return thresholds.

This is different from:

– management fees (recurring fees for running the strategy), and

– ordinary investment returns (returns to investors).

—

The headline: 0% profits tax (but only if you qualify)

Hong Kong introduced a carried interest concession regime via legislation enacted in 2021, and the HKMA has issued guidelines on certification of funds under the relevant schedule for the carried interest tax concession.

Practical takeaway:

“0%” is not automatic. It is condition-based.

—

Why this matters for structuring

A carried interest regime affects:

– how you draft the fund’s waterfall,

– how you document “qualifying persons” and services,

– whether the operating model and governance actually match the intended regime.

This is where tax, legal documentation and operations must align.

—

Common pitfalls

Pitfall 1: assuming “LPF = 0% carry”

Vehicle choice alone is not the full analysis. The operating and qualifying conditions matter.

Pitfall 2: substance is treated as an afterthought

If you’re building a Hong Kong platform, operational substance and governance hygiene are not optional.

Pitfall 3: documents don’t match reality

If your waterfall, employment arrangements, approvals and reporting don’t align, you create avoidable risk.

This is also why we stress bankable structures and clean controls:

 How to build a “bankable” Hong Kong fund (AML, records, controls)

—

How TITUS + IMSG helps clients implement this properly

TITUS supports:

– structuring and documentation (including carry/waterfall mechanics),

– fund formation and operating agreements,

– regulatory mapping where required.

Our sister team – IMSG supports:

– operational setup and maintenance,

– governance cadence,

– accounting/tax coordination and record hygiene.

If you want to explore whether this is relevant to your strategy, start here:

—

Next step: quick call with our Principal

If you want to discuss a client fact pattern or your firm’s recurring needs, we can set up a quick Zoom call with Michael Titus (Principal, TITUS): https://titus.com.hk/our-people/michael-titus/

Send 2–3 time slots to us via:
Email: info@titus.com.hk, or
Whatsapp: +852 9702 3003

—

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be sought for your particular circumstances.

RELATED READING

– Pillar guide: Hong Kong Funds & Private Investment Vehicles guide

– DIPN 61 (plain English): DIPN 61 explained (Unified Fund Exemption)

– LPF guide: LPF (Limited Partnership Fund) guide

– Bankable structures playbook: How to build a “bankable” Hong Kong fund (AML, records, controls)

The post Hong Kong Carried Interest Tax Concession: When “0% Profits Tax” Applies (and What You Must Get Right) appeared first on Titus.

DIPN 61 is the Inland Revenue Department’s “Departmental Interpretation and Practice Note” explaining how it interprets and applies Hong Kong’s profits tax exemption for funds (often called the “unified fund exemption”).

If you are advising a fund manager or a private capital group operating in Hong Kong, this note matters—not because it guarantees an outcome, but because it signals how the IRD views key concepts and conditions.

If you want help applying this to a specific structure, start here:

—

What DIPN 61 is (and what it isn’t)

DIPN 61 is:

– IRD guidance on interpretation and application of the funds profits tax exemption regime.

DIPN 61 is not:

– a blanket promise that “funds pay zero tax”,

– a substitute for analysing facts, activities, and structure design.

—

Why people search “DIPN 61” in the first place

Typically, the question behind the search is:

“Can my fund (or private investment platform) operate in Hong Kong without creating unexpected profits tax exposure?”

In practice, the answer depends on:

– whether you meet the definition of “fund” for the relevant provisions,

– the nature of transactions,

– who carries out or arranges transactions,

– how the structure is operated in real life.

—

Three common misconceptions

Misconception 1: “If it’s a fund, it’s automatically exempt”

Not necessarily. The regime is condition-based and fact-driven.

Misconception 2: “Domicile solves everything”

DIPN 61 makes clear the regime is intended to cover privately offered funds operating in Hong Kong, whether domiciled inside or outside Hong Kong—subject to conditions. Domicile is not the only variable.

Misconception 3: “We’ll deal with tax after launch”

This is where problems start. If documents, operations and governance don’t match, you create unnecessary risk.

That’s also why we push “bankable structure” thinking early:

 How to build a “bankable” Hong Kong fund (AML, records, controls)

—

Practical takeaway: how to use DIPN 61 in real structuring work

We typically use DIPN 61 as part of a larger “design pack”:

– define whether the structure is truly operating as a fund,

– map how transactions are sourced, executed and documented,

– ensure agreements reflect actual operations,

– design governance and record-keeping so you can evidence reality.

If you’re still choosing between LPF vs OFC vs a holding/SPV stack, read:

 Hong Kong Funds & Private Investment Vehicles guide

—

Next step: quick call with our Principal

If you want to discuss a client fact pattern or your firm’s recurring needs, we can set up a quick Zoom call with Michael Titus (Principal, TITUS): https://titus.com.hk/our-people/michael-titus/

Send 2–3 time slots to us via:
Email: info@titus.com.hk, or
Whatsapp: +852 9702 3003

—

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be sought for your particular circumstances.

RELATED READING

– Investment Funds practice: Investment Funds practice page

– LPF guide: LPF (Limited Partnership Fund) guide

– OFC guide: OFC (Open-Ended Fund Company) guide

The post DIPN 61 Explained (Plain English): Hong Kong’s Profits Tax Exemption for Funds (“Unified Fund Exemption”) appeared first on Titus.

An OFC is often described as Hong Kong’s “corporate-style” fund vehicle. That’s true—but it’s also the reason OFCs require more upfront sequencing than many clients expect.

For private OFCs, two topics decide whether your structure works in real life:

1) investment manager setup, and

2) custody/safekeeping design.

If you’re still choosing between LPF vs OFC vs a holding/SPV stack, start here:

Hong Kong Funds & Private Investment Vehicles guide

—

What is an OFC (in plain English)?

An OFC is a fund vehicle in corporate form that can be set up as:

– a single OFC, or

– an umbrella OFC with sub-funds (ring-fenced compartments).

It’s often used when corporate governance optics, share-based ownership, or umbrella/sub-fund structuring are desirable.

—

The investment manager issue (plan early)

For OFCs, the investment manager setup is not an afterthought.

The SFC’s OFC Code notes that an OFC is required to have an investment manager and that the investment manager is required to be licensed/registered for Type 9 regulated activity. 

If you need help mapping this in practical terms, our Regulatory practice can help:

—

Custodian requirements: what “safekeeping” really means

A custodian is mandatory and must be approved by the SFC is required for setting up the OFC pursuant to the SFC’s OFC Code. For private OFCs, the SFC’s OFC Code includes an appendix setting out “Requirements for safekeeping of private OFC scheme property”, and notes that custodians of private OFCs should comply with those requirements.

In practice, “custody” affects:

– which asset types you can hold cleanly,

– how cash movements are controlled,

– what audit trail exists,

– whether banking and counterparties view the structure as credible.

If your custodian choice does not match the asset strategy, OFC implementation becomes painful.

—

Practical compliance design (what you should build before launch)

We recommend designing these upfront:

1) Operating procedures

– subscriptions/redemptions (even private vehicles need clean mechanics)

– valuation cadence and method (especially for illiquid assets)

– dealing day rules (if any)

– conflicts policy and approvals

2) Governance pack

– board approvals matrix

– signatory matrix (bank instructions + internal controls)

– minutes/resolutions templates

– reporting cadence and escalation rules

3) Record-keeping and audit trail

If you can’t evidence decisions and money movement cleanly, you get friction:

– with banks,

– with auditors,

– with investors (even “friendly” ones),

– and in disputes.

This is exactly why “bankable structure” thinking matters:

 How to build a “bankable” Hong Kong fund (AML, records, controls)

—

OFC vs LPF: which is typically simpler?

– LPF is usually simpler for closed-end private funds with partnership economics:

– OFC can be compelling where corporate form, umbrella/sub-fund structure, or share mechanics are important—assuming you can sequence the investment manager and custodian properly.

—

Common pitfalls we see (and how to avoid them)

Pitfall 1: “We’ll decide the custodian later”

This usually backfires. Custody drives operations, documentation, audit trail and bank narrative. Most importantly, the SFC requires every OFC to appoint a custodian.

Pitfall 2: mismatched documents vs reality

Offering docs say one thing. The operating team does another. That gap is where problems start.

Pitfall 3: treating OFC like a normal company

An OFC is a fund vehicle; it requires fund-grade operational hygiene.

—

How TITUS + IMSG supports private OFCs

TITUS supports fund formation and operating documentation, including:

– investment management/advisory arrangements

– administration arrangements

– custody arrangements

– fund-related corporate transactions

(See our Investment Funds practice page: https://titus.com.hk/investment-funds/)

Our sister team – IMSG supports ongoing operational running:

– company secretarial + filings

– accounting/tax coordination

– reporting cadence and record hygiene

– practical “bankability” support

—

Next step: quick call with our Principal

If you want to discuss a client fact pattern or your firm’s recurring needs, we can set up a quick Zoom call with Michael Titus (Principal, TITUS): https://titus.com.hk/our-people/michael-titus/

Send 2–3 time slots to us via:
Email: info@titus.com.hk, or
Whatsapp: +852 9702 3003

—

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be sought for your particular circumstances.

RELATED READING

– Pillar guide: Hong Kong Funds & Private Investment Vehicles guide

– LPF guide: LPF (Limited Partnership Fund) guide

– DIPN 61 (plain English): DIPN 61 explained (Unified Fund Exemption)

– Bankable structures playbook: How to build a “bankable” Hong Kong fund (AML, records, controls)

The post The Open-Ended Fund Company (OFC) in Hong Kong: Custodian Requirements & Ongoing Compliance (Private OFCs) appeared first on Titus.

Hong Kong’s LPF regime is designed to enable private funds to be registered as limited partnerships in Hong Kong, and it commenced operation on 31 August 2020. (Official overview: https://www.cr.gov.hk/en/legislation/lpf.htm)

This guide focuses on what clients and advisers actually need: the roles you must appoint, the filing workflow, realistic timelines, and what to maintain after launch.

If you want to discuss a specific structure, start here:

—

What is an LPF (and who it’s for)?

An LPF is typically used for private fund-style structures—private equity, venture, credit, real assets, or a “club deal” investment vehicle—where partnership economics (capital commitments, distributions, waterfall/carry) are useful.

If you’re still deciding LPF vs OFC vs a holding/SPV stack, read:

Hong Kong Funds & Private Investment Vehicles guide

—

The key roles you need (don’t draft the LPA until these are clear)

1) General Partner (GP) and the Investment Manager

The GP runs the fund and is central to how authority and liability are allocated. Many groups use a corporate GP. Under most scenarios, the GP will delegate the investment management function to a licensed investment manager.

2) Limited Partners (LPs)

LPs contribute capital and receive limited liability treatment, but they should not run the day-to-day management (your governance plan matters here).

3) Responsible Person (AML/CFT)

LPFs require a local AML/CFT compliance arrangement via a “responsible person”. This is one of the first things that banks and counterparties will ask about.

4) Auditor

Annual audited financial statements are a common operational expectation for credible funds, and LPF structures typically plan for audit from day one.

5) Hong Kong solicitor / law firm (for filing)

The Companies Registry’s LPF FAQ states the application must be submitted by a Hong Kong law firm or solicitor on behalf of the proposed GP. (Official FAQ: https://www.cr.gov.hk/en/legislation/lpf/faq_new.htm)

—

Registration steps (practical workflow)

Step 1: Define structure + governance

Before paperwork, lock down:

– who signs bank instructions,

– approval thresholds (investments, borrowings, disposals),

– conflicts policy,

– reporting cadence.

If “bankability” is important (it usually is), read:

How to build a “bankable” Hong Kong fund (AML, records, controls)

Step 2: Prepare core documents

Typical documents include:

– Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA)

– subscription / commitment documents

– service provider agreements (admin, audit, custody if relevant)

– internal governance pack (signatory matrix, approvals log template)

Step 3: File the application

Per the Companies Registry FAQ, an application involves Form LPF1 and specified fees. The FAQ lists:

– registration fee: HK$2,555

– lodgement fee: HK$479 (non-refundable)

– IRBR4 notice to Business Registration Office

– prescribed business registration fee/levy (see IRD table)

(See official FAQ for details: https://www.cr.gov.hk/en/legislation/lpf/faq_new.htm)

Note: The FAQ also notes that items relating to simultaneous business registration applications started from 27 December 2023 in certain cases. (Same official FAQ page above.)

Step 4: Launch readiness (parallel work)

You can usually run in parallel:

– banking onboarding,

– investor onboarding pack,

– operational record-keeping setup.

—

Realistic timeline (what drives it)

Instead of promising “7 days”, we plan around the real friction points:

– Week 1–2: structure, roles, term sheet for LPA, service providers lined up

– Week 2–4: drafting + negotiations + onboarding pack

– Week 4–6: filing + launch readiness

– Banking: may extend timelines depending on complexity, geography, and source-of-wealth documentation

—

Ongoing obligations (what weak LPFs fail on)

The Companies Registry FAQ confirms LPFs have filing and record-keeping requirements, including an annual return (filed by the GP within a specified timeframe). (Official FAQ: https://www.cr.gov.hk/en/legislation/lpf/faq_new.htm)

In practice, what keeps things healthy is:

– a governance cadence (quarterly review, approvals log),

– clean books and audit readiness,

– AML/records hygiene.

This overlaps heavily with regulatory risk management. If your structure has regulated activity concerns or cross-border marketing questions, our Regulatory practice can help:

—

LPF vs OFC (one-minute comparison)

LPF is usually the clean choice when:

– the fund is closed-end / commitment-based,

– you want partnership economics and a private fund wrapper.

If you need a corporate fund structure and are prepared for custodian + investment manager sequencing, look at OFC:

—

Next step: quick call with our Principal

If you want to discuss a client fact pattern or your firm’s recurring needs, we can set up a quick Zoom call with Michael Titus (Principal, TITUS): https://titus.com.hk/our-people/michael-titus/

Send 2–3 time slots to us via:
Email: info@titus.com.hk, or
Whatsapp: +852 9702 3003

—

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be sought for your particular circumstances.

RELATED READING

– Pillar guide: Hong Kong Funds & Private Investment Vehicles guide

– OFC guide: OFC (Open-Ended Fund Company) guide

– DIPN 61 (plain English): DIPN 61 explained (Unified Fund Exemption)

– Carried interest (0% profits tax): Hong Kong carried interest tax concession (0% profits tax)

– Bankable structures playbook: How to build a “bankable” Hong Kong fund (AML, records, controls)

The post The Limited Partnership Fund (LPF) in Hong Kong: Registration, Key Roles & Timeline (2026 Practical Guide) appeared first on Titus.

If you’re advising a family, founder, or private capital group with Asia exposure, “just set up an entity” is rarely the hard part. The hard part is building a structure that is:

• legally coherent,
• operationally clean, and
• explainable to banks and counterparties.

This guide is a practical overview of the most common Hong Kong options—how to choose between them, and where deals typically go wrong. If you want to speak to our team about a specific fact pattern, start with our Investment Funds practice page here: Investment Funds practice page

The quick map: LPF vs OFC vs HoldCo + SPVs

Option 1: Holding company + SPVs (the “private investment platform” for most families)

Best when you want a straightforward private investment vehicle to hold assets (portfolio investments, operating companies, property SPVs, co-invest positions) without running a fund-style subscription/redemption model.

Typical characteristics:

– one HK holding company (or a small stack),

– SPVs per asset or strategy,

– governance rules (approvals, signatories, reporting cadence) designed upfront.

Option 2: LPF (Limited Partnership Fund) — private fund-style wrapper

Best when the vehicle behaves like a private fund:

– pooled capital,

– multiple investors (even a small “club”),

– private equity / venture / credit-style economics,

– partnership governance and distribution mechanics.

Read our full LPF guide:

Option 3: OFC (Open-ended Fund Company) — corporate fund wrapper

Best when you want a corporate form fund structure, often with:

– share issuance/redemption mechanics,

– umbrella/sub-fund thinking,

– a compliance design that is closer to institutional fund governance.

Read our full OFC guide:

—

“Why Hong Kong?” — reasons advisers can use without sounding like a brochure

Hong Kong remains a practical Asia hub for private capital structures because it combines:

– a mature legal and professional ecosystem,

– common-law familiarity (helpful for international advisers),

– proximity to Asia capital and banking infrastructure, and

– a growing set of fund-related regimes and guidance.

From a legal-services perspective, the biggest “why” is still execution: if the structure needs to operate with Asia banking, Asia counterparties, and multi-jurisdictional family governance, Hong Kong is often a workable centre of gravity.

(If you’re comparing Hong Kong structures or you’re setting up a fund platform, our team can help you scope the right path here: https://titus.com.hk/investment-funds/)

—

The five questions that decide the structure (90% of the time)

1) Is it really a “fund” — or just a private holding platform?

If investors pool money and a manager runs the strategy, you’re in fund logic. If it’s a family/founder investment platform, a HoldCo/SPV stack may be cleaner.

2) Do you need subscriptions/redemptions (open-ended behaviour)?

If yes, OFC becomes more relevant. If no (closed-end), LPF or HoldCo/SPVs are often more natural.

3) How many investors are there (and how sophisticated)?

A family-only vehicle often prioritises operational simplicity. A club/co-invest vehicle often benefits from LPF mechanics and clearer partner rights.

4) What does the bank need to see?

If your structure can’t be explained and evidenced, onboarding stalls. That’s why “bankability” is not a footnote.

(We cover this in detail here: /bankable-hong-kong-fund-structures-aml-controls/)

5) Are you aiming for any Hong Kong fund tax regimes?

If your vehicle is truly operating as a “fund” and meets the relevant conditions, Hong Kong’s profits tax exemption guidance becomes relevant. Start with our plain-English note:

 /dipn-61-hong-kong-profits-tax-exemption-for-funds/

—

Typical timelines (realistic planning)

Every case differs, but these are the planning ranges we see most often:

– HoldCo + SPVs: usually fastest legally; banking and operational setup often drives the real timeline.

– LPF: manageable once key roles are lined up and the LPA terms are clear.

– OFC: more sequencing-heavy; custodian and investment manager decisions should be made early.

—

Common pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

Pitfall 1: building a “paper structure” that doesn’t match real life

If actual control is different from what documents say, problems appear in banking, audits, disputes, and exits.

Pitfall 2: choosing the vehicle before defining governance

The structure should follow the governance plan (who approves what, who can sign, what reporting is required).

Pitfall 3: ignoring the operational layer

Entity maintenance, accounting/tax coordination, record-keeping, and approval logs are what keep the structure alive.

Our Corporate & Commercial practice often supports the “holding and governance” side of these projects:

Our Regulatory practice supports compliance and risk mapping when the facts require it:

—

How TITUS typically supports these structures (the “HK desk” model)

TITUS supports legal design and implementation:

– vehicle selection (LPF vs OFC vs SPVs),

– formation documentation and agreements,

– fund formation and operating documentation,

– regulatory mapping where needed,

– transactions, restructurings, and dispute planning.

Our sister company – IMSG supports the running of the structure:

– company secretarial and filings,

– accounting/tax coordination,

– ongoing operational cadence (records, approvals, reporting),

– practical “bankability” support.

If you’re exploring Hong Kong for a client, start here:

—

Next step: quick call with our Principal

If you want to discuss a client fact pattern or your firm’s recurring needs, we can set up a quick Zoom call with Michael Titus (Principal, TITUS):

Send 2–3 time slots to us via:
Email: info@titus.com.hk, or
Whatsapp: +852 9702 3003

—

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be sought for your particular circumstances.

RELATED READING

– LPF guide: https://titus.com.hk/the-limited-partnership-fund-lpf-in-hong-kong-a-complete-guide/

– OFC guide: https://titus.com.hk/the-open-ended-fund-company-ofc-in-hong-kong-what-you-need-to-know/

– DIPN 61 (plain English): https://titus.com.hk/dipn-61-hong-kong-profits-tax-exemption-for-funds/

– Carried interest (0% profits tax): https://titus.com.hk/hong-kong-carried-interest-tax-concession-0-profits-tax/

– Bankable structures playbook: https://titus.com.hk/bankable-hong-kong-fund-structures-aml-controls/

The post Hong Kong Funds & Private Investment Vehicles: A Practical Guide for Families, Founders and Private Capital (2026) appeared first on Titus.

在 TITUS，我們經常看到中小企及初創企業創辦人十分重視股東協議、商業合約及知識產權，卻忽略了一個重要風險——精神行為能力喪失（mental incapacity）。若企業的關鍵決策者因疾病或意外而失去管理自身事務的能力，企業運作及家庭財務可能會瞬間陷入停頓，造成嚴重後果。

這正是 持久授權書（Enduring Power of Attorney，EPA） 發揮關鍵作用的地方。

甚麼是持久授權書（EPA）？

根據《持久授權書條例》（Enduring Powers of Attorney Ordinance，第501章），
EPA 是一份法律文件，允許你（授權人 Donor）委任一名或多名人士（受權人 Attorneys），代你處理財務及財產事務。

一般授權書（General Power of Attorney）通常會在以下情況失效：
一般情況下 12 個月後失效
或當授權人喪失精神行為能力時即時失效
然而 EPA 的設計正是為了在授權人喪失精神行為能力後仍然有效。
這確保當你最需要協助的時候，你所信任的人仍能繼續管理你的：
– 財產
– 銀行帳戶
– 投資
– 財務安排

注意
在香港：
EPA 只涵蓋財產及財務事務。
它不包括：
醫療決定
生活安排或照顧決定

誰需要設立 EPA？

很多人認為 EPA 只適用於長者或失智症規劃，但事實上它是一項重要的風險管理工具，特別適合：

• 中小企及初創企業創辦人
  如果你是：
  公司銀行帳戶唯一簽署人，或
  企業主要決策者
  
  EPA 能確保在你暫時或永久失去行為能力時，企業仍可：
  – 支付員工薪金
  – 支付供應商
  – 支付租金
  – 維持正常營運
• 物業投資者
  若你持有房地產資產，EPA 可讓受權人：
  – 管理租約
  – 處理按揭付款
  – 處理出售或轉讓
• 家庭經濟支柱
  EPA 能確保你的配偶或子女在緊急情況下能：
  – 即時使用資金
  – 支付日常開支
  – 支付醫療費用
  而無需等待法庭程序。

香港設立 EPA 的程序

設立有效 EPA 需要嚴格遵守法定程序。

1. 1. 使用指定法律表格 必須使用《持久授權書規例》（Cap. 501A）所訂明的表格。 .
2. 2. 醫生及律師見證
   為確保授權人具備簽署能力，EPA 必須由：
   
   • 香港註冊醫生
   • 香港執業律師 見證
   • 法律允許在某些情況下，醫生與律師的簽署之間可有 最多 28 天間隔。
3. 3. 向高等法院登記
   EPA 必須向 高等法院登記處（Registrar of the High Court） 登記。
   雖然可以提前登記，但在授權人：
   已經或即將喪失精神行為能力時
   必須完成登記，受權人才能正式行使權力。

為何不建議自行處理 EPA？

香港法院對 EPA 的法律要求非常嚴格。
以下任何技術性錯誤都可能導致 EPA 完全無效：
– 見證程序錯誤
– 文件格式錯誤
– 權限條款措辭不當
如果 EPA 無效，你的家人可能需要透過《精神健康條例》申請：監護／委員會（Committeeship）

這個程序通常：
– 成本高昂
– 涉及公開法庭程序
– 可能需時 一年或以上

常見問題（FAQ）

1. 我可以同時委任配偶和商業伙伴為受權人嗎？ 可以。
你可以指定他們：
共同（Jointly）行事：所有決定需一致同意
共同及各自（Jointly and Severally）行事：可單獨作出決定

2. EPA 可以作醫療決定嗎？ 不可以。
在香港，EPA 只涵蓋財務及財產事務。

3. 在我仍然健康時，EPA 會奪去我的控制權嗎？ 未必。
文件可以列明 EPA 只會在以下情況生效：
指定日期
或醫生確認你喪失精神行為能力

4. EPA 與遺囑（Will）是否相同？ 不是。
– 遺囑：在身故後生效
– EPA：在你仍然在世但失去行為能力時保障你的利益
此外，授權人身故時 EPA 即自動失效。

5. 設立 EPA 的費用是多少？
雖然涉及律師費及醫療費，但通常只是：
沒有 EPA 時需要進行法院程序成本的一小部分。

TITUS 與你一同保障未來

在 TITUS，我們專注於企業法律與私人客戶法律的交叉領域。
我們不只是填寫法律表格，而是為企業東主與家庭提供：
全面的風險管理策略。

保障你的企業。
保障你的家庭。
歡迎聯絡 TITUS，安排保密諮詢，了解如何設立持久授權書。

免責聲明
本文僅提供一般資訊，並不構成法律意見。
如涉及具體法律問題，請諮詢合資格的法律專業人士。

The post Securing Your Legacy: A Guide to Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPA) in Hong Kong appeared first on Titus.

雖然任何人都有依法就損失或傷害提出索償的權利，
但提出索償要求並不等同於你在法律上必須付款。

了解香港法律下索償的實際運作方式，
是保障自身權益的第一步。

1. 索償權利 vs. 付款責任

香港法律允許任何自認遭受損失、受傷或損害的人士：

• 發出索償信（Letter of Demand）
  
• 提起民事訴訟
  
• 追討金錢賠償
  

這種訴諸司法的權利屬於基本法律保障。

然而——
舉證責任始終在索償一方。
索償人必須以相對可能性衡量標準（balance of probabilities）證明：

• 存在法律責任（legal duty）
  
• 該責任被違反
  
• 違反行為造成實際損失
  
• 索償金額合理且有證據支持
  

若未能證明上述法律要素，
無論措辭多強硬，索償亦不會在法庭上成功。

2. Why Some Claims Appear “Unreasonable”

很多人在收到律師信後會急於和解，常見原因包括：

• 害怕上法庭
  
• 擔心法律費用
  
• 誤解自身法律責任
  
• 索償信語氣強硬
  

但事實上——
索償信只是法律程序的開始，而非最終裁決。

香港法院會仔細審視：

• 醫療證據
  
• 財務文件
  
• 事件與損失之間的因果關係
  
• 索償金額是否相稱
  

如索償被誇大或缺乏支持，法院可：

• 下調賠償金額
  
• 部分或全部駁回申索
  
• 命索償人承擔訟費
  

3. 香港民事索償程序如何運作

理解程序，可大幅減少恐慌。

步驟一：索償信

索償人（或其律師）要求付款。
此階段你並無付款義務。

步驟二：協商或訴前溝通

雙方可能交換：

• 證據
  
• 責任與賠償金額的法律觀點
  
• 和解建議
  

不少爭議會在此階段解決。

步驟三：正式訴訟

如未能解決，索償人必須在法庭正式舉證。
法院將獨立裁定：

• 法律責任
  
• 賠償金額
  
• 訟費安排
  

只有法院判決或雙方正式和解，
才會產生具法律約束力的付款責任。

4. 如你收到索償要求，應如何應對？

保持冷靜——切勿即時承認責任

過早承認責任可能影響法律立場。

保存所有證據

包括：

• 相片或影片
  
• 訊息紀錄
  
• 醫療或維修文件
  
• 證人資料
  

證據往往決定結果。

避免在未獲法律意見前私下和解

倉促和解可能：

• 支付過高金額
  
• 影響保險索償
  
• 產生進一步法律風險
  

立即通知你的保險公司

應盡快轉交：
索償信
法院文件
予你的保險代理或保險公司。

及早尋求法律意見

律師可協助：

• 評估法律責任與證據
  
• 正式回覆索償
  
• 進行談判或抗辯
  
• 保障你的程序權利
  

及早諮詢，通常遠比事後補救成本更低。

5. 關鍵重點

在香港：

任何人都可以提出索償，
但只有被證明成立的索償，
才會產生法律上的付款責任。

理解這一點，
能讓你冷靜、依法及有策略地回應，
而不是在壓力或情緒下作出決定。

TITUS如何協助您

TITUS 的訴訟及爭議解決團隊經常協助客戶處理：

• 過高或缺乏依據的索償要求
  
• 人身傷害及意外索償
  
• 民事責任爭議
  
• 和解談判及法庭抗辯
  

如你已收到索償要求而不確定如何應對，
及早獲取法律意見往往能帶來關鍵差異。

免責聲明
本文僅供一般資訊參考，
並不構成法律意見。
具體法律意見應按你的個別情況向專業律師諮詢。

The post 香港不合理索償：你真的一定要賠嗎？ appeared first on Titus.

It’s the classic sales nightmare: Your top account manager resigns. You wish them well, throw a farewell lunch, and they walk out the door.

Three weeks later, you realize your sales pipeline has gone quiet. You check in with a long-term client, only to hear: “Oh, we actually moved our account to [Ex-Employee]’s new agency. They gave us a great call last week.”

You’ve been poached.

Many Hong Kong business owners assume their “Non-Compete” clause covers this. But as we discussed in our previous post, non-competes are hard to enforce. The real weapon for protecting your revenue is the Non-Solicitation Clause.

At TITUS, we know that for professional service firms, your client list is the business. Here is how to lock it down legally.

The “Double Lock”: Data vs. Relationships

To stop an employee from walking away with your business, you need to understand that you are protecting two different things: the Data (the contact list) and the Relationship (the influence).

You need a separate legal “lock” for each.

Lock 1: Confidentiality (The Data)

• The Risk: The employee downloads your CRM database to a USB drive or emails the client spreadsheet to their personal email before leaving.
• The Law: This is often a breach of confidentiality or even theft. However, Hong Kong courts are strict: You must prove the information is actually confidential.
• The Trap: If your client list is public (e.g., listed on your website as “Our Partners”), it is not confidential. If the employee just remembers the names in their head, that is also hard to stop.
• The Fix: Your employment contract must specifically define what constitutes Confidential Information.

Lock 2: Non-Solicitation (The Relationship)

• The Risk: The employee doesn’t steal the database, but they know the clients personally. They call them up and say, “I’m at a new firm now, I can offer you a better rate.”
• The Law: A Non-Solicitation clause forbids the ex-employee from actively approaching your clients to generate business.
• The Enforceability: Unlike non-competes (which ban working), courts are more willing to enforce non-solicits because they don’t stop the employee from earning a living—they just stop them from stealing your living.

The “Passive Poaching” Loophole (And How to Close It)

Here is the most common excuse ex-employees use in court:

“I didn’t breach the contract! I didn’t call the client. The client saw my LinkedIn update and called ME. I just answered the phone.”

In Hong Kong law, Solicitation usually requires the employee to make the first move. If the client calls them, a standard non-solicitation clause might not stop them from taking the business.

The Solution: The “Non-Dealing” Clause To plug this hole, you need a Non-Dealing Clause. This goes one step further: it says the ex-employee cannot process any business from your clients, regardless of who called whom. Even if the client begs them, they must say, “I cannot work with you for 6 months due to my contract.”

The “Personal Touch” Rule

Just like non-competes, you cannot be greedy. You cannot ban an ex-employee from contacting every single client your company has ever had.

To be enforceable in Hong Kong, the clause must be a reasonable and adequate protection to the employer. It should usually be limited to clients the employee personally dealt with during their employment.

• Valid: Banning a Sales Manager from poaching the 50 clients they managed.
• Invalid: Banning a Junior Admin from contacting a client they never met.

TITUS Checklist: Is Your Client Protection Real?

Open your current employment contract template. Does it pass this 3-point check?

1. Does it separate “Solicitation” from “Dealing”? (If it only says “Non-Solicit,” you are vulnerable to the “they called me” excuse.)
2. Is the timeframe reasonable? (6 to 12 months is standard. Anything over 12 months is high risk for rejection by courts.)
3. Is “Confidential Information” defined clearly? (Does it explicitly mention client databases, pricing lists, and contact details?)

Protect your assets. Your intellectual property isn’t just your logo; it’s the handshake you have with your clients. Don’t let it walk out the door.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Drafting enforceable restrictive covenants requires precise legal wording tailored to your specific business risks. Always consult a solicitor.

The post They Can Leave, But They Can’t Take the Rolodex: Protecting Your Client List in Hong Kong appeared first on Titus.