If you charge a client for a view on Bitcoin, Ethereum, a stablecoin or any other virtual asset, and you do that from Hong Kong, you’re about to need a licence. Same if you run a virtual asset portfolio on a discretionary basis for someone else. The regime hasn’t been gazetted yet, but the policy is now locked in, and the direction of travel is unambiguous.<\/p>
On 26 May 2026, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau and the Securities and Futures Commission published consultation conclusions on two new licensing regimes: one for virtual asset advisory services, one for virtual asset management services (FSTB \/ SFC press release, 26 May 2026<\/a>). The bill is targeted for the Legislative Council this year. There is no general grandfathering.<\/p> For a large number of family offices, EAMs, asset managers, advisory boutiques and crypto-native research shops operating from Hong Kong, this is the regime that will catch them. Here is what it actually says, what it means in practice, and what to do now.<\/p> The 26 May 2026 conclusions follow a one-month further consultation that closed on 23 January 2026. The FSTB and the SFC received 51 submissions, and the majority of respondents supported the proposed regimes (FSTB \/ SFC press release, 26 May 2026<\/a>; Slaughter and May summary<\/a>).<\/p> The two new regimes will sit under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615) (AMLO). They will be modelled on the existing Type 4 (advising on securities) and Type 9 (asset management) regulated activities under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) (SFO). The stated principle, used in every recent FSTB and SFC consultation paper on virtual assets, is “same activity, same risks, same regulation.”<\/p> In plain English: virtual asset advisers and virtual asset managers will be regulated comparably to how their securities-side equivalents are regulated today. The conduct requirements, suitability obligations, professional investor rules, AML\/CFT framework and ongoing supervision will all be familiar to anyone who has held a Type 4 or Type 9 licence.<\/p> The bill amending the AMLO to introduce these regimes (together with the parallel dealer and custodian regimes concluded in December 2025) is targeted for introduction into LegCo in 2026 (FSTB \/ SFC, 24 December 2025<\/a>). For the full map of where these licences sit in the new perimeter, see our guide to the five Hong Kong virtual asset licences you need to know about in 2026<\/a>.<\/p> The drafting will matter, and the legislation will set the perimeter precisely. From the consultation paper and the conclusions, the working scope is:<\/p> A virtual asset advisory service<\/strong> is, broadly, a paid service of giving advice or making recommendations on the acquisition or disposal of virtual assets. That includes recommending whether a client should buy, sell or hold a specific virtual asset, advising on the suitability of a particular virtual asset, or providing analytical reports or research where a recommendation is the substance of what’s being sold. It mirrors what Type 4 captures on the securities side.<\/p> A virtual asset management service<\/strong> is, broadly, the provision of a service of managing a portfolio of virtual assets for another person. The standard test is discretionary management: you have the authority to buy and sell on the client’s behalf without case-by-case instruction. It mirrors what Type 9 captures on the securities side (Conventus Law overview<\/a>; Charles Russell Speechlys analysis<\/a>).<\/p> One open question not fully resolved in the consultation conclusions is whether any carve-out or lighter-touch treatment will apply where services are provided exclusively to professional investors within the meaning of the SFO. The SFO-modelled regimes typically provide some relaxation of conduct obligations in a professional investor context, and this point was raised by respondents during the consultation. The conclusions indicate that the SFC will address this in its detailed licensing conditions and codes of conduct. Firms serving exclusively institutional or high-net-worth professional investor clients should not assume, however, that this translates into a full exemption from the licensing requirement itself.<\/p> The combination of these two will catch a lot of activity that has been sitting in a grey zone for years. Examples to think about:<\/p> If you recognise your business in any of those descriptions, the new adviser or manager licence is probably going to apply to you.<\/p> This is the line that’s catching people off guard. Under the regime, firms that are currently advising on or managing virtual assets without an SFC licence will not be deemed licensed when the regime kicks in. They’ll have to apply (FSTB \/ SFC press release, 26 May 2026<\/a>).<\/p> That’s a contrast with some past Hong Kong regulatory transitions, where firms operating in a previously unregulated space were given some form of deeming or transitional protection. The policy this time is harder: if you weren’t already licensed for the equivalent securities activity, you join the queue.<\/p> The one important exception runs the other way. Firms that already hold an SFC Type 4 or Type 9 licence with the existing virtual asset uplift (the “Type 1\/4\/9 VA uplift” route the SFC introduced over the last few years) will likely qualify for an expedited approval path into the new adviser or manager licence, rather than going through a full fresh application. That is a real reward for the existing market participants who invested in the uplift route when most of the industry didn’t bother (Charles Russell Speechlys analysis<\/a>).<\/p> The practical reading: if you currently hold an uplifted Type 4 or Type 9, you’re in a much better position than you may realise. If you don’t, you should think hard about whether the existing uplift route is still open as a defensive move while the new bill is going through LegCo.<\/p> Final numbers will sit in the legislation and the SFC’s licensing handbook, but the working figures discussed during the consultation give a useful indication. Industry analysis of the consultation papers points to:<\/p> On the conduct side, expect the standard Type 4 \/ Type 9 architecture: responsible officers with relevant industry experience, suitability assessments for clients, professional investor rules, codes of conduct, client agreements, complaints handling, recordkeeping, AML\/CFT controls, and ongoing reporting. None of this should be a surprise to anyone who has lived inside the SFO regime before. For pure crypto-native operators who have not, it is a real lift.<\/p> The cost and time to build the infrastructure to a level the SFC will accept is the part most firms underestimate. Twelve months is a realistic working assumption for the build, and another six to twelve months for the licensing process itself once the regime is live.<\/p> The bill is expected to be introduced into LegCo in 2026. From there, the standard pattern in Hong Kong is for a regulatory regime of this size to be passed, gazetted, and brought into operation in stages over the following twelve to eighteen months, with formal commencement dates set by the FSTB and detailed rules published by the SFC. The Stablecoins Ordinance followed roughly that pattern, with the bill passed in May 2025 and the regime going live on 1 August 2025 (HKMA, 29 July 2025<\/a>).<\/p> So the practical horizon for VA advisers and managers is: bill in LegCo this year, regime potentially live in 2027, with an application window opening shortly before or at commencement.<\/p> That’s not a long runway. It feels like one, because regulatory bills always do until they don’t, but anyone who watched the stablecoin queue form between January and September 2025 will recognise the shape of what’s coming. The firms that get into the first window will get the SFC’s attention. The firms that wait until the regime is live will join a queue.<\/p> Four practical things, in order of priority.<\/p> First, work out whether your activity actually falls inside the perimeter. The hard cases are around what counts as “advice” rather than information, and around the structuring of fees and discretionary authority. Get a clear, written view on whether you’re caught, by whom, and in what entity.<\/p> Second, if you hold an SFC Type 4 or Type 9 licence without the virtual asset uplift, decide quickly whether to apply for the uplift now. The expedited path into the new regime is a meaningful advantage and it’s only open to firms that already have the upstream licence and the uplift in place.<\/p> Third, if you’re operating offshore but the substance is in Hong Kong, this is the moment to redesign that structure honestly. The “we’re based in [BVI \/ Cayman \/ Dubai] and the Hong Kong office is just a research function” framing is going to age very badly under the new dealer, adviser and manager regimes. The SFC has been increasingly direct on substance, and the AMLO route gives it both the perimeter and the enforcement tools. A related point concerns the position of firms advising clients located entirely outside Hong Kong from a Hong Kong base. The consultation conclusions do not squarely address whether the licensing trigger is the location of the adviser, the location of the client, or both. Based on the approach taken under the SFO, the SFC is likely to take the view that providing VA advisory or management services from Hong Kong is sufficient to engage the regime regardless of where the client is situated. Firms with a predominantly overseas client base should not assume that client location alone provides a territorial exemption.<\/p> Fourth, start building the conduct, AML\/CFT and operational infrastructure now. This work is portable across regimes. It will help you with the new adviser or manager licence, it will help you with the new dealer regime if you also do dealing, and it will help you with the existing Type 4\/9 uplift route in the meantime. None of it can be done in a hurry once the application window opens.<\/p> At TITUS, we’ve worked with virtual asset firms<\/a> through the original VATP licensing process, the Type 1\/4\/9 uplift, the Stablecoins Ordinance applications, and the early structural conversations on the new dealer and adviser regimes. If you want a clear, working read on whether your business is caught and what the cleanest route through the new regime looks like, we’re happy to have that conversation. Contact us<\/a> or book a consultation<\/a>.<\/p> This article is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The regulatory regime described above is at consultation conclusion stage and the detailed requirements will be set out in legislation and SFC guidance. For advice on how a specific business is affected, please contact TITUS Solicitors.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If you charge a client for a view on Bitcoin, Ethereum, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":5597,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_vp_format_video_url":"","_vp_image_focal_point":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[152],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-crypto"],"yoast_head":"\nWhat just changed<\/h2>
What “VA adviser” and “VA manager” actually cover<\/h2>
The no-grandfathering point<\/h2>
What the capital and conduct requirements will look like<\/h2>
The timeline that actually matters<\/h2>
What to do now<\/h2>