A1

The following are examples of documents that would be considered reliable and independent for non-Hong Kong residents:
(a) a valid travel document;
(b) a valid national (i.e., government or state-issued) identity card bearing the photograph of the individual; or
(c) a valid national driving licence incorporating all the required identification information and photographic evidence of the identity of the applicant (issued by a competent national or state authority).
(Key Reference(s): Guideline on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (For Money Service Operators) (“AML/CFT Guideline”) para. 4.3.3 and para. 2 of Appendix A)

A2

The following documents are examples of travel documents for the purpose of identity verification:
(a) Passport;
(b) Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Residents;
(c) Seaman’s Identity Document (issued under and in accordance with the International Labour Organisation Convention/Seafarers Identity Document Convention 1958);
(d) Taiwan Travel Permit for Mainland Residents;
(e) Permit for residents of Macau issued by Director of Immigration;
(f) Exit-entry Permit for Travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macau for Official Purposes; or
(g) Exit-entry Permit for Travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macau.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.3.3 and para. 3 of Appendix A)

A3

An MSO should retain a copy of the “biodata” page of the travel documents containing the bearer’s photograph and biographical details for the purpose of the record-keeping requirements in the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap.615) (“AMLO”) and the AML/CFT Guideline.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.3.3)

A4

If a natural person customer changes their name, an MSO should verify the new name by reference to documents, data or information provided by a reliable and independent source following paragraph 4.3.3 of the AML/CFT Guideline. To mitigate the risk of impersonation, the MSO should corroborate other identification information (e.g. date of birth, Hong Kong Identity Card number) on the new identification documents against its existing records. In case of doubt, the MSO may request a copy of applicable documentation regarding the name change (e.g. marriage certificate or deed poll).
For the avoidance of doubt, if a customer’s name has changed before the establishment of a business relationship, only the current name is required to be identified and verified.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.3.2)

A5

The “principal place of business” means the location where a legal person primarily operates or the place of its main activities. It can be the same as, or differ from, the address of registered office.
Legal persons, depending on their business nature, may operate in various locations or premises of different natures. If the address of the principal place of business of a legal person is not in line with an MSO’s understanding of the legal person’s business nature or customer profile, the MSO should seek to understand the rationale for why that address is provided to the MSO.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.3.6)

A6

Paragraph 4.3.6(c) requires MSOs to obtain the address of registered office of a legal person. When the address of registered office of a legal person is included in a document provided by a reliable and independent source (e.g., certificate of incumbency) that is obtained by (or otherwise available to) the MSO for verification of the legal person's identity, an MSO may accept the document as an evidence of the address of registered office unless the MSO was made aware that such address was out of date.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.3.6)

A7

The identity of a partnership can be verified by a record of registration or a partnership agreement or deed (which may be an extract or redacted version for customers / circumstances that are not deemed to present a high ML/TF risk). However, if a record of registration is obtained, an additional document may be required to understand the powers that regulate and bind the partnership, which may not be covered by that record itself.
If the customer (ie the partnership) is a well-known, reputable organisation with a long history in its industry and there is substantial public information about the customer, its partners and controllers, then confirmation of the customer’s membership of a professional or trade industry is likely to be sufficient to verify the identity of the customer.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.3.7 and 4.3.8)

A8

An MSO is obliged to understand the ownership and control structure of its customers. Although obtaining an ownership chart from the customer is the most convenient way of doing this, there is no strict requirement to do so.
In deciding whether an ownership chart should be obtained, an MSO should take into account the risk profile of the customer and the complexity of the ownership or control structure.
Although an MSO needs to identify any intermediate layers, it needs not, as a matter of routine, verify the details of the intermediate companies in the ownership structure. Whether this is necessary will depend upon the MSO’s overall understanding of the structure, the customer’s risk profile and whether the information available is adequate in the circumstances for the MSO to consider if it has taken adequate measures to identify the beneficial owners.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.4.14)

A9

In general, a corporate account is opened in the name of a legal person by a natural person who is authorised to act on behalf of that legal person to establish business relationship with an MSO. The AML/CFT Guideline does not mandate whether the natural person should be a director or beneficial owner of a customer so long as the natural person has been properly authorised to act on behalf of the customer to establish business relationship with the MSO. The basic requirement in this regard is for an MSO to identify and verify the identity of that natural person as well as obtaining the written authority to verify that the natural person has the authorisation of the legal person to establish a business relationship with the MSO.

If, in such a case, the business relationship is established through a face-to-face channel, at least one natural person who is authorised to establish the business relationship should be physically present at the time of account opening.

For the avoidance of doubt, if, in such a case, the business relationship is established through a non-face-to-face channel (i.e., the natural person acting on behalf of the legal person customer to establish the business relationship is not physically present for identification purpose), the MSO should mitigate any increased risk according to paragraph 4.10.5 of the AML/CFT Guideline, such as applying additional due diligence measures set out in paragraph 4.10.1 or apply a digital identification system that is a reliable and independent source recognized by the “CCE” (e.g. “iAM SMART”) as stipulated in para. 4.3.1 and 4.10.2 of the AML/CFT Guideline.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.3.1, 4.10.1, 4.10.2 and 4.10.5)

A10

The following are some examples of natural persons who could be considered as beneficial owners on the basis that they exercise ultimate control over the management of the corporation:
(a) A natural person who exerts control of a legal person through means such as personal connections to persons who would be beneficial owners due to owning more than 25% of the shares or voting rights.
(b) A natural person who exerts control without ownership by participating in the financing of the enterprise, or because of close and intimate family relationships, historical or contractual associations, or if a company defaults on certain payments. Furthermore, control may be presumed even if control is never actually exercised, such as using, enjoying or benefiting from the assets owned by the legal person.
There is no requirement to actively identify a person exercising ultimate control over a customer where nothing obtained during the customer due diligence (“CDD”) process suggests that such a person exists.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.4.6)

A11

A person may utilise a business relationship established between an MSO and another person (natural or legal person) or legal arrangement to conduct ML/TF activities. Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) Recommendation 10 requires financial institutions to identify and verify the identity of any PPTA, and the AMLO adopts the same requirement.
Neither the FATF Recommendations nor the AMLO define the scope of PPTA. The AML/CFT Guideline explains that whether the person is considered to be a PPTA should be determined based on the nature of that person’s roles and the activities which the person is authorised to conduct, as well as the ML/TF risks associated with these roles and activities.
MSOs should adopt a framework procedure for assisting their employees in assessing who would ordinarily be considered a PPTA for each customer segment. The approach and rationale should be consistent across departments and customer segments, to the extent possible.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.5.1)

A12

Authorized signatories are only required to be identified and verified if they are a PPTA. Instead of verifying the PPTAs’ identities by reference to the identification document, data or information for each PPTA, MSOs may take other reasonable measures (i.e. appropriate measures which are commensurate with the ML/TF risks). For example, where a business relationship is assessed to present a low ML/TF risk, an MSO could verify the PPTAs’ identities by reference to a list of PPTAs, whose identities and authority to act have been confirmed by a department or person within that customer which is independent to the persons whose identities are being verified (for example, compliance, audit or human resources).
For the avoidance of doubt, as indicated in paragraph 4.5.3 of the AML/CFT Guideline, the MSO is required to identify the PPTA by obtaining at least the following identification information:
Natural person PPTA:
(a) full name;
(b) date of birth;
(c) nationality; and
(d) unique identification number and document type.
Legal person PPTA:
(a) full name;
(b) date of incorporation, establishment or registration;
(c) place of incorporation, establishment or registration (including address of registered office);
(d) unique identification number and document type; and
(e) principal place of business (if different from the address of registered office).
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.5.3)

A13

The AML/CFT Guideline recognises that some commonly used original identification documents can be in electronic form. An MSO should take appropriate measures to ensure the reliability of the electronic documents. The appropriateness of the measures to be taken will depend on the type of identification document in question.

For example, an original certificate of incorporation issued by the Hong Kong Companies Registry is available in electronic form. When accepting a print copy of an electronic certificate of incorporation, an MSO can corroborate with other identification document or information (e.g., record of companies registry) to ensure the reliability of the print copy.

For the avoidance of doubt, corroboration would not be required for instances where the MSO itself has downloaded a particular document (as opposed to having received a print copy of it) from a reliable source (e.g., the Hong Kong Companies Registry’s website).
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.3.16)

A14

Paragraph 4.3.17 requires MSOs to take appropriate steps to be reasonably satisfied that the documents in foreign language in fact provide evidence of the customer’s identity. There is no requirement that the translation has to be performed by a professional third party (e.g., solicitor) or someone who is qualified; an MSO may obtain a translation from a reliable source, which may include technology solutions and commonly used translation tools.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.3.17)

A15

The MSO does not need to re-verify any aspect of customer identification just because of the expiry of a previously obtained identity document. According to footnotes 52 and 53 to paragraph 5.2 of the AML/CFT Guideline, once the identity of a customer has been satisfactorily verified, there is no obligation to re-verify identity unless in specified circumstances; however, the MSO should take steps from time to time (i.e., during a periodic or trigger event customer due diligence (“CDD”) review) to ensure that the customer information that has been obtained is up-to-date and relevant.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 5.2 and footnotes 52 & 53)

A16

No. Under a risk-based approach, MSOs are required to establish the customer’s source of wealth in high risk situations. Examples of these situations include (a) a customer or whose beneficial owner is a non-Hong Kong politically exposed person (PEP); (b) a high risk business relationship with a customer or whose beneficial owner is a Hong Kong PEP or an international organisation PEP; and, where appropriate, (c) other situations that by its nature presents a high money laundering and terrorist financing risk. Therefore, MSOs are not expected to establish source of wealth for each and every customer.

For customers who are non-high risk, some of the information that is obtained by (or otherwise available to) an MSO to understand the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship (e.g., occupation of individual customers, business nature of corporate customers, etc.) should often be sufficient for the MSO to have a basic understanding of the customer’s profile and accordingly be able to monitor that the account balance, and value and volume of transactions, is in line with the expected wealth and profile of the customer.

For high risk customers, there is no expectation to apply the same source of wealth procedures to all these customers in the same manner, or collect evidence dating back decades when the risk does not justify doing so, as it is often impractical.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.9.3, 4.9.10 and 4.9.17)

A17

Only jurisdictions listed in the FATF statement: “The FATF Public Statement” should be regarded as “jurisdictions for which this is called for by the FATF” under paragraph 4.15.1 of the AML/CFT Guideline. Enhanced customer due diligence (“EDD”) measures that are proportionate to the risks should be conducted on business relationships and transactions with customers from these jurisdictions.
For the avoidance of doubt, conducting EDD is not mandatory for customers connected to jurisdictions listed in the FATF statement: “Improving Global Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (“AML/CFT”) Compliance: On-going Process”. However, the fact that a customer is connected to such a jurisdiction should be taken into account in determining the overall risk profile of the customer.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.15.1)

A18

Yes, agencies of the United Nations are international organisations and such agencies are listed on the UN website currently available at the following website:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-system
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.9.15)

A19

“International organisations” are defined in the AML/CFT Guideline as entities established by formal political agreements between their member States that have the status of international treaties; their existence is recognised by law in their member countries; and they are not treated as resident institutional units of the countries in which they are located. As such, individuals at organisations that do not meet these criteria are not international organisation PEPs.
However, if an individual holds a prominent function at an organisation that may have certain similarities to, but which nevertheless does not meet the prescribed definition of, an “international organisation” (e.g. an international sport association), the MSO should consider whether this impacts the risk profile of the customer.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.9.15)

A20

Following RBA, if a PEP (including a Hong Kong, a non-Hong Kong or an international organisation PEP) is no longer entrusted with a prominent official (public) function, an MSO may decide not to apply or continue to apply the EDD measures set out in paragraphs 4.9.10 and 4.9.17 of the AML/CFT Guideline in a high risk business relationship with a customer who is or whose beneficial owner is a former PEP. Such decision can only be made with the approval of the MSO’s senior management and on the basis that the PEP no longer presents a high risk of ML/TF. To determine whether a former PEP no longer presents a high risk of ML/TF, the MSO should conduct an appropriate assessment on the ML/TF risk associated with the PEP status taking into account various risk factors mentioned in para. 4.9.12 and 4.9.18 of the AML/CFT Guideline.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.9.10, 4.9.12, 4.9.17 and 4.9.18)

A21

It is for individual MSOs to determine this question, as organisational structures vary from MSO to MSO. MSOs should maintain clear and documented policies setting out the persons within the institution who are able to approve PEP customer onboarding and a continued business relationship. In any event, it should only include those with sufficient seniority. The number and title of such persons will vary according to the size, type and institutional risk assessment of the MSO. Senior management may include personnel in another jurisdiction if this reflects the MSO’s organisational structure and risk management practices.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.9.10 and 4.9.23)

A22

No. Section 18 of Schedule 2 to the AMLO (“Schedule 2”) only allows an MSO to carry out any CDD measures set out in section 2 of Schedule 2 by means of an intermediary but does not allow an MSO to rely on an intermediary to continuously monitor relevant business relationships as required by section 5 of Schedule 2. Therefore, an MSO cannot rely on an intermediary to continuously monitor its business relationships with a customer (i.e., ongoing CDD and transaction monitoring).
However, an MSO may use an intermediary to collect further documents, data and information, and provide or coordinate relevant updates, to assist the MSO in ensuring that the CDD records maintained by the MSO remain up-to-date and relevant.
(Key Reference(s): Section 2, 5 and 18 of Schedule 2 and AML/CFT Guideline footnote 33)

A23

Such validation can be performed by an external party or an internal audit function of the MSO. Subject to appropriate segregation of duties, the internal audit function should have sufficient expertise and resources to enable it to carry out an independent review of the MSO’s AML/CFT systems (see paragraph 3.11 of the AML/CFT Guideline).
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 3.11 and 5.8)

A24

An MSO should, at a minimum, screen the following relevant parties in cross border / cross boundary wire transfer and remittance transaction:
(a) originator;
(b) recipient;
(c) ordering institution;
(d) intermediary institution;
(e) beneficiary institution; and
(f) named parties (e.g., individuals, companies, banks etc) in the payment message.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 6.16(c))

A25

The required originator information is deemed to be accurate if the identity of the originator has been verified in compliance with the AMLO and the AML/CFT Guideline. No further verification of the originator information is normally required, although ordering institutions may exercise their discretion to do so in individual cases.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 10.8)

A26

The address information accompanying the wire transfer and remittance transaction should be sufficient to identify clearly the location of party / parties for sanctions screening and AML/CFT monitoring purposes. Therefore, having a PO Box as an address should be avoided except where no alternative exists.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 10.8)

A27

In general, the identification document used for the purpose of identity verification (e.g., official document such as an identity card, passport, certificate of incorporation, or certificate of incumbency etc) should be subject to certification.
There is no expectation to require certification for all other CDD information or documents provided by the customer; or to require certification if an MSO is able to check the documents against public sources.
As a general principle, customers should always be provided with the opportunity, if they wish to do so, to present their original documents to the staff of the MSO.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline para. 4.10.4 and para. 7 to 10 of Appendix A)

A28

Under the AMLO, there is no requirement for an MSO to maintain records and documents involving unsuccessful applicants. This, however, does not preclude the MSO from retaining the relevant records and documents in order to meet its other statutory obligations.
(Key Reference(s): AML/CFT Guideline Chapter 8)

A1

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance (“AMLO”), Chapter 615, was passed on 29 June 2011 and came into operation on 1 April 2012, and amended as The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance in February 2018.

A2

Money Service Operators (“MSOs”) and the Postmaster General as well as other specified financial institutions.

A3

A person who or an institution which operates a money changing service or a remittance service is a Money Service Operator.

A4

The Commissioner of Customs & Excise (“CCE”) is the relevant authority under the “AMLO”.

A5

Under the “AMLO”, any person who wishes to operate a money service must apply for a licence from the “CCE”.

A6

“MSOs” should submit application for a licence to the “CCE” commencing on 1 April 2012.

A7

The application can be submitted in paper or through e-platform.

A8

The application form can be downloaded from the C&ED website at http://www.customs.gov.hk After completion, the application form together with copies of supporting documents should be submitted by post or in person to the “CCE” (i.e. Money Service Supervision Bureau at Units 402-403, 4/F, Centre Parc, 11 Sheung Yuet Road, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon).

A9

The application form can be completed and submitted with relevant supporting documents through the C&ED website at http://www.customs.gov.hk.

A10

The conditions that “CCE” will consider in granting a licence are set out in section 30(3) and (4) of the “AMLO”. In brief, the applicant (or any partner / director / ultimate owner) must not have been convicted of an offence specified at section 30(4), or is an undischarged bankrupt, and the premises for operation of the “MSO” business is considered by “CCE” to be suitable. For easy reference, the said offences under section 30(4)(a)(i) – (iv) and other provision under section 30(4)(b) – (e) are tabulated at Appendix 1.

A11

Premises situated in a wholly residential building are not considered to be suitable for registration to operate money service. Where particular premises are situated in a mixed commercial and residential building (i.e. situated in domestic premises), the applicant has secured the written consent of every occupant of the premises for any authorized person of C&ED to enter the premises to conduct inspection. Please refer to paragraph 4.6 of the Licensing Guide for more details on suitability of premises.

A12

“MSOs” have to pay fees for a licence as set out at Appendix 2.

A13

The licence will be valid for 2 years and a licensee should apply for renewal not later than 45 days before the licence is due to expire.

A14

No.

A15

The Customs & Excise Department may answer their enquiries which can be made via :-

A.1

The system requirements are as follows:

	System required configuration
Operating System and Browser	Operating System Browser(s) Microsoft Windows 10 Microsoft Edge Mozilla Firefox Google Chrome macOS Safari Mozilla Firefox Google Chrome iOS Safari Android Google Chrome
JavaScript	Enabled
Cookies	Enabled
Chinese Character Support	Hong Kong Supplementary Character Set (HKSCS-2008)
Software for Opening PDF Documents	Adobe Reader

Although we make our best effort to test our online services with the latest version of the browser, it takes time to perform testing. If you experience any issues, please report to us.

A.2

You can download Adobe Reader at here.

A.3

The timeout limit of the MSOS is 30 minutes.

A.4

The reason you received the error is due to a file size limit of 2 MB when uploading to our system. You could reduce the file size or split the file into at most 3 files for the upload purpose.