Hong Kong SFC Moves to Restrict Misleading Crypto and Virtual-Asset Exchange Names

On 6 November 2026 the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (SFC) published consultation conclusions on legislative proposals to stop unregulated entities from using names that falsely suggest they are an SFC-regulated exchange, clearing house or licensed virtual asset trading platform (VATP). The SFC will finalise amendments to the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (AMLO) and work with the HKSAR Government to introduce a bill into the Legislative Council.

The package expands the existing restricted-title regime under section 34 of the SFO and adds a parallel AMLO provision aimed at VATPs and virtual assets that are not securities or futures contracts. Combinations such as "crypto exchange", "digital asset market" or "virtual asset trading platform" would require SFC authorisation if used by persons that are not already licensed or authorised for those activities.

What Titles Would Be Restricted

The conclusions paper confirms the core design from the 12 June 2025 consultation. A title would be restricted if it is, or closely resembles, a combination of a product or asset word from Table A and a venue or clearing word from Table B. Table A terms that would be restricted under both the SFO and the AMLO include "crypto", "cryptoasset", "cryptocurrency", "digital asset", "digital currency", "token", "tokenised assets", "virtual asset", "virtual coin" and "virtual currency", together with their Chinese equivalents. Table B covers venue and clearing labels such as "exchange", "trading platform", "trading centre", "market", "clearing house" and "clearing platform".

Titles that point only to securities or futures products (for example "stock", "futures", "derivatives" or "commodity") would be restricted under the SFO alone. Titles that imply a virtual-asset connection without saying whether the assets are securities or futures-related would sit under both ordinances, matching how the SFC already expects VATPs to be authorised under both the SFO and the AMLO. A person caught by both statutes could still file a single application covering both approvals.

The SFC kept "tokenised assets" on the list despite requests to remove it, arguing that the term is commonly used for products that are essentially securities and that the restriction bites only when combined with a Table B venue word. It declined to add further labels such as "Blockchain", "DeFi", "NFT" or "VATP" at this stage, saying the list should stay focused on common financial-services terminology and that closely resembling titles remain covered by residual discretion.

How the Rules Would Take Effect

Nine written submissions arrived before the 11 August 2025 deadline, from industry associations, professional bodies, a bank and other interested parties. Respondents broadly supported the proposals. Two asked for a faster way to refresh the restricted list; the SFC agreed to move the list into a schedule to the SFO and AMLO that it can amend by subsidiary legislation rather than a full amendment bill each time. It rejected updating the list only by circular, because unauthorised use of a restricted title is a criminal offence.

Instead of a formal transitional period, the SFC will defer commencement so that, if enacted, the amendments take effect only six months after enactment. That window is intended to give firms already using affected names time to rebrand or seek authorisation. Updated FAQs on the SFC website, last updated on 6 November 2026, walk through examples (including "crypto exchange" and "digital currency trading platform"), the dual-ordinance approval route, and the factors the SFC will weigh when judging whether a name is restricted.

The SFC also clarified a geographic limit: it can effectively restrict titles only for persons operating in Hong Kong or with a physical presence there. Offshore branding used solely outside Hong Kong is outside that practical reach.

Who Is Affected and What Comes Next

Immediate addressees are unlicensed or unauthorised operators that market themselves in Hong Kong with crypto, virtual-asset or tokenised-asset labels paired with exchange, trading-platform, market or clearing language. Licensed VATPs and other SFC-authorised venues that already hold the right approvals are not the enforcement target of the naming ban; the point is to stop look-alike names that imply SFC oversight or an association with a well-known platform when none exists.

Firms that already use a combination that would become restricted should plan either to seek SFC authorisation under the relevant ordinance(s) or to change the name before the six-month post-enactment start date. Investors dealing with Hong Kong-facing platforms should continue to check the SFC's published VATP and licensed-operator lists rather than relying on the word "exchange" or "trading platform" in a brand.

Next steps are drafting with the HKSAR Government and introduction of the bill into LegCo. Until the bill is passed and the deferred commencement date arrives, the current section 34 SFO list remains the binding restricted-title set. For the wider Hong Kong virtual-asset market, the conclusions lock in a clearer naming perimeter around licensed VATPs while leaving the substantive licensing standards unchanged.