On May 22, 2026, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority issued a regulatory notice specifically targeting investment accounts for mainland individual investors to all recognized institutions. According to multiple media reports, the core of this document is to require banks and other institutions to immediately add three barriers on top of existing rules: first, to identify and close investment accounts opened using suspicious or forged documents; second, to clean up and close long-standing “zero-balance inactive” investment accounts; third, when opening new investment accounts for mainland individuals in the future, written declarations of the legality of the source of funds must be obtained from clients. More pressingly, this verification is not calculated from “today,” but is required to backtrack to January 2023, essentially reviewing the influx of mainland individual cross-border funds into Hong Kong over the past three years; meanwhile, the notice clearly focuses on “personal investment accounts,” excluding corporate or institutional clients and not touching accounts that are purely for savings or payment functions. This round of top-down verification action exposes the tension between the long-term goal of attracting mainland funds and maintaining the vitality of Hong Kong's capital market with the continuing tightening of cross-border anti-money laundering and know-your-customer requirements, placing this tension on every individual account named for verification.
Backtracking to 2023: The Cleansing War on Suspicious Accounts
For recognized institutions, “identifying and closing investment accounts opened using suspicious or forged documents” means not just asking an extra question at the front desk, but rather reviewing all investment accounts opened for mainland individuals since January 2023, cross-referencing account opening materials with internal risk records. Any identification, proof of income, or proof of address that was considered “marginally acceptable” at that time must now be re-evaluated under anti-money laundering and know-your-customer standards; if classified as having questionable document authenticity or inconsistent sources, the account must enter the closure process. The backtracking start point is clearly set at January 2023, which tells the market: the existing accounts formed during this period do not automatically enjoy an exemption for “historical compliance.” All account opening records within three years are subject to regulatory scrutiny.
For mainland individual investors, this backtracking requirement primarily impacts the sense of security of old accounts—many cross-border funding channels were established through relatively lax documentation review at that time, but now must undergo retrospective review. Whether an account can be retained depends on the completeness and authenticity of the materials submitted at the outset; for bank compliance teams, this represents a three-year anti-money laundering “KYC make-up class,” meaning they need to rebuild the profiles of mainland clients and reclassify risk levels within a short time frame, while communicating possible account closures and fund cleansing arrangements to the front desk. The Monetary Authority's choice to extend the timeline to three years ago essentially emphasizes the traceability of cross-border fund flows: only by bringing all main channels of mainland funds flowing offshore back to the review desk can the boundary between “compliant accounts that can continue operations” and “high-risk accounts that must be terminated” be clarified from the regulatory side. This retrospective cleansing of suspicious accounts starting from 2023 will directly reshape the structure of future cross-border fund entry into Hong Kong.
Clearing Zero-Balance Accounts: Dormant Channels Severed
Beyond the backtracking of suspicious accounts, the directive to “close zero-balance inactive investment accounts” has been interpreted by many bank compliance departments as a mandate to remove all accounts that have not been traded for years, hold no funds, and merely retain their channel forms. The regulator did not provide precise definitions for “zero balance” or “long-term inactive” in public documents, nor did it specify a closure timetable, but the directional signal is already clear enough: dormant accounts are seen as structural risk points in the cross-border funding landscape, and even if there are no abnormal transaction records currently, they might be used in the future to evade controls or conceal the movements of suspicious funds. The Monetary Authority has also made it clear that this round of special measures only applies to investment function accounts and does not include savings, payments, or other non-investment accounts; the regulation aims to sever potential trading channels, rather than routine deposits and withdrawals.
For many mainland investors, such “zero-balance inactive accounts” were precisely used as a standby key to reserve Hong Kong channels—funds would be remitted in when needed for rapid trading, and when unnecessary, the balance would be cleared to reduce the likelihood of attention. Now, these dormant channels are required to be cleared, which means that to establish similar channels in the future, one must face not only the backtracking of account backgrounds since 2023 but also the written declaration of fund sources at new account openings; the concealment of the entire path is systematically compressed. Since the regulator has yet to provide unified guidelines, each bank is likely to adopt a more cautious internal standard during execution: to avoid accountability, they prefer to broaden the boundaries and include all investment accounts that appear “long-term inactive” in the cleanup pool. This “better to mistakenly remove than to miss” approach in compliance will increase the efficiency of account closures but is also destined to misfire on those clients who are merely temporarily idle but still have genuine investment needs; the availability of future cross-border funding channels will no longer depend on “whether there has been an account opened,” but rather on whether the account can continuously be proven as an “active account.”
Written Fund Declaration: Increased Compliance Costs for Account Openings
In the past, when mainland individuals wanted to open an investment account at a Hong Kong bank, no matter how complicated the process was, it mainly stayed at identity verification, address proof, and tax resident declaration as the “routine checkpoints.” The source of funds was mostly embedded in a few options in the KYC questionnaire: salary, business income, asset liquidation; clients would tick, tellers would input, and the system would approve it. After May 22, 2026, the script has been rewritten by the Monetary Authority—when opening investment accounts for mainland investors, clients must additionally submit a written declaration confirming the legality of the source of funds. For banks, this is a new procedure layered on top of the existing anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing framework; for clients, it transforms the originally simple “verbal + questionnaire” into a commitment document that bears written responsibility. Currently, public reports have yet to disclose the specific terms and standardized expressions of this declaration, and even frontline employees are exploring how to explain the significance of this document.
Raising the threshold is not just reflected in needing to sign one more name. Once the written declaration enters the file, it transforms from a process checkpoint into an evidence chain that can be backtracked: should the account be selected for inspection in the future, the compliance department's review will see not just a record in the system indicating “source of income: salary,” but a funding statement personally confirmed by the client. This forces mainland investors to be more cautious in organizing their funding paths from the account opening stage, and also means that frontline bank staff must spend more time guiding clients on how to fill out the declaration, how to define “legitimate source,” while facing dual pressures of “being too detailed annoys clients; being too vague worries compliance.” Adding a written declaration beyond the traditional KYC questionnaire effectively moves the regulatory focus from “who you are” to “where your money comes from”; opening cross-border accounts is no longer a one-time “ticket inspection” but is preset from the start as the first piece of testimony in future continuous audits.
Banks Tightening First: Regulatory Discrepancies and Risk Control Games
According to market reports, some mainland clients have responded that certain banks are “temporarily no longer opening investment accounts for mainland individuals,” but these rumors currently remain at the level of individual cases and public opinion, with no official documents confirming them. In contrast, the circular issued by the Monetary Authority to all recognized institutions on May 22 clearly states three things: backtrack and close accounts opened with suspicious or forged documents, close zero-balance inactive accounts, and collect written declarations of the legality of fund sources when opening new accounts; there was no mention of “a comprehensive suspension” on opening investment accounts for mainland individuals. This misalignment of “the documents do not explicitly state this, but the market tightens pre-emptively” makes frontline clients feel that banks have suddenly raised thresholds or even closed their doors, rather than implementing a set of gradually effective unified rules.
When regulatory signals have yet to fully translate into specific guidelines, compliance and risk departments at banks often choose to take half a step forward—within their logic, “not opening accounts” is the cleanest risk control option, as it minimizes the possibility of future accountability. As a result, even if the circular only requires reviewing existing accounts and strengthening declarations, some institutions may preemptively "freeze" parts of new account openings based on internal standards, leading mainland clients to hear “wait for instructions from headquarters” at the counter. Under the same regulatory requirements, institutions with a more conservative risk appetite may choose to treat all borderline cases as high-risk, compressing business from the source; those willing to bear compliance costs will add more questionnaires, declarations, and approvals in the process, replacing refusals with complexity. For the next period, what truly decides who can still smoothly open investment accounts in Hong Kong may not be the Monetary Authority's circular itself, but how each institution defines its own “self-imposed constraints” on top of the unified regulatory baseline.
New Order for Cross-border Funds: Next Steps for Investors and Institutions
From the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission's call for corrections in online brokers' cross-border operations to the Monetary Authority's requirements on May 22, 2026, for recognized institutions to backtrack mainland individual investment accounts, close zero-balance inactive accounts, and collect written declarations of fund source legality for new account openings, the regulatory logic surrounding “mainland funds flowing into Hong Kong stocks” has shifted from case-by-case corrections to a normalized screening process spanning brokerage and banking channels. The new boundaries primarily fall on individuals: this requirement clearly distinguishes between personal investment accounts and corporate accounts, as well as investment accounts and savings/payment accounts, which means the risk profile of “money in Hong Kong” will be finely split according to account functions, with investment uses placed under stronger KYC and continuous monitoring, while corporate funds and routine withdrawals have not been included in the same round of tightening. For Hong Kong banks and brokerages, future business layouts will inevitably have to be rewritten around this new demarcation line—cross-border wealth management and securities products targeting mainland individuals must allocate higher compliance costs and process friction; while how to maintain the convenience of Hong Kong as an “international financial center” while meeting anti-money laundering and know-your-customer requirements will become a new constraint for product design and channel strategies. The real uncertainty lies in the details: regulators have yet to define the precise scope and closure timeline of “zero-balance inactive accounts,” the specific terms of written declarations for new account openings are still pending disclosure, and whether specific channels such as the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area cross-border wealth management scheme enjoy exemptions also remains publicly undetermined. Whether future regulation stays at existing audits and tiered management or extends to more cross-border channels will determine whether this backtracking is a one-time “stock cleaning” or a set of continuously tightening new orders for cross-border funds.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
Exclusive AiCoin Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive AiCoin Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
