SFC’s proposed naming restrictions: considerations for family offices and proprietary investment companies

On 6 November 2026, the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") published consultation conclusions setting out proposals to broaden restrictions on business names and titles that may falsely suggest SFC-regulated status as an exchange, clearing house or virtual asset trading platform ("VATP"), or association with an established operator.

The proposals, once enacted, will expand section 34 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) ("SFO") and introduce corresponding restrictions under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615) ("AMLO"). Although principally concerned with exchange, trading and clearing-related titles, the restrictions may in some instances affect the naming of family office vehicles and proprietary investment companies. 

How will the restrictions work?

The proposed restrictions target titles comprising a combination of:

• Product-related expressions, including "commodity", “derivatives”, “futures", “securities”, "stock", “crypto”, "cryptoasset", "cryptocurrency", "crypto coin", “digital asset”, "digital coin", "digital currency", "token", “tokenised assets”, “virtual asset”, "virtual coin" and "virtual currency"; and
• Trading or clearing-related expressions, including "clearing centre", "clearing company", clearing facilities", "clearing house", "clearing platform", “exchange”, “market”, "trading centre", “trading company”, "trading facilities", "trading house" and “trading platform”.

Question 4 of the SFC’s FAQs sets out the full list of proposed restricted terms (including their Chinese equivalents) under Table A (product-related expressions) and Table B (trading or clearing-related expressions). This restriction applies to combinations of expressions across the two tables, as well as titles closely resembling such combinations, rather than to each expression individually. Adding descriptive words or using alternative terminology will not necessarily avoid the restrictions.

The titles currently restricted under section 34 of the SFO will remain. Most of the existing restricted titles fit the two-table structure, while “unified exchange”, “united exchange” and “聯合交易所” will remain separately restricted under the SFO, without requiring an additional Table A expression. A separate limb will also restrict titles incorporating names or acronyms of established or well-known exchanges, clearing houses, VATPs or similar operations.

Section 34 of the SFO prohibits the use of restricted titles without SFC's authorisation or reasonable excuse, and any contravention is an offence. The proposed AMLO provision will follow a similar approach. Titles restricted under both ordinances will require authorisation under both regimes, although a single application can be submitted. 

What does this mean for family office vehicles and proprietary investment companies?

The proposals will not in themselves require companies to change their names merely because the names refer to assets in which they invest. Using “securities”, “virtual asset” or “crypto” alone will not trigger the combination-based restriction, although the full name must be assessed against the other restrictions.

For example, “ABC Digital Asset Management Limited” would not, on its face, contain a listed trading or clearing-related expression. “ABC Digital Asset Trading Company Limited” would combine expressions from both categories and warrant reconsideration.

The proposals have not set out any express exemption for companies managing family wealth or investing proprietary assets. While the SFC has stated that it can only effectively restrict the use or taking of titles by persons operating or having a physical presence in Hong Kong, offshore family office vehicles and proprietary investment vehicles that are considering establishing a presence or expanding their activities in Hong Kong should nonetheless take note of the proposed restrictions. In particular, their existing business names should be reviewed for potential implications under the proposed restrictions.

When assessing a name, the SFC considers the business activities and licensing or approval requirements, with the overarching consideration being whether the name suggests or may create a misleading impression of regulatory oversight that does not exist. Whether there is any reasonable excuse for using a restricted title will depend on all relevant circumstances.

A first for virtual asset naming under the AMLO

The proposals will introduce, for the first time under the AMLO, a dedicated statutory restriction on certain virtual asset-related titles, extending statutory naming restrictions to virtual asset activities that may fall outside the securities and futures regime under the SFO. These restrictions will complement the SFC’s existing public warnings and suspicious VATP alerts by adding a statutory safeguard against the use of names that misleadingly suggest SFC-regulated status or association with established operators.

Timing and preparation

The legislative amendments are proposed to commence and take effect six months after enactment. Potentially affected companies should use the lead time to review English and Chinese names and consider seeking authorisation or renaming, subject to the final legislation. 

If you have any questions about the matters discussed in this article, please contact Simon Wong, Steffi Chan or Alice So.