As an international financial centre, Hong Kong attaches significance to safeguarding the integrity of our financial systems by implementing international standards on anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) to deter and detect inward and outward flows of illicit funds. A number of legislations have been put in place to underpin the implementation of the AML/CFT regime in Hong Kong.

At ONC Lawyers, our litigation and dispute resolution team works closely with our corporate and commercial team to provide the following services: 

  • representing and advising clients on AML/CFT related investigations, enquires, interviews, document production and raids brought by the designated relevant authorities including Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Insurance Authority, Securities and Futures Commission and Customs and Excise Department;
  • advising clients on potential liability and obligations arising from AML/CFT related legislations, including Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615), Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance (Cap. 405), Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455), United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (Cap. 575), United Nations Sanctions Ordinance (Cap. 537), Weapons of Mass Destruction (Control of Provision of Services) Ordinance (Cap. 526), Import and Export Ordinance (Cap. 60) and Cross-boundary Movement of Physical Currency and Bearer Negotiable Instruments Ordinance (Cap. 629); and
  • advising clients on the statutory obligations of reporting suspected money laundering activities to the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit.

If you would like to know more about our regulatory & compliance practice or how we can help you or your business, please contact us at (852) 2810 1212 or at

Please refer to our articles in ‘Knowledge’

Recommended Posts

The Role of Company Secretaries and Directors in Anti-Money Laundering Compliance
Millions of dollars come into and go out of Hong Kong every day, legitimate or not, as Hong Kong is an international financial centre with no exchange controls. In the last few years, huge sums have flown out from countries around Hong Kong to or via Hong Kong for tax, funds control or investment reasons. This creates issues and risks of money laundering. There have also been numerous business email scams, or cases of impersonation of C-suite officers, where companies from overseas were deceived into wiring large sums of money to bank accounts in Hong Kong. Such wire transfers and movement of funds via “money mules” are also money laundering as the funds are the proceeds of crime. As a member of the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”), an independent inter-governmental body that promotes policies against money laundering and terrorist financing, Hong Kong is obliged to implement the anti-money laundering (“AML”) requirements promulgated by the FATF.
Money-Laundering: Adverse Inference Drawn Following Defendant's Failure to Substantiate His Position
As a sequel to our January newsletter on money laundering, this newsletter will discuss another recent judgment of the Court of Appeal, which relates to dealing with shares in a listed company. Mr. Cheung Chun was charged with one count of dealing in property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence, in particular 10,991,000 shares in Hisense Kelon Electrical Holdings Company Limited. Cheung was tried in the District Court. He pleaded not guilty and chose not to give evidence. Cheung was acquitted after trial and the Secretary for Justice appealed to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated pursuant to section 84 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap 336). The appeal was allowed, whereby the Court of Appeal reversed the verdict and directed the trial be resumed. The District Court followed the decisions of the Court of Appeal and Cheung was convicted and sentenced to 5 years and 9 months imprisonment. Cheung made an application for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence.
Navigating the money laundering minefield – the Court of Appeal dismissed the constitutional challenge against the “no consent” regime
In Interush Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2019] HKCA 70, the Court of Appeal has rejected an argument that two money laundering offences, namely sections 25 and 25A of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455) under the so called “no consent regime” or “informal freezing” of assets, infringe the property rights and access to Court rights under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.
Back to top