The Hong Kong Financial Authority (HKMA), the particular administrative area’s central financial institution, has issued a warning to customers that crypto companies presenting themselves as banks and utilizing banking terminology might be violating the area’s banking legal guidelines.
In a press launch, the HKMA said that using sure banking phrases could also be deceptive the general public, inflicting customers to assume that the crypto corporations are approved banks in Hong Kong. Nonetheless, the central financial institution highlighted that underneath the area’s banking legal guidelines, solely licensed establishments are allowed to hold out banking or deposit-taking companies in Hong Kong.
The central financial institution warned the general public that corporations describing themselves with phrases like “crypto financial institution,” “digital asset financial institution,” and “crypto asset financial institution” or claims to offer banking providers or banking accounts could also be breaking the regulation.
In response to the HKMA, apart from approved establishments, it is illegal for individuals or companies to make use of the phrase “financial institution” within the title or descriptions of their corporations. As well as, facilitating the taking of deposits with out the correct license can also be a violation of the regulation.
The HKMA reminded the general public that crypto corporations which aren’t banks aren’t supervised by the central financial institution. Because of this funds positioned throughout the so-called “crypto banks” aren’t protected by the area’s deposit safety scheme.
Hong Kong has lately been cracking down on violators of its licensing legal guidelines. On Sept. 15, the area’s Securities and Futures Fee (SFC) issued a warning towards crypto alternate JPEX for allegedly selling its services in Hong Kong with out securing a license or making use of for one.
Following the SFC’s warning, the alternate’s workers seemingly disappeared from its Token 2049 sales space in Singapore. It additionally ramped up its withdrawal charges to as much as 999 Tether (USDT), a transfer that attempted to discourage customers from retrieving their funds from the alternate.