Bank account opening: where an advisory fee becomes an integrity concern

01

What the circular addresses

On 22 October 2026, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority wrote to all Authorized Institutions after recent cases involving criminal syndicates offering bribes to staff to bypass anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing controls during account opening. Institutions are asked to examine weaknesses in their controls and assign clear senior management responsibility.^[1]

The circular concerns controls within institutions. It does not offer a route around customer due diligence. The HKMA’s existing account-opening information also explains that banks must identify and verify customers, and that requirements may differ between banks.^[3]

02

An intermediary can mean more scrutiny

The circular says third-party introductions or assistance can increase bribery risk. Banks must apply effective enhanced controls, including due diligence, rigorous approval scrutiny and management oversight. Different people must review and approve applications, with checking work rotated to avoid concentrating applications from one customer or intermediary with a single staff member.^[1]

As part of targeted sample checks on accounts newly opened by branches or staff with higher financial crime risk, banks may also call customers to establish whether referral fees were paid or agent rebates were involved. For a family business, using an adviser to coordinate documents is different from expecting one familiar banker to control the whole process. A relationship cannot replace independent review.

03

The label on the invoice does not settle the issue

The ICAC’s explanation of section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance says an agent, usually an employee, must not solicit or accept an advantage without the principal’s permission when conducting the principal’s affairs; the person offering the advantage may also commit an offence. Advantages include commissions, services and favours as well as money and gifts.^[2]

G70’s view is that paying an adviser to collect company information, translate documents or arrange appointments does not, by that fact alone, make the fee a bribe. A claim that money must go to a bank employee to skip checks, influence approval or guarantee an account requires a different response: stop that payment arrangement, verify it through the bank’s official channels and obtain legal advice about suspected bribery. Calling the payment a consulting fee does not resolve its underlying purpose.

04

Separate the service from the payment recipient

Consider a hypothetical family business hiring an adviser. The agreement specifies translation, preparation of beneficial ownership information and appointment coordination; payment goes to the contracted advisory firm. Any bank charges are paid directly to the bank against its official instructions. This makes delivery and recipients easier to check, but does not by itself establish legality or guarantee approval.

If the adviser then requests an extra payment for an individual bank employee in exchange for waiving documents, the business should pause that payment, rather than absorb it into administration expenses. An acceptable mandate should allow the business to explain the fees and services truthfully to the bank, while leaving the bank to decide independently what information it needs and whether to approve the application.

Sources

Official and primary sources

1. HKMA — Anti-bribery & corruption controls for account opening (22 October 2026)
2. ICAC — POBO: private sector
3. HKMA — Account Opening and Maintenance

Sources checked on 26 October 2026.