---

Forex multi-account manager Z-X-N
Accepts global forex account operation, investment, and trading
Assists family office investment and autonomous management

---

Under the overlapping framework of the EU Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) product intervention measures, leveraged foreign exchange contracts are uniformly classified as "complex OTC derivatives," with the regulatory boundary connected by the "place of service provision" rather than the "nationality of the client."

---

In other words, as long as an investment company is registered in the European Economic Area (EEA) and chooses to actively market to overseas clients, it must apply the same set of retail protection standards to global clients: a 30:1 leverage cap on major currency pairs, zeroing out negative balances, prohibition of deposit bonuses, standard risk disclosure, and daily position reporting, etc. Chinese citizens are therefore not explicitly excluded, but must bear the spillover effects of the rules just like other third-country clients; the UK maintains equivalent measures after leaving the UK (FCA Product Intervention Order), with limited substantive differences.
In practice, EU-licensed institutions generally adopt a soft isolation strategy of "no marketing, no rejection, no protection" for mainland Chinese clients, driven by three factors.
First, the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6) classifies "non-residents" as a high-risk category, requiring supplementary evidence of address, tax ID, and the ultimate controller of the funds' source. Mainland household registration certificates, bank statements, and notarized documents must undergo Hague Apostille or embassy authentication, making verification costs significantly higher than for EU clients. Second, current Chinese foreign exchange regulations do not yet allow retail forex margin trading, raising concerns that their advertising, account opening, or funding channels could be deemed "operating without a license in China," potentially triggering regulatory conflicts and class-action lawsuits between the two countries. Third, following ESMA's leverage reduction in 2018, EU accounts have become less attractive for high-frequency or quantitative strategies. Brokers have shifted their marketing budgets to offshore entities, aiming to maintain profitability with "higher leverage + lower compliance costs," actively directing mainland traffic to subsidiaries in Cyprus, the Cayman Islands, or Vanuatu.
This has resulted in a three-tiered customer experience: First, at the account opening stage, some platforms strictly adhering to a single-license strategy directly block access from mainland China at the IP level, or remove the "China" option from the KYC pop-up. Second, in the marketing stage, many groups adopt a dual "EU-offshore" system, displaying FCA/CySEC regulation on their official websites, but redirecting to a VFSC or FSC license registration page after clicking, instantly amplifying leverage to 200:1. Finally, in the dispute resolution stage, if the actual contracting entity is an offshore special purpose vehicle, even if the brand is shared with the EU parent company, the Investor Compensation Fund (ICF/FSCS) does not cover it. In the event of bankruptcy, the client can only participate in ordinary offshore bankruptcy claims, significantly increasing the recovery period and costs.
Compliance risks also exist in parallel with the funding path. The annual foreign exchange purchase quota for Chinese individuals remains at the equivalent of US$50,000, and the "Detailed Rules for the Implementation of Individual Foreign Exchange Business" lists "overseas margin trading" as a prohibited use. If customers inject funds into EU accounts through split foreign exchange purchases, over-the-counter virtual currency exchange, or underground banks, domestic banks can force foreign exchange settlement during anti-money laundering screenings and report to the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, with administrative penalty records simultaneously included in the central bank's credit system. Conversely, if funds are transferred to EU investment accounts through branches in Hong Kong or Macau under the same name, the quota limit can be circumvented, but proof that the funds have been taxed overseas is required; otherwise, there is a risk of double taxation in both locations and supplementary taxation after CRS information exchange.
Feasible compliance strategies are reduced to two narrow avenues: "identity change" or "direct signing with the parent company." The former grants EU or UK long-term residency, making one a local tax resident and allowing direct access to FOS arbitration and FSCS £850,000 bankruptcy protection. The latter involves becoming a large group holding both an EU main license and an offshore license, proactively signing agreements with the FCA or CySEC, foregoing high leverage, ensuring funds are segregated in designated custodian banks in London or Nicosia, and regularly downloading and retaining official position reports. Furthermore, any attempt to circumvent marketing restrictions using "nominee holding," "shell companies," or "offshore relatives' accounts" may be deemed "malicious circumvention of mandatory rules" during dispute resolution, leading to contract invalidation and irrecoverable funds. While EU regulations do not "prohibit" Chinese citizens, multi-layered compliance spillovers have significantly narrowed the actual channels for retail forex margin trading. With leverage, compensation, capital outflow, and tax reporting constraints all in effect, remaining options are highly concentrated among high-net-worth individuals or those with a strong commitment to compliance. Ordinary investors, without a complete chain of evidence, face significant disadvantages in account opening success and subsequent rights protection.

In two-way trading scenarios in foreign exchange investment, forex brokers regulated by the Japanese Financial Services Agency (JFSA) must strictly adhere to Japanese domestic financial regulations when conducting business. One core regulatory requirement is, in principle, a ban on non-Japanese residents (including Chinese citizens) opening forex margin trading accounts.

---

This restriction is not contingent on whether the foreign national holds a Japanese residency status or proof of residence. The core intention of the regulatory authorities in issuing this regulation is to effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of investors and maintain the stable operation and financial order of the Japanese foreign exchange market by restricting non-residents' participation in domestic retail forex business.
From a specific regulatory enforcement perspective, the JFSA has clearly defined regulatory red lines, requiring all licensed forex brokers to provide forex margin trading services only to Japanese residents. The account opening process must strictly verify the applicant's Japanese identity and proof of residence. Common valid documents include proof of Japanese address, residence card, or resident registration certificate. Overseas documents submitted by non-Japanese residents (such as Chinese ID cards or ordinary passports) cannot meet the broker's compliance requirements for account opening, and such applications are usually rejected outright. It is important to clarify that this restriction does not cover all forex-related transaction types; its scope primarily focuses on forex margin trading accounts. If the investor's demand is for ordinary foreign exchange transactions (such as foreign exchange transactions handled at a bank counter), some Japanese banks may allow non-residents to apply. However, such transactions must also strictly comply with the Japanese bank's account opening management regulations and anti-money laundering (KYC) regulations, and the transaction process must not involve any form of leverage, which is fundamentally different from forex margin trading.
For Chinese citizens, attempting to circumvent the aforementioned regulatory restrictions by opening accounts through informal channels will expose them to multiple cross-border compliance risks. For example, using Japanese resident identity information or entrusting offshore agents to open accounts may not only lead to brokers refusing to open accounts due to falsified identity information, but even if the account is successfully opened, subsequent regulatory checks may uncover and close the account. More seriously, such operations may simultaneously violate Chinese foreign exchange management regulations (including annual personal foreign exchange purchase quotas and cross-border capital flow management requirements) and Japanese financial regulations, potentially resulting in frozen funds, administrative penalties from regulatory authorities in both countries, and even legal repercussions.
For Chinese citizens with a need to trade Japanese yen or foreign exchange products, a compliant alternative is to choose brokers that accept account openings from Chinese citizens and possess internationally recognized regulatory qualifications, such as platforms regulated by major international regulatory bodies like the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). When choosing such platforms, investors should focus on verifying the institution's compliance qualifications and cross-border service authorization documents to ensure the legality and security of the trading platform. Simultaneously, they must strictly comply with relevant foreign exchange management regulations and investment behavior norms within China throughout the entire process, avoiding any illegal operations.
From a compliance operation perspective, investors should first prioritize international brokers that explicitly accept account opening from mainland Chinese investors and hold foreign exchange regulatory licenses in multiple countries. They should complete the formal anti-money laundering (KYC) identity verification process through the platform's official channels to proactively avoid the ban on non-resident account opening by Japanese brokers, reducing compliance risks from the outset. Secondly, investors must firmly establish a compliant trading mindset, strictly adhere to all requirements of China's foreign exchange management, and conduct cross-border fund transfers through legitimate financial institutions such as banks. They must resolutely avoid any illegal operations such as "gray account opening" or "account opening on behalf of others" that circumvent regulations, effectively protecting their own capital security and legitimate rights, and effectively reducing legal risks and potential financial losses.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has not imposed any prohibitive clauses on Chinese citizens at the legal level. However, under a framework of parallel prudential and conduct-based regulation, licensed brokers are required to conduct triple compliance verification of clients' "residence—source of funds—investment suitability."

---

For Chinese passport holders residing in mainland China, the verification chain often touches upon China's foreign exchange control rules, leading institutions to generally tighten account opening after weighing costs and risks. This phenomenon is not due to nationality discrimination, but rather a result of the combined effects of cross-border compliance uncertainty and the spillover of anti-money laundering responsibilities.
MAS's regulatory logic is centered on "risk classification + conduct matching." According to the Securities and Futures (Investment Offers) (Investor Categories) Ordinance 2019, brokers classifying clients as "retail clients" must fulfill obligations such as suitability assessments, leverage limits, negative balance protection, and dispute arbitration. Clients classified as "accredited investors" or "professional clients" are exempt from some restrictions, but must maintain sufficient proof of wealth and experience. For non-residents, the ordinance does not impose additional thresholds; however, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Ordinance 2020 requires institutions to identify the "beneficial beneficiary" and "ultimate controller of the source of funds" for their clients. When clients reside in mainland China, institutions must simultaneously consider the provisions of China's "Measures for the Administration of Individual Foreign Exchange" regarding annual foreign exchange purchase quotas, the authenticity of fund usage, and the prohibition on overseas securities investment. If a compliance confirmation letter from mainland regulatory authorities cannot be obtained, a regulatory gap arises where "Know Your Customer" cannot be fulfilled, leading institutions to refuse account opening to evade subsequent liability.
In practice, MAS-licensed platforms generally require "local residency" as a prerequisite. Chinese citizens holding Employment Pass (EP), Student Pass (STP), or Permanent Resident (PR) status can open an account normally with proof of local address, residence permit, and bank statements. Applicants holding only a mainland ID card and a short-term tourist visa must provide additional proof of liquid assets of at least US$200,000, tax payment records, and a legal opinion on the source of funds. Some institutions also require video verification and confirmation by a Singapore-licensed lawyer. For mainland residents who cannot meet the above asset thresholds, mainstream platforms have automatically rejected account opening applications by setting "Mainland China" as a high-risk region code in their systems. A few institutions allow clients to be referred to their UK FCA or Bermuda BMA licensed entities, but the applicable law, custody of funds, and scope of investor compensation are all transferred, and MAS no longer provides dispute resolution or Investor Compensation Fund (SDIC) protection.
Regarding fund transfers, even if a client successfully opens an account, cross-border remittances are still subject to parallel supervision in both China and Singapore. Singapore accepts single inflows exceeding S$200,000, but banks are required to complete a Balance of Payments Return (BOP Return) and retain documentation of the source of funds. China maintains an annual foreign exchange purchase quota of US$50,000 per person, which cannot be labeled as "securities investment" or "margin trading." If clients inject funds through split foreign exchange purchases, underground banks, or over-the-counter cryptocurrency exchanges, it may trigger penalties under Article 39 of China's Foreign Exchange Control Regulations and Singapore's Payment Services Act 2019 for illegal fund transfers, leading to account freezing and forced liquidation.
Taxation and information exchange must also be considered. Since 2018, Singapore has implemented the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), automatically exchanging non-resident account information with Chinese tax authorities. If clients fail to declare overseas income in China, they will face back taxes, late payment fees, and a five-year retroactive penalty. Simultaneously, the MAS requires licensed institutions to conduct annual reviews of "accredited investor" status. If a client's assets shrink or they fail to meet professional thresholds, they will be downgraded to a "retail client," resulting in lower leverage and potentially forced liquidation.
The only viable compliance paths are "status conversion" or "high-net-worth certification": First, obtain Singapore long-term residency and open an account as a local tax resident, with funds and transactions subject to full MAS oversight. Second, complete net asset certification of at least US$1 million in mainland China, connecting with Singapore-licensed institutions through select private banking channels to receive customized leverage and custody services. If these conditions cannot be met, switching to a Hong Kong SFC Type 3 licensed platform offers greater certainty, as it has clear guidelines for account opening policies, fund segregation, and investor compensation mechanisms for mainland clients. Furthermore, the applicable law and dispute resolution jurisdiction are both within the common law system, resulting in relatively lower cross-border enforcement costs.
Overall, MAS has not excluded Chinese citizens at the regulatory level, but the "non-resident + mainland permanent resident" label triggers a series of compliance uncertainties and anti-money laundering responsibilities, causing licensed institutions to impose self-imposed limitations on their business operations. For mainland investors, the practical window for opening an account through the MAS platform is essentially closed at this stage if they lack a long-term Singapore visa or high-net-worth certification. Even if an account is successfully opened, they still need to meet the requirements for fund flows between China and Singapore, tax declarations, and annual investor classification reviews. Failure in any of these areas may result in account freezing or forced liquidation.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) employs a dual-peak model of "conduct regulation + prudential regulation" in the leveraged foreign exchange contract sector. The regulatory target is investment firms that provide services to UK retail clients or retail clients from the UK, not the clients' nationality.

---

Therefore, Chinese citizens are not included in any prohibited list, nor are there any special quota controls; they can participate in trading within the FCA's authorized framework as non-residents. The real constraints lie in the broker's place of business, client classification, and parallel controls on cross-border capital flows within China.
The FCA's entry logic for non-residents can be summarized as "open accounts, differentiated compensation." Under the capital account, the UK has no foreign exchange controls; there are no limits on the amount of RMB or foreign currency that non-residents can remit in or out. They only need to fulfill the obligations of reporting large transactions and retaining proof of the source of funds as stipulated in the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations 2017.
However, to reduce operational complexity, brokers commonly handle non-UK resident business through a "localized branch" model: while the brands clients see in the UK are covered by the FCA parent company, the actual contractual counterparties are often sister companies regulated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), thus ineligible for the £50,000 bankruptcy protection under the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). Once the platform is liquidated, non-residents must initiate bankruptcy claims overseas according to the governing law of the contracts, incurring significantly higher costs than for UK clients.
Regarding service-side licensing, any institution actively marketing or accepting retail orders from the UK must hold an "investment company" license authorized under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and compliant with the EU Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II) standards. They must also fulfill continuous obligations such as client fund segregation (CASS rule), negative balance protection, disclosure of key information documents (KID), and mandatory arbitration by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Operating without a license constitutes a criminal offense. The FCA updates its list of "clone companies" and unlicensed entities weekly, but has no extraterritorial enforcement power over investors in China. If investors choose to enter into contracts with unlicensed entities, they are neither protected by UK law nor protected by domestic remedies due to violations of China's foreign exchange control regulations.
Regarding leverage and products, the FCA permanently enacted the "Retail Derivatives Restriction Order" in 2021, stipulating that margin ratios for major currency pairs must not be lower than 3.33% (approximately 30:1), and for non-major currency pairs, indices, and gold, the margin ratio must not be lower than 5% (20:1). Contracts related to digital assets are completely prohibited from being offered to retail clients. This leverage cap applies to all retail clients, regardless of nationality. Investors wishing to obtain higher leverage must pass an "Elective Professional Client" (EPCI) assessment, meeting three thresholds: "financial assets ≥ €500,000 + experience with large positions + risk testing," and signing a statutory declaration waiving some regulatory protections.
Regulation within China constitutes a parallel constraint. The "Measures for the Administration of Individual Foreign Exchange" and its implementing rules maintain the annual foreign exchange purchase quota of USD 50,000 per person, and explicitly prohibit its use for overseas real estate purchases, securities investment, life insurance, and margin trading. Any act of injecting funds into an FCA-authorized platform through split foreign exchange purchases, underground banks, or over-the-counter virtual currency exchange constitutes an administrative violation under Article 39 of the "Foreign Exchange Administration Regulations." Foreign exchange management authorities may impose fines and include the violation in the central bank's credit system. If a platform operates within China without approval from the China Securities Regulatory Commission or the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, it constitutes illegal futures trading or illegal business operations. The contractual relationship between the client and the platform will be deemed invalid under Chinese law, making it extremely difficult to seek redress.
Regarding taxation, the UK adopts the "source principle" for non-resident capital gains. Pure foreign exchange contract transactions, unless constituting "business through a permanent establishment in the UK," generally do not generate income tax obligations in the UK. However, since 2017, the UK has implemented the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), automatically exchanging client account information with Chinese tax authorities. Investors must self-report their overseas income in China; otherwise, they face back taxes, late payment fees, and a five-year retroactive penalty.
In summary, the FCA regulatory framework does not discriminate against Chinese citizens based on nationality, nor does it set entry quotas. However, this "openness" only exists at the level of UK law. Investors still need to overcome three hurdles simultaneously: "limited compensation by local branches," "compliance with outbound capital flows from China," and "authenticity of platform licenses." A feasible compliance path is to prioritize brokers with direct FCA licenses, whose client funds are independently held in UK banks, and whose contracts are explicitly governed by English law. On the funding side, strictly limit foreign exchange purchases to an annual limit of US$50,000 per person, truthfully declare the purpose as "overseas investment," and proactively declare overseas transaction income to the Chinese tax authorities. Only by completing a closed loop at the intersection of the regulatory requirements of the two countries can legal and financial security risks be reduced.

Under the twin peaks regulatory framework jointly constituted by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) and the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), leveraged foreign exchange trading is classified as "over-the-counter retail derivatives." The regulatory logic is centered on "behavioral neutrality and risk matching," and no prohibitive clauses are set regarding investor nationality.

---

Chinese citizens can directly access the trading system of licensed institutions in New Zealand as non-residents. Capital inflows and outflows, currency exchange, and position holdings are not subject to specific quota restrictions; they only need to fulfill international balance of payments statistics and anti-money laundering reporting obligations. This open stance stems from the full convertibility of New Zealand's capital account, and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2003 explicitly includes "non-residents" and "residents" in the category of "retail clients," eliminating discriminatory barriers in principle.
However, free capital flows do not equate to free trading channels. The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) requires any entity offering margin-backed foreign exchange contracts to retail clients to hold a "Derivatives Issuer" license and register with the Financial Services Providers (FSP) system. They must also comply with a comprehensive set of ongoing obligations, including segregation of client funds, daily mark-to-market, negative balance protection, disclosure of key information, and independent dispute arbitration. Unlicensed entities offering trading offers to residents of New Zealand (including Chinese citizens holding student or work visas) are committing a criminal offense. While the FMA lacks territorial jurisdiction over non-residents outside New Zealand, it can initiate cross-border freezing proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2006 in the event of a dispute, leaving investors with uncertainty regarding asset preservation.
Leverage limits and product tiering apply to all retail clients. Margin ratios for major currency pairs must not be lower than 3.33% (approximately 30:1), for minor currency pairs, gold, and major stock indices, they must not be lower than 5% (20:1), and for cryptocurrency pairs, they must not be lower than 10% (10:1). Binary options, warrants, and other derivatives with an "all-or-nothing" profit/loss structure are strictly prohibited from being offered to retail clients. RBNZ, through its external debt statistics system authorized by the Reserve Bank Act 1989, requires immediate reporting (BOP return) for cross-border receipts and payments exceeding the equivalent of US$50,000. However, the reporting itself does not constitute approval; it is merely a macro-prudential data collection process. When carrying cash or bearer instruments of S$10,000 or more into or out of the country, a Cross-Border Cash Declaration Form must be submitted to customs. Failure to declare constitutes a violation, punishable by confiscation of the full amount and a fine of up to S$20,000.
For Chinese investors, New Zealand's legal openness does not automatically negate domestic regulatory constraints. According to the "Regulations on Foreign Exchange Control of the People's Republic of China" and the "Measures for the Administration of Individual Foreign Exchange," the annual foreign exchange purchase quota for domestic individuals remains the equivalent of US$50,000, and cannot be used to purchase securities, derivatives, or life insurance policies under overseas capital projects. Funding overseas foreign exchange accounts through split foreign exchange purchases, underground banks, or over-the-counter virtual currency trading is an administrative violation, and foreign exchange management authorities can impose fines and include the violation in credit records according to Article 39 of the Regulations. If the counterparty does not hold an FMA license, it is neither protected by Chinese law nor can statutory dispute resolution procedures be initiated in New Zealand. In the event of unrecoverable funds or price manipulation, investors can only rely on offshore litigation, the cost of which is far higher than the path taken by licensed institutions.
From a tax perspective, New Zealand applies the "source" principle to non-resident capital gains. Pure foreign exchange trading gains, if not constituting "conducting business in New Zealand," are generally not subject to income tax. However, if deemed "derivatives trading business," they are subject to a flat corporate tax rate of 28% or a progressive personal income tax rate, and are subject to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and Common Reporting Standard (CRS) information exchange, with transaction data automatically transmitted to Chinese tax authorities. Investors must fulfill reporting obligations in both countries to avoid double taxation and subsequent penalties.
In summary, the New Zealand regulatory framework does not impose any prohibitive or discriminatory clauses on Chinese citizens' participation in foreign exchange trading. The degree of openness depends on whether the service provider holds an FMA "derivatives issuer" license and whether the investor meets China's cross-border capital flow regulatory requirements. Choosing licensed institutions, strictly adhering to the $50,000 foreign exchange purchase limit, maintaining complete records of fund sources and transactions, and promptly completing two-way tax declarations are the only sustainable paths to reduce compliance and financial risks under the current legal environment.

---

• 
• 

---

13711580480@139.com

+86 137 1158 0480

+86 137 1158 0480

+86 137 1158 0480

z.x.n@139.com

Mr. Z-X-N

China · Guangzhou

---