---

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

---

Effective March 29, 2021, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) issued an upgraded version of its Retail OTC Derivatives Issuance Guidance, adding a "Local Client Pre-set Rule."

---

This rule requires licensed institutions to only offer leveraged foreign exchange contracts or contracts for difference (CFDs) to entities identified as "Australian retail clients." If a brokerage intends to accept non-Australian residents, it must reclassify them as "overseas retail clients" and simultaneously meet additional obligations such as higher capital adequacy ratios, risk disclosure, sales conduct, and dispute resolution. Due to the significantly increased compliance costs, most licensed brokerages have chosen to proactively withdraw from the overseas client market rather than adjust their internal systems. Therefore, the path for mainland Chinese residents to open leveraged foreign exchange accounts through Australian licensed brokerages has been substantially blocked in practice.
It should be clarified that the above restrictions do not stem from a legal prohibition. The Australian Companies Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Act do not restrict non-residents from opening accounts.
Chinese citizens can still open multi-currency accounts at Australian commercial or investment banks with a valid passport, proof of address, and tax identification number (Tax File Number) for spot foreign exchange transactions, foreign currency deposits, or low-risk bond investments. However, leveraged foreign exchange trading is a high-risk retail derivative. Brokerages that accept overseas clients bear additional regulatory responsibilities and therefore generally adopt a refusal strategy, effectively closing this type of business to non-residents. Currently, some platforms in the Chinese market still use "ASIC regulation" as a selling point, but in reality, they operate through offshore entities in the Cayman Islands, Vanuatu, etc., and their clients' funds are not protected by Australian law. Once a platform experiences financial risks or transaction disputes, ASIC usually refuses to intervene on the grounds of "lack of jurisdiction," leaving investors to seek redress through offshore legal proceedings, which are costly and have a low probability of success. Furthermore, market rumors indicate that some so-called "Australian platforms" are actually controlled by domestic teams, operating using a Ponzi scheme-like model, attracting investors through bonuses, guaranteed returns, and multi-level commissions, posing a significant risk of fraud. In conclusion, while Australian law does not prohibit Chinese citizens from participating in the foreign exchange market, the path to leveraged foreign exchange trading through licensed brokers has been "substantially blocked." For domestic investors, aside from spot foreign exchange settlement and foreign currency deposit services offered by banks, there is currently a lack of legitimate channels for opening leveraged foreign exchange accounts effectively protected under Australian law. If they still intend to participate in related transactions, they should first verify the platform's actual regulatory body, fund custody mechanism, and dispute resolution procedures, and fully assess the feasibility and legal costs of offshore judicial remedies.

In the two-way trading field of forex investment, even successful traders with rich experience and stable profitability generally believe that it is extremely difficult for ordinary people to enter this field and achieve effective profits.

---

This perception is not a subjective conjecture, but stems from the complexity of the financial investment field itself, as well as the inherent cognitive biases formed by ordinary people regarding financial investment in the traditional social context—in the minds of most ordinary people, financial investment is almost synonymous with "scam," the core reason being their lack of professional financial knowledge and inability to understand the complex operational logic and details behind financial investment. It is worth noting that this confusion and sense of powerlessness regarding financial investment is not limited to the general public; even professional investors who have deeply cultivated the industry often feel the various hidden tricks in the financial investment field, thus falling into a situation of being unable to cope.
Taking the subcategories of two-way forex trading alone, it encompasses multiple areas such as forex futures, forex options, and forex spot trading. Each subcategory has unique trading rules, market fluctuation logic, and risk control systems. Gaining in-depth understanding and mastering trading skills in even one subcategory requires a significant investment of time and effort, let alone comprehensive mastery of all subcategories. This also underscores the high entry barrier and difficulty of deeply cultivating the forex investment field.
The complexity and uncertainty of the financial investment field are particularly prominent in the digital asset sector, with the development of digital assets, represented by Bitcoin, serving as a typical example. When Bitcoin first emerged, most regions globally banned it. International giants like Google also explicitly issued policies prohibiting advertising related to Bitcoin investments, and Bitcoin even became a sensitive term within the industry for a period. However, this situation subsequently reversed when the US government explicitly recognized the legality of Bitcoin. Some argue that this decision may have implied a desire to solidify the dollar's global monetary status through Bitcoin—theoretically, if the US had foreign debt, such as owing Japan a trillion dollars, repaying that debt through Bitcoin would essentially be a risk-free and highly profitable operation. However, most major powers did not follow suit, instead issuing bans restricting the circulation of Bitcoin and other digital assets. The core reason is that these countries realized that stablecoins and Bitcoin could disrupt the circulation of their currencies and even become tools for international capital to plunder their wealth. In contrast, most smaller countries did not issue such bans. This is not due to endorsement of digital assets, but rather because these countries have smaller economies, and the impact of stablecoins and Bitcoin on their monetary systems and economic structures is limited. This difference in impact is readily apparent from the comparison of the economic size of these countries. In fact, from a financial perspective, the core attribute of digital stablecoins lies in "stability," and this stability essentially relies on being pegged to a strong currency. The Hong Kong dollar is a typical example of a stablecoin; for a long time, the Hong Kong dollar has maintained a fixed exchange rate range of 7.8 against the US dollar. This long-term stable exchange rate phenomenon also confirms the core logic of stablecoins: "achieving stability by pegging to a specific currency." Returning to the impact of financial investment on ordinary people, the perception that "financial investment is a scam" is not unfounded. Even successful forex investors may face similar predicaments of being "deceived." For example, if an investor has spent years deeply involved in the field of digital currencies or stablecoins, mastering mature trading strategies through continuous research and practice, and even achieving stable profits and a livelihood through related trading, but then the relevant regulatory policies change, deeming digital currency or stablecoin trading illegal, then the investor's years of experience and effort will be wasted. Such a sudden policy change inevitably leads to a strong feeling of being "deceived." My own investment experience also confirms the real predicament in the forex investment field. In my early years, I started out working in a foreign trade factory. Later, due to the downturn in the foreign trade industry, my accumulated foreign exchange funds lost their traditional avenues for growth, so I entered the foreign exchange trading field. After 20 years of dedicated research and practice, I gradually mastered the core logic of foreign exchange trading and developed a stable profit model. Even with large-scale long-term investments, I can effectively mitigate risks and achieve steady returns. However, in my cooperation with forex brokers, I noticed a significant shift in their attitudes: Initially, when I deposited large sums, brokers generally believed that hundreds of thousands of dollars would eventually flow into their own accounts due to investor losses, stop-loss orders, or margin calls, so they maintained a warm and welcoming attitude. But as my stable profit model developed, brokers could neither profit from my stop-loss orders nor reap the benefits of margin calls, and their attitude gradually cooled. Even worse, when I planned to deposit a large sum again to expand my investment, the brokers began demanding detailed proof of the source of funds. This demand was not essentially for compliance and regulatory purposes, but rather a disguised form of obstruction aimed at hindering my deposit operations. Based on the aforementioned industry situation and personal experience, it's clear that forex trading is fraught with traps and scams not only for ordinary people, but also for successful investors who face numerous injustices and difficulties. Under these circumstances, successful forex investors seem like "orphans" carrying sacks full of US dollars and euros, constantly facing pressure and obstruction from various forex brokers worldwide, even with stable profitability, making it difficult to obtain a fair and smooth investment environment.

Conclusion—The prosperity of the foreign exchange trading market cannot be separated from the support of a large investor base. However, Hong Kong's local population is less than 10 million, making it difficult to support the continuous operation of numerous powerful forex brokers. Without the core support of a large investor base in mainland China, the Hong Kong forex brokerage sector has continued to shrink, and the industry's decline is quite evident.

---

In the two-way trading scenario of forex investment, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the compliance boundaries of the relevant businesses of Hong Kong forex brokers. The special regulatory circular issued by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission on June 17, 2019, is the core basis for this distinction. The regulatory constraints of this circular mainly target Hong Kong brokers' remote client solicitation and related business conducted in mainland China, but do not deny the legality of mainland individuals opening forex trading accounts in person in Hong Kong. The compliance attributes of these two aspects need to be accurately distinguished based on regulatory guidance and actual operational scenarios.
Specifically, the special regulatory circular issued on June 17, 2019, issued clear regulatory warnings to all licensed corporations in Hong Kong, clearly defining the prohibited scope of two core types of violations: firstly, licensed corporations are strictly prohibited from conducting foreign exchange margin trading business in mainland China without approval from relevant regulatory authorities through remote solicitation or other means; secondly, licensed corporations are prohibited from assisting mainland Chinese investors in participating in such unapproved foreign exchange margin trading activities in any form. The issuance of this special circular not only signifies the clarification of Hong Kong regulators' attitude towards cross-border foreign exchange margin trading, but also serves as the core regulatory starting point for subsequently restricting Hong Kong foreign exchange brokers from providing related illegal foreign exchange services to mainland Chinese citizens, laying the foundation for compliance regulation in the field of cross-border foreign exchange trading.
It is important to clarify that the aforementioned prohibitive regulatory requirements of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission do not negate the legality of mainland residents opening compliant foreign exchange trading accounts in Hong Kong. Such account opening and trading activities can be carried out legally as long as the dual compliance requirements are met. However, judging from the current development of the Hong Kong foreign exchange market, even with legal account opening channels, the Hong Kong foreign exchange trading center has shown significant characteristics of being "existing in name only." This judgment is not a subjective pessimistic view, but an objective conclusion based on data on changes in market participants and the actual operational status. The prosperity of the foreign exchange market cannot be separated from the support of a large investor base. However, Hong Kong's local population base is less than 10 million, making it difficult to support the continuous operation of many powerful foreign exchange brokers. Without the core support of a large investor base in mainland China, the ranks of Hong Kong foreign exchange brokers have continued to shrink, and the industry's decline is quite evident.
From specific market cases, the exit and resale of Hong Kong foreign exchange brokers has become the norm in the industry: FXCM Hong Kong was sold to Rakuten Securities for US$36 million, followed by Saxo Bank Hong Kong's official exit from the Hong Kong market in 2025, and GMO's transfer to another institution, REMI, in January 2026. A series of industry dynamics further confirm the shrinking trend of the Hong Kong foreign exchange market. A review of the list of licensed institutions for Type III leveraged foreign exchange trading published on the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission's official website reveals a significant reduction in the number of remaining licensed institutions. These remaining institutions generally suffer from poor service quality, high transaction fees, and rigid operational systems. Even with some offering free account opening, they struggle to attract investors, resulting in persistently low market activity.
It is noteworthy that Hong Kong's financial sector attempted to revitalize its financial market through digital currency-related businesses. However, this approach is explicitly constrained by regulatory policies. In December 2025, dozens of Chinese government departments jointly issued a statement explicitly defining stablecoins and other digital currencies as illegal. This regulatory stance further restricts the transformation space for Hong Kong's financial market. In summary, Hong Kong's foreign exchange investment and trading market is currently stagnant, a fact based on market data and the industry's current state. The future development of Hong Kong's foreign exchange investment and trading market remains highly uncertain. Meanwhile, even if mainland residents choose to open compliant foreign exchange trading accounts in Hong Kong in person, they must still strictly comply with relevant regulatory provisions in mainland China. Cross-border capital inflows and outflows must strictly adhere to mainland foreign exchange management requirements, such as complying with the annual $50,000 limit on foreign exchange purchases and settlements per person. It is strictly prohibited to circumvent regulations through false reporting of fund usage or splitting transactions. Such actions may not only obstruct capital inflows and outflows but may also cross mainland legal red lines, triggering corresponding legal risks. This is a core compliance point that relevant investors need to continuously monitor.

The circular of June 17, 2019, targets remote solicitation of clients, but does not negate the legality of mainland individuals opening accounts in Hong Kong in person.

---

In two-way foreign exchange leveraged trading, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) only prohibits licensed institutions from "actively conducting business across borders," and does not restrict mainland residents from opening accounts in Hong Kong in person. As long as investors appear in Hong Kong in person and complete face-to-face signing, they can legally obtain margin trading services provided by SFC Type 3 licensed brokers or licensed banks. The circular of June 17, 2019, targets brokers' "remote solicitation of clients" in mainland China, and does not negate the legality of mainland individuals opening accounts in Hong Kong in person. The latter is under a different regulatory dimension from the red line in the circular, and therefore remains a compliant channel.
However, legal account opening does not equate to zero constraints. Investors must simultaneously meet two parallel sets of rules in Hong Kong and mainland China: In Hong Kong, they can only accept services from institutions holding a Type 3 leveraged foreign exchange license and regulated by the Securities and Futures Ordinance. Client assets must be independently held in a designated trust account, and the company's annual report and capital adequacy ratio information can be verified in real time on the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission website. On the mainland, outbound funds must strictly adhere to the annual foreign exchange purchase quota of US$50,000 per person. The purpose field must be truthfully filled in as "private tourism" or "overseas investment" or other verifiable items. It is prohibited to circumvent the quota by splitting funds with relatives and friends, engaging in fictitious trade, or exchanging virtual currencies over-the-counter. Otherwise, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange of China may initiate administrative penalties in accordance with Article 39 of the Foreign Exchange Administration Regulations, and those with serious circumstances may be transferred to the Economic Investigation Department.
In practice, in addition to a mainland ID card and a Hong Kong and Macau travel permit, account opening documents typically require proof of address within the last three months and a statement of the source of funds to pass Hong Kong's anti-money laundering due diligence. After completing the face-to-face interview and risk disclosure, the trading platform can only be accessed from a Hong Kong IP address. If the system detects that a user has been placing orders from a mainland address for an extended period, the brokerage firm has the right to freeze the account and forcibly liquidate positions in accordance with the spirit of the circular. In short, on-site account opening leaves a legal loophole for mainland residents, but this loophole is riddled with sensors on both sides, including those monitoring credit limits, purpose of use, address, IP address, and tax declarations. Any overstepping of these boundaries will trigger cross-border regulatory action, instantly turning "legal account opening" into "illegal trading."

Any Hong Kong forex broker that, without approval from mainland China, is prohibited from directly or indirectly conducting two-way forex margin trading in mainland China, effective June 17, 2019.

---

On June 17, 2019, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) issued a circular to all licensed corporations, for the first time formally establishing a red line: any Hong Kong forex broker that, without approval from mainland China, is prohibited from directly or indirectly conducting two-way forex margin trading in mainland China, nor is it allowed to provide mainland investors with auxiliary services such as account opening, quoting, clearing, and marketing. This circular transformed the "prohibition of cross-border retail forex leverage" from a tacit regulatory understanding into a written prohibition, becoming the starting point for all subsequent tightening policies.
Subsequently, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) established an information exchange and joint enforcement mechanism with mainland China's foreign exchange, public security, and cyberspace administration departments. This mechanism implemented a "double penalty" system for illegal business operations, revoking Hong Kong licenses and transferring cases to the mainland for investigation. For those continuing to solicit mainland clients through offshore entities, encrypted channels, or "white label" technology, criminal prosecution and website blocking were simultaneously imposed. For over six years, despite market attempts to circumvent regulations using digital currency channels, cross-border wealth management, and social copy trading, the regulatory logic has remained consistent with the core principle of "prohibition without approval" established in the 2019 circular.
With the revision of the Foreign Exchange Administration Regulations, the introduction of measures for data export security assessment, and the upgrading of the memorandum of understanding between the two securities regulatory commissions, the prohibitive requirements have expanded from single business bans to a comprehensive compliance framework covering anti-money laundering, cross-border data, advertising and marketing, and server deployment, continuously raising the cost of violations and compressing arbitrage opportunities.

---

• 
• 

---

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

---