---

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

---

The June 17, 2019 circular drew a red line on "remote solicitation," but left a compliance loophole for in-person account opening in Hong Kong. However, this loophole is insufficient to support the market.

---

Hong Kong once touted itself as an "offshore foreign exchange center," its prosperity heavily reliant on mainland funds and capital flows. Once cross-border marketing is cut off, its local population of less than ten million immediately becomes a fatal weakness, and the leveraged forex ecosystem loses its ability to generate revenue.
FXCM was the first to transfer its assets to Rakuten Securities for US$36 million; Saxo Bank plans to close its Hong Kong branch in 2025; and GMO Click announced that it will migrate its license and client to REMI in January 2026. These transactions are not capital reshuffling, but rather stop-loss actions following continuous capital outflows. The latest statistics from the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) website show that the number of institutions holding Type III leveraged foreign exchange licenses has dropped to single digits, and they are generally trapped in a vicious cycle of high commissions, high spreads, and slow response times. Even zero-commission account openings have few takers, and market liquidity has fallen to less than US$200 million per day, only one-thirtieth of the peak in 2014.
The Hong Kong SAR government had pinned its hopes on digital currencies, attempting to reshape the "virtual foreign exchange" market with stablecoin settlement, tokenized custody, and on-chain clearing. However, the "Notice on Prohibiting Illegal Stablecoin Trading Activities" jointly issued by more than ten ministries in mainland China in December 2025 included Hong Kong dollar stablecoins in the illegal scope, directly cutting off bank payment interfaces. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) was forced to suspend the pilot program related to foreign exchange derivatives in the "Digital Hong Kong Dollar" sandbox. Under this policy double whammy, the remaining securities firms could only retreat to institutional brokerage, corporate hedging, and high-net-worth private accounts, and the retail market was completely frozen. Looking at Hong Kong's foreign exchange trading today, the number of licenses, trading volume, and number of practitioners have all fallen back to 2003 levels. The so-called "offshore center" is now defunct; the industry's stagnation is no longer just a matter of pessimism, but rather reflected in static order books and empty buy/sell queues in real-time market data.

Foreign exchange two-way trading has always been described as an equilibrium mechanism in a zero-sum game, but in reality, it is heavily guarded.

---

Leverage, spreads, rollover costs, and liquidity gaps together constitute an invisible threshold: inside the wall are ordinary participants, outside are institutions with pricing power, and in the gap lies a triple screening mechanism of regulatory interpretation, technological delays, and capital size. Traditional discourse simplifies financial investment as "buy low, sell high," but hides the remaining complex terms in lengthy prospectus documents. Before most participants have even fully decoded the information, the risks have already materialized. Thus, "investment" is quietly replaced by "scam" in the public discourse; the only difference is that those who lose money notice it first, and those who profit notice it later.
Regarding foreign exchange assets alone, their sub-structure is enough to exhaust researchers' limited attention: foreign exchange futures require tracking exchange margin tiers and settlement curves; foreign exchange options require dynamic hedging of the delta-gamma matrix; and foreign exchange spot trading requires assessing liquidity provider quote depth and bridging latency. These three instruments share the same spot exchange rate but correspond to three heterogeneous funding curves. Deviation from any curve can trigger cross-market forced liquidation. Early narratives about Bitcoin revealed the potential costs of rule-breaking earlier: before 2013, major global search engines listed "Bitcoin" as a sensitive character; in 2017, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange launched Bitcoin futures; and in 2021, the US Treasury included it in the scope of dollar liquidity management tools. The shift from legality to illegality doesn't rely on technological upgrades; it only requires an administrative interpretation. If Washington were to decide to repay foreign debts via on-chain transfers, the accounting adjustments could be completed instantly upon the generation of a new block—a risk-free and highly profitable move. However, this would simultaneously prompt other sovereign nations to realize that opening up crypto assets is tantamount to leaving readily available overdrafts on their balance sheets. Consequently, stablecoins would be rapidly labeled as "tools of predation," with large economies tightening their grip, while smaller economies, due to their limited size, would continue to allow them—a consistent logic throughout.
The Hong Kong dollar's linked exchange rate system foreshadowed the stablecoin model as early as the 1980s: the USD/HKD exchange rate fluctuation range was limited to 7.8 ± 1.08%, and the monetary base required sufficient support from equivalent USD reserves. Essentially, it was a tokenized expression of regional credit packaged as central bank liabilities. While the technological shell can be replaced, the core remains "binding" and "collateral." If the policy direction of the bound entity were to suddenly change, years of accumulated trading experience could instantly become illegal. In my early years, I worked in export trade. Due to accounts receivable settlements and holding USD positions, I used idle funds for foreign exchange arbitrage. Over twenty years, I reproducibly modeled leverage ratios, rollover costs, and cross-currency basis, and the backtesting curves showed almost no significant drawdown. Initially, brokers were very courteous, implying that high stop-loss orders were readily available. However, after successfully compressing annualized volatility to below 3% for five consecutive years, they began delaying deposits, widening spreads, or freezing accounts under the guise of "fund source verification," "liquidity provider upgrades," and "compliance department spot checks." Profits were transformed from praise into a sin, stable returns were seen as a system loophole, and successful participants were expelled.
At this point, ordinary participants are blocked by information complexity, and sophisticated participants are driven out by the profit structure. The gap closes, and investment reverts to a primitive zero-sum game. This time, however, the counterparty is no longer a hedge fund, but the exchange itself, which has the power to modify the rules. The scam revealed by forex trading is not a false breakout in candlestick charts, but rather the absolute power of rule-makers to change terms at any time without prior notice.

ASIC's regulatory policy clearly indicates that while it does not explicitly prohibit Chinese citizens from opening accounts, it has effectively blocked the path for mainland Chinese residents to open leveraged forex accounts through licensed Australian brokers by setting stringent differentiated regulatory requirements.

---

From the core restrictions of ASIC's new regulations, its core orientation is to prioritize the trading rights of local Australian clients. It explicitly requires licensed brokers to, in principle, only provide forex trading services to "local Australian clients." If a broker chooses to accept overseas clients (such as mainland Chinese residents), they must classify them separately as "overseas clients" and be subject to stricter differentiated regulatory requirements, such as meeting higher capital adequacy standards, fulfilling more detailed risk disclosure obligations, and establishing a more robust client fund segregation mechanism.
For most licensed brokers in Australia, adjusting their internal systems to comply with these additional regulatory requirements incurs extremely high compliance costs, including investments in human resources, technology, and legal matters. Therefore, based on cost-benefit considerations, the vast majority of brokers choose to directly refuse account openings from overseas clients rather than proactively adapting to the new regulations. This makes it virtually impossible for residents of mainland China to open leveraged forex trading accounts with licensed brokers in Australia through formal channels.
It is important to clarify that this account opening restriction is not equivalent to an absolute legal prohibition. Current Australian law does not explicitly prohibit non-residents (including Chinese citizens) from opening forex-related accounts within its territory. Theoretically, Chinese citizens, as non-residents, can still open forex accounts at Australian banks or licensed financial institutions for non-leveraged basic business activities, such as ordinary foreign exchange, foreign currency deposits, or non-leveraged forex-related investments. However, leveraged forex trading, the most representative in the forex investment field, such as Contracts for Difference (CFDs) and Margin FX, falls under the category of high-risk retail derivatives and is subject to the strict regulatory system of ASIC. Brokerages providing such leveraged trading services to overseas clients bear far greater compliance obligations and risks than those for local clients. This is the core reason why most brokerages generally refuse to provide leveraged forex account opening services to residents of mainland China.
From the current market situation, there is a phenomenon that requires special attention: Many forex platforms in mainland China are using the "ASIC regulated" label to attract clients. However, in-depth investigation reveals that most of these platforms do not directly open accounts with ASIC-licensed entities in Australia. Instead, they connect their business through affiliated entities established in offshore financial centers (such as the Cayman Islands and Vanuatu). Clients under this business model are not protected by the ASIC regulatory system. This means that investors' trading funds cannot enjoy the protection of relevant Australian laws. In the event of disputes over fund security or trading fraud, complaints to ASIC are often rejected because they fall outside its regulatory scope. Furthermore, according to industry rumors, the vast majority of forex brokers currently operating under the Australian name are founded by Chinese citizens. Many of these are fraudulent entities using "forex investment" as a front for Ponzi schemes and other deceptive activities. Their core objective is to plunder funds from mainland Chinese investors. Therefore, investors must be vigilant and avoid falling into such traps.
In summary, ASIC's regulatory policy clearly indicates that while it does not explicitly prohibit Chinese citizens from opening accounts, it has effectively blocked mainland Chinese residents from opening leveraged forex accounts through licensed Australian brokers by imposing stringent and differentiated regulatory requirements. For mainland Chinese residents planning to participate in Australian forex-related business, they need to clearly define their business boundaries: it is virtually impossible to conduct leveraged forex trading through licensed Australian platforms. They should only consider basic foreign exchange or foreign currency deposit services through regulated Australian banks and financial institutions, and must fully understand the relevant business rules and exchange rate risks in advance to avoid unnecessary losses due to information asymmetry.

In two-way foreign exchange investment scenarios, the core institutions of the New Zealand foreign exchange regulatory system (Financial Markets Authority FMA and Reserve Bank of New Zealand RBNZ) have not imposed any prohibitive regulations on Chinese citizens' participation, nor are there specific transaction limits. Chinese citizens can freely participate in foreign exchange trading activities within the scope of New Zealand regulation as non-residents.

---

The core constraints on this participation right focus on two main aspects: firstly, the licensing and compliance management requirements of the service provider; and secondly, the relevant regulatory rules in China regarding foreign exchange management and cross-border investment. These two aspects together constitute the compliance basis for Chinese citizens' participation in such transactions.
From the perspective of New Zealand's core regulatory and compliance requirements, its regulatory logic relies on its fully open capital account market positioning. In principle, there are no quota restrictions on foreign exchange transactions, cross-border fund transfers, and foreign currency exchange operations for non-residents (including Chinese citizens). They only need to strictly fulfill their obligations regarding large transaction reporting and anti-money laundering compliance. There are no discriminatory restrictions based on nationality; Chinese citizens enjoy the same regulatory treatment as non-residents of other countries when participating in transactions. Regarding service provider entry requirements, the regulatory requirements are clear: any broker providing leveraged foreign exchange trading services to non-residents both inside and outside New Zealand must first obtain a "Derivatives Issuer" license issued by the FMA and complete financial service provider (FSP) registration. They must also strictly comply with a series of standardized regulatory requirements, including segregated client funds, Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) verification, transparent disclosure of transaction information, and diversified dispute resolution. It is particularly important to note that unlicensed institutions providing foreign exchange trading services to New Zealand residents (including Chinese citizens residing in New Zealand) are engaging in clear violations. Investors who establish trading relationships with such unlicensed institutions will not have their rights effectively protected under New Zealand law.
General compliance and reporting obligations are fundamental requirements for Chinese citizens participating in transactions. These include two core scenarios: cross-border fund transfers and cash carrying. When the amount of cross-border fund transfers exceeds the equivalent of US$50,000, a Balance of Payments Return (BOP Return) must be submitted to RBNZ. If carrying cash or bearer instruments of NZ$10,000 or more into or out of New Zealand, a declaration must be made to New Zealand Customs. Furthermore, throughout the entire trading process, investors must actively cooperate with brokers and relevant financial institutions to complete identity verification, submit proof of the legality of the source of funds, and comply with relevant tax compliance regulations. Financial institutions will be legally obligated to report any suspicious transactions. Regarding trading products and leverage restrictions, the FMA has set clear quantitative standards for leverage in retail forex trading. Leverage for major currency pairs cannot exceed 30:1, and leverage for non-major currency pairs cannot exceed 20:1. It also explicitly prohibits offering certain high-risk trading products, such as binary options, to retail clients. These rules apply to all non-resident investors; there are no special exceptions based on nationality.
Chinese citizens participating in forex trading under the New Zealand regulatory framework should pay close attention to multi-dimensional risk and constraint warnings, with Chinese domestic regulatory constraints being the primary prerequisite. According to relevant Chinese foreign exchange management regulations, the annual foreign exchange purchase quota for domestic individuals is US$50,000. Investors participating in overseas forex trading must strictly comply with this quota limit and the compliance requirements for cross-border capital flows. If the capital outflow process violates relevant Chinese regulations, corresponding administrative penalties will be faced. Furthermore, trading relationships established between domestic individuals and unlicensed overseas brokers are not protected by Chinese law, and related disputes cannot be resolved through Chinese judicial channels. The risks associated with trading with unlicensed institutions and the potential for legal recourse should not be ignored. If Chinese citizens choose to trade with overseas brokers who are not licensed by the FMA, their transactions are not legally protected in New Zealand, and the safety of their funds and the protection of their rights will face significant uncertainty. The FMA regularly publishes a warning list of unlicensed institutions through official channels to provide risk guidance to investors. Therefore, prioritizing brokers with valid FMA licenses and a good compliance record is a crucial measure to reduce trading risks.
Tax and cross-border compliance risks also require close monitoring. Investors must comply with the tax laws of both New Zealand and China regarding profits earned through foreign exchange trading, completing compliant tax declarations and fully utilizing any tax treaty benefits between the two countries to avoid double taxation. Simultaneously, throughout the entire trading process, investors must proactively cooperate with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing requirements of both New Zealand and China to ensure the legality of the source of funds and the transparency of trading activities, avoiding legal risks arising from violations of anti-money laundering regulations.
Overall, the core regulatory logic of New Zealand regulators for Chinese citizens participating in foreign exchange trading lies in building a dual protection system of "open market access + strict licensing services," without any specific prohibitions or quota restrictions targeting Chinese citizens. For Chinese citizens, the core prerequisite for legally participating in related transactions is simultaneously meeting dual compliance requirements: on the one hand, they must strictly comply with New Zealand's local regulatory requirements regarding licensed trading access, compliant declarations, and trading product specifications; on the other hand, they must adhere to China's relevant regulations on foreign exchange management and cross-border capital flows. Based on this, by prioritizing FMA-licensed brokers and ensuring the legality of fund sources and transparency of trading processes, legal and financial risks can be effectively reduced, thus protecting one's trading rights.

In the field of two-way forex trading, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as the core regulatory body, does not have any prohibitive clauses targeting Chinese citizens in its regulatory rules, nor does it set specific trading quota limits. This means that Chinese citizens can participate in forex trading activities under the FCA regulatory system as non-residents.

---

It is important to clarify that the relevant regulatory constraints are not based on nationality discrimination, but rather focus on three core dimensions: first, brokers must possess legal licenses and comply with operational requirements; second, brokers' cross-border business operations must comply with relevant regulatory rules; and third, trading activities must conform to relevant forex regulations within and outside China. From the perspective of core regulatory and compliance requirements, one of the core characteristics of FCA regulatory rules is the absence of nationality discrimination restrictions. It does not impose special transaction bans on non-resident groups (including Chinese citizens), and the capital account is completely open. Cross-border fund transfers and foreign currency exchanges are, in principle, not subject to quotas. However, this does not mean that corresponding obligations are waived during the transaction process. On the contrary, investors must strictly complete anti-money laundering (AML) procedures, customer due diligence (KYC) procedures, and large transaction reporting obligations. These are the basic compliance prerequisites for participating in forex trading under FCA regulation. It is worth noting that most FCA-licensed brokers assign regulatory bodies based on the investor's place of residence. For Chinese citizens, they can usually only open accounts with overseas branches or subsidiaries of brokers, rather than UK accounts directly regulated by the FCA. This difference directly affects the protection of rights—the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) generally only covers UK residents. Non-resident investors, if disputes arise, must rely on cross-border regulatory cooperation mechanisms to protect their rights, which increases the complexity of rights protection to some extent.
Regarding compliance requirements for service providers, FCA-licensed brokers offering forex trading services to Chinese citizens must possess an "investment company" license authorized under the EU's Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II). This is the core qualification threshold for conducting related business. Brokers must also strictly implement a series of compliance standards, including segregated client funds (ensuring client funds are held separately from the broker's own funds to prevent misappropriation), full risk disclosure (clearly informing investors of the leverage risks and market volatility risks of forex trading), ensuring transaction transparency (ensuring transaction prices and records are traceable), and establishing a robust dispute resolution mechanism. Conversely, unlicensed institutions are strictly prohibited from providing forex trading services to retail clients both in the UK and overseas. Chinese citizens who transact with unlicensed institutions will not be protected under UK law, and the FCA regularly publishes a warning list of unlicensed institutions on its website to provide investors with a risk reference.
Regarding leverage ratios and trading product regulations, the FCA implements a uniform leverage limit standard for retail forex trading. This standard applies to all retail investors regardless of nationality: the maximum leverage ratio for major currency pairs is 30:1, and for non-major currency pairs, it is 20:1. Contracts for Difference (CFDs) related to cryptocurrencies are explicitly prohibited from being offered to retail clients. While investors with professional investment qualifications can apply for higher leverage ratios, they must pass a professional qualification assessment by a broker, demonstrating their risk tolerance and professional investment knowledge. They must also sign a specific risk confirmation document, clearly acknowledging the additional risks associated with high-leverage trading.
Regulatory constraints within China are also a crucial prerequisite for Chinese citizens participating in overseas forex trading. According to relevant Chinese foreign exchange management regulations, the annual foreign exchange purchase quota for individuals in China is US$50,000. Investors must complete foreign exchange purchases within this quota in compliance with relevant Chinese laws and regulations. Cross-border capital flows must comply with relevant Chinese laws and regulations. Violations of these regulations regarding capital outflows may result in administrative penalties. Furthermore, transactions between individuals within China and unlicensed overseas brokers are not protected under Chinese law. Meanwhile, overseas brokers must obtain approval from Chinese financial regulatory authorities to conduct forex trading business within China. Unauthorized cross-border business activities are illegal, and investors should be wary of the risks associated with such illegal activities.
Regarding risk warnings, the first point of concern is the difference between regulatory bodies and compensation guarantees. When Chinese citizens open accounts through overseas branches of FCA-licensed brokers, the level of regulatory protection and FSCS compensation guarantees they receive may be limited. Therefore, before opening an account, it is essential to verify the specific regulatory body of the broker, the details of the segregation arrangements for client funds, and the specific procedures and mechanisms for dispute resolution to avoid losses due to confusion regarding the scope of rights between UK domestic accounts and overseas branch accounts. Secondly, investors must be highly vigilant about the risks of fraud by unlicensed institutions and cross-border rights protection. When choosing a broker, investors must verify the authenticity and validity of the FCA's license through official channels on the FCA website, and resolutely avoid fraudulent platforms that impersonate FCA licenses. Trading activities on such fraudulent platforms are not legally protected in either China or the UK. Once financial losses occur, cross-border rights protection is cumbersome, costly, and has a very low success rate. Finally, tax and compliance responsibilities cannot be ignored. Investors must comply with the relevant tax laws of both China and the UK when making profits from forex trading, and make reasonable use of tax treaties to avoid double taxation. At the same time, investors must actively cooperate with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing reviews of the regulatory authorities of both countries throughout the trading process to ensure the legality of the source of funds and the transparency of trading activities, and avoid legal liability for violating relevant regulations.
Overall, the UK FCA regulatory system maintains an open attitude towards Chinese citizens participating in forex trading, without specific prohibitions or quota restrictions. Its core regulatory logic is to strengthen the compliant operation and service standards of licensed institutions on the basis of an open market. For Chinese citizens, participating in forex trading under FCA regulation essentially requires meeting dual regulatory requirements: on the one hand, strict adherence to FCA regulations regarding licensed trading and compliant reporting; and on the other hand, compliance with all Chinese domestic regulations concerning foreign exchange management and cross-border investment. Therefore, investors should prioritize FCA-licensed brokers with a strong compliance record, clearly define the account's regulatory body and the scope of compensation protection, and ensure the compliance of fund flows and trading activities throughout the process. This effectively reduces legal and financial risks, enabling rational investment.

---

• 
• 

---

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

---