Question 1

When acquiring a licensed company in Hong Kong, what is the fundamental difference between a share transaction and an asset transaction?

Accepted Answer

A share transaction acquires shares in, or control of, the licensed company; the original company generally remains the licence holder. An asset transaction transfers only the agreed business assets, contracts or technology and does not automatically confer the original company’s licensed status. Regardless of the structure used, regulatory requirements must be checked separately against actual changes in control, business and entity. A licence number cannot be treated as an independently tradable asset.

Question 2

Can an SVF, MSO or money lender licence be transferred directly from one company to the buyer?

Accepted Answer

A licence should not be described simply as an asset that can be freely transferred independently of the licensed entity. A change of control of an SVF must be handled under the controller procedures; a new director or ultimate owner of an MSO must first obtain written approval; and, in principle, a money lender’s licence is not transferable. An acquisition arrangement should distinguish changes in company shareholding, the continued existence of the entity, and the respective approvals, endorsements or notifications that apply, rather than using the phrase “buy a licence and transfer it”.

Question 3

Does purchasing only a licensed company’s brand, customer list or system allow you to operate under its licence?

Accepted Answer

Generally, no. Taking over only the brand, customer list, software or other assets does not make the buyer the original licensed entity, nor does it automatically satisfy the entity, control, premises, funding or licence-condition requirements for regulated business. If another company will provide regulated services to the public after the transaction, the applicable route should be reassessed before launch based on that company’s actual role and business model.

Question 4

After an asset acquisition, do the licensed company’s customer contracts and service arrangements automatically transfer to the buyer?

Accepted Answer

It is not automatically transferred as a result of an asset transaction. Whether customer, merchant, agent, supplier and technology contracts can be transferred depends on their assignment, consent, change-of-control and termination provisions. It is also necessary to verify who will continue to assume the rights and obligations relating to regulated services. In practice, a transaction-by-transaction list of required consents and replacement parties should be prepared, but this is a transaction-preparation method, not a prescribed statutory format.

Question 5

Do historical regulatory liabilities disappear after acquiring all the shares of a licensed company?

Accepted Answer

They do not automatically disappear. After a share transaction, the original company continues to exist, and past filings, customer-funds arrangements, licence conditions, complaints, compliance records and potential disputes may remain with it. The buyer should not rely solely on the seller’s “no issues” representation, but should verify source documents, regulatory correspondence and outstanding matters before signing. Risk allocation in the transaction documents does not replace regulatory scrutiny.

Question 6

Does adopting an asset acquisition structure completely isolate the historical compliance risks of the original licensed company?

Accepted Answer

No such assurance can be given. An asset transaction can specify the scope of the transfer in the contract, but the actual funds flows, customer commitments, data, system control and ongoing service arrangements of the original business may still determine who is carrying on the relevant regulated activity. The buyer should separately investigate historical issues, outstanding obligations and business migration risks, and obtain any required regulatory confirmation or professional advice based on the actual post-transaction arrangements.

Question 7

In an SVF company acquisition, can a minority investment also trigger controller procedures?

Accepted Answer

Possibly. HKMA materials include persons with more than 50% of the voting rights, persons with 10% to 50% of the voting rights, and indirect controllers within the scope of controllers; therefore, regulatory analysis cannot be ruled out solely because “less than half of the shares were acquired”. A proposed controller should follow the procedures under sections 8ZZF/8ZZG before completion. Whether a particular transaction constitutes control must be assessed individually based on voting rights, the control chain and the actual arrangements.

Question 8

Why do SVF acquisition agreements usually make completion conditional on the controller procedures?

Accepted Answer

Because a transaction involving a proposed controller of an SVF cannot be dealt with by simply saying “complete first and regularise later”. HKMA materials expressly state that a change of control must be handled under the relevant provisions before completion; accordingly, the outcome of the regulatory process, required information and any other applicable conditions should be aligned with the completion mechanism. A condition precedent is one form of transaction structuring; it does not mean that any application is certain to be approved or completed by a fixed date.

Question 9

When acquiring an MSO company, can the new ultimate owner apply for approval after completion?

Accepted Answer

This should not be done. The Customs guidance provides that a proposed new ultimate owner must obtain the Commissioner’s written approval before becoming an ultimate owner. If a transaction will introduce a new director or ultimate owner, the relevant approval should be made a condition precedent to completion. A general change notification under Form 6 cannot replace the prior approval process, and there is no uniform guarantee as to the time required for the actual review.

Question 10

When acquiring shares in a money lender company, is there a standard procedure equivalent to a licence “transfer”?

Accepted Answer

The verification materials currently available do not establish a money lender licence transfer procedure for an ordinary company share sale. A licence is not transferable in principle; however, while the company remains the licence-holding entity, control, directors, beneficial owners, premises, licence conditions and ongoing fitness may all need to be verified or updated. Before signing, confirm with the Money Lenders Unit what information and process are required for the transaction; do not assume that an endorsement alone completes a change of control.

Question 11

What matters should regulatory conditions precedent to the completion of a licensed company transaction cover?

Accepted Answer

Cover only matters identified as applicable based on the transaction facts, such as SVF controller procedures, written approval for a proposed MSO ultimate owner or director, approval for specific premises, or changes to a money lender’s business and premises endorsements. As a practical matter, verification of the original licence, regulatory correspondence, key contracts and fund arrangements may also be included as conditions, but these are transaction risk-management measures, not a single statutory checklist applicable to every transaction.

Question 12

After signing a share purchase agreement, can the regulatory approval waiting period be treated as if approval has already been granted?

Accepted Answer

No. Signing is a transaction arrangement between the parties and does not affect the competent authority’s independent power to assess controllers, business, premises or other matters. Transaction documents may provide for a long-stop date, responsibility for supplementary submissions and what happens if approval is not obtained, but filing materials, receiving an acknowledgement or waiting for review must not be presented as regulatory consent. Nor should any fixed review period be promised as the completion date.

Question 13

Can control be changed first to meet a transaction closing deadline, with the relevant regulatory procedures completed afterwards?

Accepted Answer

Prior procedures should not be reversed to meet a closing deadline. A transaction under which a person proposes to become a controller of an SVF must be processed before closing. An MSO’s proposed addition of an ultimate owner, director or partner also requires prior written approval. If the transaction structure or steps cannot satisfy the applicable procedures, the closing arrangements should first be adjusted or case-specific confirmation sought. Private arrangements for retrospective approval, indemnity or escrow cannot eliminate the regulatory risk of a change made without approval.

Question 14

Can regulatory consent or a change review be guaranteed to complete by the agreed closing date?

Accepted Answer

This cannot be guaranteed. Public SVF materials do not promise a uniform approval period; MSO processing also depends on case-specific factors such as the completeness of information, supplementary submissions, interviews, assessments and premises inspections. An acquisition agreement may set a commercial long-stop date and termination mechanism, but a project budget prepared by the seller, an intermediary or an adviser should not be represented as a fixed processing commitment by the HKMA, Customs or any other authority.

Question 15

After acquiring an SVF company, can it expand into new products or unrelated businesses simply because the company remains licensed?

Accepted Answer

This cannot be concluded solely on the basis that the SVF licence is still held. SVF applications and licensing arrangements may require a licensee to consult HKMA before proposing to change its principal business or conduct new business, and the principal business of a licensed company should be consistent with issuing or facilitating the issuance of SVFs. Compare the product commitments, funds flows, merchant arrangements and risk controls before and after closing; HKMA will determine whether the activity may be carried on based on the facts of the individual case.

Question 16

If changes to an SVF company’s float trust, guarantee or investment arrangements are planned after an acquisition, when should they be addressed?

Accepted Answer

A float-protection structure should not be treated as ordinary back-office infrastructure that can be replaced at will. HKMA guidance requires consultation before implementing material changes; written consent must also be obtained in advance if it is proposed to invest the float in low-risk financial assets other than cash or bank deposits. Transaction due diligence should first confirm the existing trust, ledger, reconciliation and refund arrangements, then design a post-completion continuity plan to avoid any protection gap.

Question 17

After an MSO transaction is completed, can new directors or ultimate owners be reported using Form 6 only?

Accepted Answer

No. Form 6 applies to written notification, within one calendar month, of changes to information already provided. A proposed addition of a director, ultimate owner or partner is subject to Form 4 and prior written approval. An acquisition plan should first distinguish between prior admission approval required before the transaction and a general update to information after the transaction; a general notification process must not be mistaken for a mechanism for freely transferring a licence.

Question 18

If an MSO company changes from one legal entity form to another after a transaction, can it continue using the original licence?

Accepted Answer

It cannot simply be carried over. Customs’ guidance states that a change to the licensed legal entity or business status, such as a sole proprietorship becoming a partnership or an unlimited company becoming a limited company, requires a new MSO licence application, rather than a general notification. Before the transaction, distinguish a “change in the shareholding of the same licensed company” from a “change in the licensed legal entity”. The latter cannot be addressed solely through closing documents, an update to business registration or Form 6.

Question 19

If an MSO changes its business from money changing to remittance after an acquisition, will the existing licence automatically cover it?

Accepted Answer

The scope does not automatically expand as a result of an acquisition. Customs guidance states that when changing from money changing to remittance, or from remittance to money changing, the Licensee must submit an updated business plan, AML policy and necessary supporting documents in writing to the Commissioner of Customs and Excise for review of the proposed business. The buyer should compare the business currently covered by the licence, the post-transaction services and the funds flows item by item; the scope of business should not be inferred solely from the company name or past promotional materials.

Question 20

After acquiring an MSO, can it move to a new business premises and begin operating there before adding the premises to the licence?

Accepted Answer

No. A specific place of business for money service operations cannot be added, or an arrangement changed from operating without a specific place to operating at one, until an application has been made and approved and the place added to the licence. Acquisition due diligence should verify existing approved locations, leases, landlord consent and actual use. The closing or opening date for a new location should align with the approval conditions; a change in company control cannot replace approval of the premises.

Question 21

After acquiring a money lender company, does the original licence remain held by the same company?

Accepted Answer

In a share transaction where the company itself remains unchanged, the licensee is generally still the original licensed company, not the buyer personally or an affiliated company. However, this does not mean that control, business, premises, licence conditions and ongoing fitness and propriety can go unchecked after the transaction. A money lender’s licence is generally non-transferable, so “the company remains the licensed entity” must be kept distinct from “the transaction is unconditionally compliant.”

Question 22

How should a money lender company’s plans to change offices or add lending locations after an acquisition be considered?

Accepted Answer

This is not an ordinary company relocation. A licensee intending to operate at an additional location or move its business to a replacement location must apply to the Companies Registry, notify the police, and obtain an endorsement from the licensing court, which will determine the matter based on the suitability of the premises and the management arrangements for the location. An office handover, lease or completed fit-out under an acquisition agreement does not mean that an endorsement for the premises has been granted; time should be allowed for uncertainty in regulatory processing.

Question 23

Why should each current licence condition be checked before acquiring a money lender company?

Accepted Answer

Because licence conditions continue to govern the licensed company’s operations, a change-of-control transaction does not automatically extinguish existing requirements. Due diligence should compare current conditions, relevant records and actual business practices item by item, with particular attention to evidence that can be retained in lending, advertising, complaints, data and debt-collection processes. This is a practical recommendation; compliance and any subsequent requirements remain subject to the applicable legislation, the licensing tribunal and the responsible authority’s case-specific determination.

Question 24

How can due diligence verify whether the target company genuinely holds the licence it claims to have?

Accepted Answer

First obtain the original licence or an official copy, then independently verify the entity name, licence status and publicly available information against the responsible authority’s public register, official system or designated enquiry portal. Website screenshots, seller posters, chat records or old quotation pages are not evidence of a current licence. If public information is inconsistent with company documents, request an explanation before signing or completion and verify the matter with the responsible authority as needed.

Question 25

What historical regulatory filings and correspondence should be reviewed in due diligence for an acquisition of a licensed company?

Accepted Answer

Request and review historical returns, independent reviews or audits, regulatory enquiries and replies, remediation follow-up, licence conditions and records of major incidents according to the licence type. For an SVF, also focus on evidence of float protection, reconciliation and risk controls; for an MSO, check periodic returns and approved information. The scope of document review should be adjusted to the target business; a general checklist should not be treated as a statutory requirement of every regulator.

Question 26

Why should AML/CFT procedures’ actual operating records be reviewed before an acquisition, rather than just the policy documents?

Accepted Answer

A policy document alone does not prove that a regime is operating. Regulatory materials require the relevant licensees to maintain AML/CFT controls, monitoring, record-keeping and governance arrangements; an MSO also cannot rely solely on intermediaries to conduct ongoing monitoring. As a practical matter, sample-check risk assessments, customer and transaction records, escalation and reporting processes, training and evidence of independent review; findings from a sample check do not mean that the regulator has reached a compliance conclusion.

Question 27

When acquiring an SVF company, why must you verify its float, customer ledgers and refund arrangements?

Accepted Answer

SVF float and security deposits must be segregated from own funds and funds for other business, and adequately safeguarded. User ledgers must be accurate and up to date, with arrangements for sufficient funds to cover full refunds and the costs of processing refunds. Before closing, the buyer should check the safeguarding structure, bank or trust documents, ledgers, reconciliations and evidence of exception handling. This check does not replace HKMA’s assessment of whether the arrangements are adequate.

Question 28

Why are gaps in historical periodic filings an important due diligence item when acquiring an MSO company?

Accepted Answer

An MSO licensee must submit periodic returns to the Commissioner as required; the guidance states that the general deadline is within two weeks after the end of each half-year, unless the Commissioner specifies otherwise in writing. Late submission may create a risk of suspension or revocation. Accordingly, the buyer should require the target company to provide filing receipts, working papers and records of correspondence with the regulator, and separately identify omissions, late filings or discrepancies in reporting as transaction risks rather than assuming they can be automatically remedied after completion.

Question 29

When acquiring a money lender company, what compliance risks in the existing loan portfolio should be checked?

Accepted Answer

Review the contract, effective annual interest rate, repayment and security records, debt collection process, complaints, and records relating to applicable licence conditions for each loan. Lending or offering to lend at an effective annual interest rate exceeding 48% is an offence; a transaction at an effective annual interest rate exceeding 36% is presumed to be extortionate and 36% is not a “safe harbour”. The buyer must also verify on a case-by-case basis whether the debt is transferable and who will assume subsequent obligations; acquiring the company’s shares is not a substitute for this review.

Question 30

If the seller says “there have been no complaints or investigations,” what further checks should the buyer make?

Accepted Answer

Independent verification is required. The target company should be asked to provide its complaint register, regulatory correspondence, remediation records, litigation or arbitration materials, insurance notifications, and relevant board or management records. Public register information should be compared with the seller’s documents. Seller representations may form part of the contractual allocation of risk, but are not equivalent to confirmation by the competent authority and do not prove that there are no undisclosed matters or future regulatory actions.

Question 31

Why must acquisition due diligence go beyond nominal shareholders to verify the complete chain of control?

Accepted Answer

Because regulatory assessment may cover direct, indirect and actual control, not just the registered shareholder at one level in the company register. SVF materials cover indirect controllers; for an MSO, the ultimate owner inquiry looks through to a natural person who directly or indirectly owns or controls more than 25% of the share capital, profits or voting rights, or otherwise ultimately controls management. Transaction structures, nominees, trusts and multi-layer holdings should all be fully disclosed and analysed under the applicable rules.

Question 32

Can a historical “licence for sale” page on a website prove that the target company is still for sale or can be transferred?

Accepted Answer

No. Historical web pages may be the seller’s past marketing materials and may not reflect current shareholding, licences, banking relationships, business locations, regulatory status or willingness to transact. Even if a page states a price, project name or historical operating figures, it should not be described as current inventory for sale or as a current guarantee. Rely on the seller’s authorisation, company documents, licence verification, up-to-date transaction information and independent due diligence.

Question 33

Can registered capital, account balances or quotations in historical sale advertisements be cited as facts of a transaction?

Accepted Answer

It cannot be treated directly as a fact about the current transaction. Share capital, turnover, balances, prices, leases or service commitments in commercial advertisements may be out of date, unaudited, subject to conditions or merely statements by the seller. In particular, they cannot be used to infer statutory capital thresholds, available funds or regulatory recognition. The buyer should obtain original company, bank, financial and contract documents from the target company and independently verify them within the authorised scope.

Question 34

Will the target company’s bank accounts and banking services automatically continue after completion of the share transfer?

Accepted Answer

Do not assume that services will continue automatically. A bank may review the relationship or request updated information based on its own customer due diligence, authorised signatories, changes in control, product risk and contractual terms. For an MSO, the operating account used must also meet the account-holder requirements set out in the official guidelines. In practice, include bank notifications, KYC updates, changes to authorised signatories and funding continuity in the completion plan, but the bank independently decides whether to continue providing services.

Question 35

Do customer, merchant, agent or supplier contracts of a licensed company necessarily remain valid after a share transfer is completed?

Accepted Answer

Not necessarily. Review each agreement for change-of-control, transfer, prior consent, notification, termination, exclusivity, data processing and regulatory cooperation clauses. A share transaction may not change the contracting entity, but it may still trigger contractual provisions; an asset transaction more commonly requires the counterparty’s consent or a new agreement. A practical recommendation is to prepare a contract matrix and satisfy key consent conditions before completion; this does not replace legal interpretation of any individual contract.

Question 36

After acquiring a payment or remittance business, must banks, acquirers and payment channels continue providing service?

Accepted Answer

Not necessarily. Service relationships are generally subject to each party’s agreements, risk policies and independent KYC/due diligence results. Licensed status or a change in share ownership does not in itself constitute a commitment to open an account, provide acquiring services or grant access to a payment channel. The buyer should check whether each party has change-of-control restrictions, reservation rights, funds-settlement arrangements and migration requirements, and prepare continuity plans. No representation should be made to customers that a bank or channel provider has given a guarantee.

Question 37

Before an acquisition, how should you verify that systems, cloud services and key accounts can continue to be used after closing?

Accepted Answer

As a practical matter, verify the software licensee, control of cloud accounts, administrator permissions, source code or escrow arrangements, disaster recovery, interface credentials, log retention, data export and supplier change-of-control provisions. For an SVF, technology risk, payment security and business continuity are key areas of regulatory assessment, so system migration should not be decided solely on commercial convenience. This review is a risk-management recommendation; specific technical arrangements should still be assessed based on the business facts.

Question 38

In an acquisition, can customer information and transaction data be copied directly to the buyer’s affiliated company?

Accepted Answer

Do not assume that the data can be copied directly. First establish who controls the data, what the contracts provide, whether system permissions and record-retention obligations allow migration, and who will continue to provide the service after completion. Customer and transaction records in regulated businesses may also serve as compliance and audit evidence; a data migration plan should preserve integrity, traceability and business continuity. Specific privacy and contractual issues require appropriate professional advice on a case-by-case basis.

Question 39

Can representations, warranties and indemnities in a transaction agreement replace regulatory approval or ongoing compliance?

Accepted Answer

No. Representations, warranties, indemnities, escrow or price adjustments are tools for allocating commercial risks between the transaction parties. They do not alter the competent authority’s independent assessment of licensing, control, premises, safeguarding of funds or ongoing operations. In practice, due diligence findings can be translated into conditions precedent and contractual protections, but these arrangements must not be presented as a regulatory exemption, approval already obtained or a guarantee that there will be no scrutiny.

Question 40

Why is it insufficient to review only the latest balance sheet when conducting due diligence on a target company’s debts?

Accepted Answer

The latest financial statements may not fully reflect guarantees, off-balance-sheet commitments, customer refund obligations, unsettled amounts, tax, disputes, related-party balances or the cost of regulatory remediation. For an SVF, own liabilities must also be reconciled separately from customer float and refund cost arrangements; for a lending business, loan and security documents should be reviewed. It is advisable to cross-check bank statements, general ledgers, contracts, board records and subsequent-period information.

Question 41

Can a buyer treat SVF customer float as operating cash available for use after the acquisition?

Accepted Answer

No. SVF float and security deposits must be segregated from the licensee’s own funds and funds for other business, and must be supported by sufficient funds to cover full refunds to users and the costs of processing refunds. They are not a source of acquisition financing, repayment of shareholder loans or general operating cash for the buyer. Closing funds arrangements should be separate from the customer-funds safeguarding structure, and existing funds should be checked against the ledger before the transaction.

Question 42

When acquiring a money lender company, do the debts, security and right to collect payments automatically transfer to the buyer?

Accepted Answer

In a share transaction, the original company usually remains the contracting party to the relevant loans, guarantees and collection arrangements; in an asset transaction, whether receivables and security can be transferred must be checked individually against the original contracts, applicable law and any necessary consents. The buyer should verify principal, interest, defaults, security, payments received, complaints and dispute records, and confirm who may lawfully manage and enforce the relevant rights after completion. “Buying a licence” cannot be used as a substitute for reviewing the receivables.

Question 43

How can interruptions to regulated business, customer funds and critical systems be avoided on the completion date?

Accepted Answer

As a practical matter, prepare a completion-day operating checklist that identifies responsible persons and backup arrangements for control of funds, authorisations, account access, customer service, refunds, reconciliation, system administrators, emergency contacts and regulatory communications. SVF regulatory materials emphasise business continuity, technology risk and payment security, so arrangements should not be limited to signing company documents. This checklist is a project-management recommendation and does not replace the responsible authority’s review of existing or new arrangements.

Question 44

Should the acquisition be announced to customers, merchants and partners immediately after completion?

Accepted Answer

First determine the recipients, content and timing of notifications based on contractual notice provisions, regulatory requirements, confidentiality obligations and business continuity needs; this should not be treated as a one-size-fits-all matter. Even if the company entity remains unchanged, check whether a change of control triggers contractual consent or notification; if the service entity, accounts, products or customer terms change, clear communications should be planned well in advance. A practical recommendation is to align the notification plan with completed regulatory and contractual steps.

Question 45

How should historical compliance, transaction and complaint records be carried forward after an acquisition?

Accepted Answer

Ensure records remain readable, searchable and complete, with an audit trail, rather than being lost or overwritten during a system migration or retained only as summary tables. For an MSO, AML/CFT-related records and ongoing monitoring responsibilities cannot be delegated solely to an intermediary; for an SVF, the ledger, reconciliations and records of material events are relevant to regulatory verification. Before completion, test exports, access permissions, retention periods and the chain of evidence. Specific requirements remain subject to the applicable rules.

Question 46

Does the same notification period apply to all licence changes after completion?

Accepted Answer

Not applicable. The treatment differs by licence, type of change and documentation route: there is a 14-day notification rule for matters such as the appointment or removal of an SVF manager, but it cannot be generalised to all changes; changes to information already provided by an MSO generally must be notified in writing within one calendar month, while a new ultimate owner and certain other matters require prior approval; a change of premises for a money lender has a separate endorsement route. Assess each matter individually and avoid applying a single uniform deadline.

Question 47

If a company appears on a public register, is that sufficient to prove that all of its business activities and transaction arrangements are licensed?

Accepted Answer

This is not sufficient to prove everything. Public register information can help verify an entity’s publicly recorded licence status, but it cannot replace due diligence on licence conditions, approved business, control, premises, fund arrangements, historical returns or outstanding regulatory matters. Before an acquisition, treat register verification as a starting point, then obtain the target company’s licence documents, regulatory correspondence and business information; being listed on a register should not be promoted as government endorsement.

Question 48

Is buying an existing licensed company easier or faster than applying independently to obtain regulatory approval?

Accepted Answer

No such guarantee can be given. An existing licence does not eliminate scrutiny of control, business, premises, safeguarding of funds, compliance records or contractual succession; if an applicable change occurs after the acquisition, it must still be handled under the relevant rules. The timing and risks of applying independently or acquiring a business depend on the complexity of the business, the quality of the information, regulatory requirements and the transaction facts. Any claim of “faster approval” or a fixed completion date should not be treated as a regulatory commitment.

Question 49

Does the RGYS website provide real-time inventory, prices or delivery guarantees for licensed companies for sale?

Accepted Answer

This category does not present any historical sale page, third-party advertisement or old quotation as current inventory, current pricing, an unencumbered target or a commitment that a transaction can be completed. Public content may be used only to explain acquisition preparation, due diligence and regulatory boundaries; any specific project must be based on the seller’s authority, up-to-date documents, independent due diligence and the responsible authority’s handling at the time. RGYS does not guarantee completion of a transaction, maintenance of a licence, banking services or a fixed processing time.

Question 50

When preparing to acquire a licensed company, which materials should be marked with verification dates and information sources?

Accepted Answer

At a minimum, record the source, date obtained and verification status for licence and public register checks; company and shareholding documents; regulatory correspondence; business and funds flows; customer funds or loan information; banks and key contracts; systems and data records; complaints and disputes; and historical marketing statements. A practical recommendation is to list “seller representations”, “original documents”, “public information” and “items pending confirmation” separately, to avoid presenting unverified promotional materials as regulatory or transaction facts.

Licensing hotline	+852 3050 1899
Shenzhen mobile number / same number for WeChat	+86 159 2000 2080
Hong Kong / WhatsApp	+852 9298 4213
Email	Drew@sfc8.com
Official website	svf-hk.com
Hong Kong Address	86/F, International Commerce Centre (ICC), 1 Austin Road West, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Acquisition and Change of Licensed Company

Contact RGYS

WhatsApp Enquiry

WeChat Contact

Leave Your Enquiry