Hong Kong as a gateway to Asia

Introduction

For decades, Hong Kong was the default gateway for international businesses seeking Asian entry, thanks to its robust legal system, reliable rule of law, and deep financial markets. This status positioned it as a clear choice for regional headquarters and cross-border structures.

Today’s Asia is fundamentally different from the Asia of the early 2000s. The notion of always using Hong Kong as the first entry point no longer aligns with operational and regulatory realities. Increasing regulatory fragmentation, tighter local regimes, and geopolitical shifts now force companies to reconsider their structuring strategy from the outset.

Building on these developments, our experience advising international clients across Southeast Asia and Hong Kong shows that the most successful Asia strategies today rely on precise legal structuring, regulatory realism, and a clear separation of holding, operating, and regulated functions.

Most significantly, the growing regulatory, economic, and technological separation between mainland China and the rest of Asia has reshaped the strategic calculus for international enterprises. As a result, Hong Kong’s role as a gateway has evolved rather than diminished: it is no longer a universal entry point for all models and industries, but it remains a powerful, predictable, and business-friendly gateway when used in a function-specific, multi-jurisdictional manner.

Asia as a distinct legal and commercial reality

One of the most persistent misconceptions in international corporate planning is the notion that “Asia” can be treated as a single market. In reality, Asia comprises a highly diverse set of independent legal and regulatory systems, each with its own policy priorities, supervisory approaches, and market structures.

Southeast Asia (including Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines), as well as Japan and South Korea, operates under distinct regulatory frameworks that are increasingly autonomous and separate from those of mainland China. These jurisdictions demonstrate marked differences in licensing regimes, data localization requirements, AML/CFT frameworks, and regulation of domestic payment infrastructure, particularly in fintech and digital payments, underscoring the division between Asia and China.

Access to Chinese payment infrastructure, licensing regimes, and cross-border data flows is effectively restricted for foreign platforms unless they deeply integrate into China’s regulatory and technological ecosystem. Such integration typically requires local partnerships, data localization, and regulatory accommodations that many international businesses are unwilling or unable to accept.

Increasingly, businesses design their Asian strategy on an “Asia without mainland China” model. Rather than serving as a backdoor into China, Hong Kong’s true value now lies in its ability to support operations across Southeast Asia and the broader region, apart from China.

This shift redefines Hong Kong’s function in regional structuring. We see it used most effectively as a commercial and structural gateway offering legal certainty, enforceable contracts, efficient governance, and access to regional partners and financial networks, rather than as a single operating base.

Hong Kong as a modern gateway to Asia

Despite structural changes in the region, Hong Kong remains an exceptionally strong jurisdiction for international business, particularly for companies pursuing a regional strategy across Southeast Asia and beyond.

Hong Kong continues to function effectively as a leading holding jurisdiction for international corporate groups, a jurisdiction of choice for shareholder agreements, governance, and investment structuring, a hub for intellectual property ownership and licensing, a center for regional coordination and management, and a preferred venue for commercial negotiations with Asian counterparties. In this sense, Hong Kong operates as a structural and commercial gateway: it facilitates entry into Asian markets through legal certainty, enforceable contracts, efficient corporate governance, and a business ecosystem that connects global companies with regional partners.

For technology and fintech platforms, Hong Kong also serves as a strategic gateway for relationships and business development. Many global payment providers, financial institutions, and technology vendors maintain senior decision-making teams in Hong Kong, making it a practical base for business development and partnership discussions, even when operational activities take place elsewhere in Asia.

Importantly, Hong Kong remains particularly well-suited for non-custodial, non-regulated, service-based business models. Where a company does not hold client funds, issue e-money, or perform regulated payment activities, Hong Kong offers an efficient, predictable, and legally robust environment for corporate operations.

In summary, Hong Kong’s relevance is not diminishing but is becoming more defined. As a premium jurisdiction, its core value lies in serving as a base for holding, coordination, and strategic oversight—not as a universal entry point.

Where Hong Kong does not operate as a gateway

At the same time, Hong Kong’s gateway function has clear boundaries, particularly in fintech and payments. First, Hong Kong cannot substitute for local licensing in Southeast Asia. Domestic payment systems, such as PromptPay in Thailand, are governed by national regulations and are deeply integrated into local banking infrastructure. A Hong Kong entity cannot directly access these systems without appropriate local regulatory alignment or reliance on a licensed local partner.

Second, Hong Kong has become a more challenging environment for consumer-facing payment and wallet businesses due to increasingly complex licensing requirements, heightened regulatory scrutiny, and more conservative banking policies toward fintech clients. Attempting to operate a retail payment platform directly from Hong Kong often leads to regulatory friction, banking constraints, and operational inefficiencies.

Finally, Hong Kong no longer functions as a reliable gateway into mainland China for fintech models. Businesses seeking exposure to China must pursue fundamentally different legal and operational strategies tailored specifically to Chinese regulatory requirements.

PayKa case: a planned fintech model for Southeast Asia

Against this evolving regional backdrop, our company has advised on the structuring of PayKa – a planned fintech platform designed to enable foreign users, primarily tourists and expatriates, to make local QR-based payments in Thailand using a digital wallet.

As legal counsel to PayKa, we were engaged at an early stage to assess the regulatory perimeter in both Thailand and Hong Kong, identify licensing risks, and design a corporate and operational structure that would be compliant, scalable, and commercially viable. The platform is intended to allow users to preload funds and pay merchants via Thailand’s national QR system, PromptPay, without the need to open a local bank account. At the same time, PayKa envisages a strategic presence in Hong Kong as part of its broader Asia strategy, positioning itself to operate commercially and structurally in both Thailand and Hong Kong.

From a legal and regulatory perspective, a central element of our advisory work was to ensure that PayKa itself would not perform regulated financial services. Under the planned model, PayKa will not: hold client funds, issue electronic money, process payments, or conduct foreign exchange transactions. Instead, all regulated activities are expected to be carried out by a globally licensed payment partner, while PayKa will function as a technical and commercial interface between users and regulated financial institutions.

We structured this model on a compliance-by-design basis. The platform has been intentionally designed to minimize, and where possible avoid, triggering payment licensing requirements in both Hong Kong and Thailand, relying instead on a clear contractual allocation of responsibilities, delineation of regulatory roles, and licensed third parties for all regulated activities.

Conclusion

Hong Kong remains a vital Asian gateway, but no longer suits every entry strategy or connects reliably to mainland China. It works most effectively for holding, coordination, and commercial purposes within well-planned, regulatory-driven, multi-jurisdictional structures.

Our experience advising Asian cross-border businesses shows that function-specific, multi-jurisdictional models—like PayKa—now set the standard for fintech and digital platforms expanding in Southeast Asia.

At Manimama Law Firm

At Manimama Law Firm, we assist businesses in navigating this regulatory environment. We support documentation, manage application processes, and develop long-term compliance strategies for crypto-related businesses.