����žž

Financial regulators in Hong Kong have announced the launch of a new anti-scam charter that will see telcos and big tech firms participate for the first time.

Last week, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) unveiled its latest  – its third such charter in the past three years.

Charter 3.0, as the HKMA refers to it, establishes six anti-scam principles that telcos and big tech firms are expected to uphold, albeit on a “non-legally binding” basis:

1. Allowing users to file reports of suspected scams and endeavouring to address these reports in a “reasonable manner”, once the reported issue is found to be in violation of platform policies.
2. Providing a “direct and efficient” process for financial regulators to report suspected financial scams, and to follow up on such reports.
3. Adopting a “risk-based approach” to ID verification of advertisers, applying measures that are “necessary and proportionate”.
4. Maintaining and updating internal rules, policies, processes and tools to monitor advertisements and content that promote financial products or services on their platforms.
5. Enforcing their own terms of service by “detecting and removing” financial scam advertisements or content that violates platform policies.
6. Working with financial regulators and the financial industry on raising public awareness of fraud and scams.

Participating firms include big tech companies such as Google, Meta, Microsoft, WeChat, Weibo and Douyin (TikTok), and telcos such as China Mobile, China Unicom and HKT.

In a , the HKMA said that Charter 3.0 represents a “significant step forward” in its efforts to establish a collaborative framework for regulators, telcos and technology firms to combat scams.

In addition to the HKMA, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), the Insurance Authority (IA) and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) all contributed to the charter.

The joint effort was also “supported” by the Consumer Council, the Hong Kong Association of Banks (HKAB), the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), and the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA).

Julia Leung, CEO of the SFC, said that Charter 3.0 underscores the territory’s recognition that both public and private actors have a “shared responsibility” to combat scams “at source”.

“This initiative not only echoes global governments and regulators’ call to action, but also positions Hong Kong as a leader in safeguarding the financial world’s digital future,” she said.

“Together, we are building a safer, more responsible online landscape that prioritises vigilance, collaboration and public trust.”

An expanding anti-scam framework

Charter 3.0 does not replace Charters 1.0 and 2.0, but complements them.

Each charter was designed to help specific firms to coordinate against specific scam typologies.

, introduced in 2023, was designed to disrupt credit card phishing scams that use instant messaging platforms such as SMS, WhatsApp and WeChat to target victims.

The 23 issuing banks and 15 high-volume merchants that signed up each committed not to use embedded hyperlinks in instant messages to acquire personal or credit card information from customers.

, introduced in 2024, was almost identical to Charter 1.0, but sought participation from a wider range of firms.

In addition, whereas Charter 1.0 targeted only credit card phishing scams, Charter 2.0 also targeted “other digital frauds”.

As of November 2024,  had adopted Charter 2.0, including banks, merchants, insurers, insurance brokers, corporations and Hong Kong pension fund managers.

Voluntary vs mandatory scam fighting

Hong Kong’s voluntary anti-scam charters contrast with the mandatory approaches that the territory’s neighbours have adopted.

In Australia, in February this year, lawmakers enacted what they believe are the "world’s toughest" anti-scam laws.

The country’s Scams Prevention Framework establishes multi-sector standards that all regulated banks, telcos, social media and paid search companies must adhere to.

Some of these standards are universal, meaning that they apply equally to all designated sectors, whereas others are sector-specific.

One universal obligation is that designated service providers must offer their users a “friendly and accessible” method for making a complaint about a scam, including a phone number or online mechanism that can be “reached easily”.

The Scam Prevention Framework requires telcos to detect and disrupt scam numbers, and requires social media and paid search platforms to verify the identity of advertisers and investigate all reports of scam adverts within 48 hours.

Regulated firms that fail to uphold these standards are subject to civil penalties of up to A$50m ($33m) per offence.

Like Australia, Singapore is pursuing a range of mandatory anti-scam regulations, including some highly interventionist and controversial measures.

In July 2025, the city-state’s  came into effect, allowing police to freeze the bank accounts of scam victims under certain conditions.

Banks that fail to comply with police restriction orders will commit an offence and will be liable to a fine of up to S$3,000 ($2,340).

In December 2024, Singapore’s Shared Responsibility Framework came into effect, making financial institutions and telcos liable for consumer losses to certain phishing scams.

And since June 2024, Singapore's E-Commerce Code has required designated platforms such as Facebook Marketplace to significantly increase their use of ID verification and payment protection mechanisms.

Earlier this year, following a six-month pilot scheme, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)  that Facebook Marketplace may continue to verify the IDs of only the most “risky” sellers.

The decision followed a 55 percent drop in reported Facebook Marketplace scams during the pilot.

Facebook Advertisements, in contrast, committed to verifying the IDs of all advertisers by the end of June 2025.

Hong Kong’s preference for voluntary anti-scam charters offers a striking contrast to Australia and Singapore, especially given that lawmakers in all three jurisdictions believe they are setting an example for others to follow.

Time will tell, based on trends in reported scams and scam losses, which approach proves the most effective.