HKMA-MAS Banking Supervision MoU: The Cross-Border Picture

ByRegReportingDesk

On 17 September 2025 the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced that they had exchanged a Memorandum of Understanding on banking supervisory cooperation. The two authorities describe the HKMA-MAS banking supervision MoU as strengthening supervisory cooperation and facilitating the exchange of information and mutual assistance for supervisory purposes, and they tie it directly to the significant presence of Hong Kong and Singapore banks in each other’s market.

For a bank operating in both centres, the confirmed change is a supervisor-to-supervisor cooperation arrangement. The public announcement states no new bank return, template or deadline and does not identify the information categories or exchange mechanics. It also does not preclude either authority from using existing powers to request additional information.

The practical implication is that cross-border groups should review whether material information supplied to the two authorities is consistent. That is a prudent control response to the confirmed information-sharing arrangement, not a stated MoU requirement.

Related reading: HKMA Banking Ordinance Enhancements for Bank Holding Companies

Inside the HKMA-MAS banking supervision MoU

The announcement itself is short, and it is worth separating what the two authorities actually said from what commentary has read into it. According to the HKMA and MAS, the MoU does three things: it strengthens supervisory cooperation between the two authorities, it facilitates the exchange of information for supervisory purposes, and it provides for mutual assistance. The stated rationale is cross-border supervision, because banks under the purview of both authorities operate across the two jurisdictions.

Eddie Yue, Chief Executive of the HKMA, framed the MoU as reinforcing close ties between the two authorities and enhancing supervisory cooperation and information sharing on cross-border banking matters. Chia Der Jiun, Managing Director of the MAS, described it as reaffirming the partnership between the two authorities and paving the way for deeper collaboration and sharing of best practices in areas of mutual interest.

Neither public announcement reviewed reproduces or links to the MoU text. The announcements do not state the detailed clauses, information categories, recurring-exchange arrangements, timetable or bank-facing reporting obligations. Those points therefore remain unconfirmed rather than absent as a matter of fact.

The public announcement presents the MoU as a cooperation arrangement between the two authorities. Any exchange must remain within each authority’s statutory powers and confidentiality duties, but the announcement does not publish the MoU’s legal-status clause.

In Hong Kong, section 120 of the Banking Ordinance establishes official secrecy, while section 121 is the specific provision for disclosure of information relating to authorised institutions to an authority outside Hong Kong. Section 121 permits disclosure only where its statutory conditions are met, including conditions concerning the recipient authority’s supervisory role and confidentiality. The Hong Kong legal analysis should therefore cite sections 120 and 121 together, rather than treating section 120 alone as the cross-border gateway.

In Singapore, section 26(6) of the Banking Act 1970 requires information received by MAS from a bank under section 26 to be treated as secret, while section 26(6A) permits disclosure of non-customer information in specified circumstances. Section 47 separately protects customer information, subject to the permitted disclosures in the Third Schedule. Those provisions include conditional disclosure of certain customer information to a parent supervisory authority, while prohibiting disclosure of deposit information to that authority. The public announcement does not identify which statutory route or information categories will be used under the MoU.

Set against those statutes, the MoU can be described as a cooperation arrangement operating within existing legal powers. The public announcement does not state the request process or establish that requests will be faster or less burdensome.

The Basel home-host framework behind it

The MoU is consistent with the cooperation framework in the Basel Committee’s Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision. The revised Core Principles took effect immediately on 25 April 2024, and Principles 3, 12 and 13 are relevant to cross-border supervisory cooperation.

Principle 3, on cooperation and collaboration, expects laws, regulations, or other arrangements to provide a framework for cooperation with relevant domestic authorities and foreign supervisors. Its essential criteria treat arrangements as valid whether they are formal or informal, provided they cover the analysis and sharing of information and work in practice. Principle 13 expressly recognises formal or informal arrangements, including memoranda of understanding and confidentiality agreements, as mechanisms enabling timely exchange of confidential information. The existence of an MoU alone does not demonstrate that the arrangements work in practice.

Principle 13, on home-host relationships, is the one a cross-border banking group should read most closely. It expects home and host supervisors of cross-border banking groups to share information and cooperate for the effective supervision of the group and its entities, and for the effective handling of crisis situations. Principle 12, on consolidated supervision, sits alongside it: it expects a banking group to be supervised on a consolidated basis, which only works when the home supervisor can see what the group is doing in host jurisdictions. The same home-host logic is being built into other supervisory regimes, as our note on the EU’s AMLA home-host cooperation model for anti-money-laundering supervision shows.

Reading the MoU through those principles clarifies its purpose. When a Singapore-headquartered group runs a Hong Kong branch or subsidiary, the MAS is the home supervisor and the HKMA is the host, and the roles reverse for a Hong Kong group operating in Singapore. The MoU provides a formal channel for cooperation. The announcement does not state that it is the only channel or prescribe how individual cases will be handled.

Which banking groups the MoU actually reaches

The arrangement is about banks under the purview of both authorities, which is a narrower population than every licensed bank in either centre. Three situations change the answer to whether a group is likely to feel it.

The first is a banking group headquartered in one centre with an establishment in the other. A Singapore banking group with Hong Kong operations, or a Hong Kong group with a Singapore presence, sits squarely inside the cooperation the MoU is built for, because one authority is its home supervisor and the other is its host.

The second is the branch-versus-subsidiary distinction. The host authority supervises local operations, while the home supervisor conducts group-wide consolidated supervision. The precise allocation depends on entity form, the legal issue and each jurisdiction’s rules. The public announcement does not state which authority will originate particular information requests. How a different regime frames the branch case is set out in our guide to third-country branch reporting.

The third situation is a group whose ultimate parent is supervised by a third authority altogether, for example a European or North American bank that happens to run operations in both Hong Kong and Singapore. Such a group is relevant to HKMA-MAS cooperation only to the extent both authorities supervise its local operations; its relationship with its actual home supervisor runs through separate channels.

The announcement centres on cross-border operations of banks under the purview of both authorities. It does not define the full population covered by the MoU or exclude every indirect effect on banks without a direct Hong Kong-Singapore footprint.

What changes for a cross-border group in practice

Because there is no new filing, the change shows up in the supervisory relationship rather than in a reporting system. Several practical consequences follow from an information-sharing and mutual-assistance arrangement of this type, read against the Basel home-host expectations.

The announcement confirms that information may be exchanged for supervisory purposes, but it does not publish information categories. Principle 13 specifically refers to material risks, risk-management practices and supervisors’ safety-and-soundness assessments, while Principle 12 refers to consolidated information including group structure. The public sources reviewed do not establish that fit-and-proper findings or supervisory measures are recurring exchange categories under this MoU.

Mutual assistance opens the door to coordinated supervisory work. The announcement does not spell out mechanics such as joint inspections, so no specific procedure should be assumed, but the direction of travel is toward supervisors who compare their pictures of the same group rather than working in isolation.

An operational inference is that the arrangement may improve the home supervisor’s group-wide view and may make inconsistent supervisory narratives more visible. The announcement does not state how often information will be exchanged or whether particular submissions will be compared.

The announcement creates no stated new regulatory return, template or deadline. Existing Hong Kong and Singapore reporting requirements remain governed by the applicable local rules. The announcement does not preclude either authority from using existing powers to request additional information.

Confidentiality, customer secrecy, and the limits on what flows

The announcement does not create a blanket right for either authority to obtain or transmit customer data. It also does not establish that customer information is categorically outside supervisory cooperation. The answer depends on the statutory route: Hong Kong section 121 expressly contemplates information relating to individual customers subject to conditions; in Singapore, section 26(6A) concerns MAS disclosure of non-customer information, while section 47 and the Third Schedule permit limited customer-information disclosures to a parent supervisory authority and prohibit disclosure of deposit information.

On the Hong Kong side, sections 120 and 121 govern official secrecy, overseas disclosure and the conditions attached to individual-customer information. On the Singapore side, teams must distinguish MAS disclosure under section 26 from a bank’s disclosure to its parent supervisory authority under section 47 and the Third Schedule. The MoU announcement does not collapse those different routes into a single category.

Supervisory information and customer information are legally distinct but are not necessarily mutually exclusive in a supervisory context. Because the MoU text and its information categories are not public, a bank should neither assume that account-level information is automatically shareable nor assume that all customer-level information is excluded.

What cross-border banking teams can do now

The public announcement states no new deadline or system requirement. Preparation is therefore best framed as a governance and consistency review, while remaining alert to requests made under existing supervisory powers. A few steps are proportionate for a group that operates in both centres.

Review material group-level risk, governance and remediation information supplied to both authorities for consistency. This is a prudent control response to the confirmed information-sharing arrangement, not a published MoU requirement.

Map the home and host supervisors for each group entity and document their respective legal responsibilities. Do not infer from the public announcement which authority will originate a cross-border enquiry.

Keep the confidentiality boundary clear internally. Teams responding to a supervisory request should understand that supervisory information can be shared between the two authorities through statutory gateways, while customer data remains governed by banking secrecy and data-protection law. That clarity avoids both over-disclosure and unnecessary refusal.

Watch for the operational detail that has not yet been published. The MoU text, any list of information categories, and any recurring-exchange arrangements are not in the public announcement, so a group with material cross-border operations may want to raise the arrangement directly with its relationship managers at both authorities rather than infer the mechanics.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the MoU change the licensing status of a Singapore bank’s Hong Kong branch, or a Hong Kong bank’s Singapore operation?

The public announcement announces no licensing change. Authorisation, permitted activities and licensing remain governed by each jurisdiction’s banking law.

Will a bank be asked to consent before the HKMA and MAS exchange information about it?

The public announcement does not state whether a bank would be consulted or asked to consent in a particular case. The applicable statutory route and conditions determine that question. Section 121 governs disclosure by the HKMA to an overseas authority, while Singapore’s section 26 and section 47/Third Schedule provisions apply to different disclosure routes.

Does the arrangement cover anti-money-laundering supervision or only prudential matters?

The announcement describes banking supervisory cooperation but does not state whether AML/CFT matters are included or excluded. Because the MoU text is not available in the public sources reviewed, no more specific conclusion should be drawn.

If our ultimate parent is a European or US bank, does this MoU touch us?

Only through your local operations. Where both the HKMA and the MAS supervise entities of your group in their respective centres, the cooperation applies to those operations. Your relationship with your actual home supervisor, and that supervisor’s cooperation with the HKMA or MAS, runs through its own arrangements rather than this bilateral MoU.

Does the MoU permit joint on-site inspections of a cross-border group?

The announcement refers to mutual assistance but does not set out inspection mechanics, so no specific procedure should be assumed. Home-host cooperation under the Basel Core Principles can extend to supervisors participating in each other’s work, and any concrete arrangement would be handled between the two authorities rather than announced as a reporting change.

Is there any new data a bank has to submit because of the MoU?

The public announcement states no new template, return or reference date. It does not rule out additional information requests under existing supervisory powers.

Key Takeaways

  • The HKMA and MAS exchanged a banking supervisory cooperation MoU on 17 September 2025, covering exchange of information and mutual assistance for supervisory purposes.
  • The public announcement is addressed to cooperation between the two authorities and states no new bank-facing licensing or reporting obligation. Existing obligations continue under each jurisdiction’s law.
  • No new template, return or deadline is stated in the public announcement. Any additional information request would need to rest on existing legal powers or a separately announced requirement.
  • The public announcement relies on each authority’s existing legal framework. In Hong Kong, sections 120 and 121 of the Banking Ordinance govern official secrecy and disclosure to overseas authorities. In Singapore, section 26 governs MAS-held supervisory information, while section 47 and the Third Schedule govern customer information and permitted disclosures.
  • The arrangement is consistent with the Basel Core Principles on cooperation (Principle 3), consolidated supervision (Principle 12) and home-host relationships (Principle 13), whose 2024 revision took effect immediately on 25 April 2024.
  • The announcement is most directly relevant to banking groups with operations supervised in both centres; it does not define the full population covered by the MoU.
  • A prudent preparation step is to check that material group-level risk and governance information supplied to the two authorities is consistent. This is a risk-management recommendation, not a published MoU requirement.

Sources and References

Reading the MoU without over-reading it

The disciplined approach is to separate confirmed public facts from operational inference. The announcement states no new bank-facing return or deadline and confirms an information-sharing and mutual-assistance arrangement between the two authorities. Cross-border groups should check the consistency of material risk and governance information supplied in both jurisdictions and map the relevant home and host supervisors for each entity.

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.

Similar Posts