Many digital asset firms across APAC take comfort in a licence.
If the entity is approved in Hong Kong or regulated in Singapore, the assumption is that the hard part is done. The problem is that most digital asset businesses are not confined to one jurisdiction. Clients sit elsewhere. Marketing crosses borders. Infrastructure is often distributed.
Regulatory exposure does not stay neatly within the country that issued the licence.
Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan approach digital assets differently. Those differences become material when something goes wrong.
Hong Kong: Clear Rules, Direct Accountability
Securities and Futures Commission has put forward a defined framework for virtual asset trading platforms.
Client asset segregation requirements are explicit. Responsible officers are subject to fit-and-proper assessments. Safeguarding arrangements are embedded into licensing conditions.
For firms operating in Hong Kong, the regulatory perimeter is clear. That clarity reduces ambiguity, but it also narrows room for interpretation. If custody controls are weak or disclosures are misleading, regulators have a structured basis for intervention.
The exposure in Hong Kong is not theoretical. Once a breach is identified, supervisory action can move quickly and publicly. Regulatory findings can then form the basis for civil claims or investor disputes.
Singapore: Licensing Is Not Static
Monetary Authority of Singapore licenses digital payment token service providers under the Payment Services framework.
A licence, however, is not a permanent endorsement of a firm’s operating model.
Expectations around AML controls, retail positioning, technology risk management, and outsourcing governance have increased over time. Supervisory statements and enforcement actions have reinforced that compliance must keep pace with regulatory guidance.
Firms that treat licensing as a one-time milestone risk falling behind evolving expectations. When controls no longer align with supervisory standards, intervention can follow.
Japan: Custody Is the Core Issue
Financial Services Agency has consistently placed client asset protection at the centre of its framework.
Cold wallet requirements, asset segregation, trust structures, and operational controls are treated as structural safeguards rather than operational preferences.
For firms with Japanese exposure, custody discipline is not an add-on. It is embedded in regulatory expectations.
Cross-border platforms often underestimate this point. A custody model acceptable elsewhere may not satisfy Japanese standards, particularly where asset control and segregation are concerned.
“We’re Compliant in One Market” Is Not a Defence
Digital asset businesses rarely operate within a single jurisdiction.
A Hong Kong-licensed entity onboarding Singapore residents can still attract Singapore scrutiny. A Singapore-regulated platform servicing Japanese clients can encounter Japanese supervisory expectations. Offshore entities do not automatically isolate exposure if management, decision-making, or client impact remain connected.
Regulators assess substance over structure.
When regulatory action occurs, the financial consequences can extend beyond administrative penalties:
-
Legal defence costs
-
Revenue disruption following licence conditions
-
Client lawsuits linked to regulatory findings
-
Shareholder actions
-
Personal liability exposure for directors
At that point, the issue is no longer about interpretation. It becomes a question of financial resilience.
Where Insurance Responds
Insurance does not replace governance nor does it prevent enforcement. It does, however, respond when regulatory exposure results in financial loss.
For digital asset firms in APAC, this often involves:
-
Directors and Officers Insurance when investigations or claims target board members and senior management
-
Cyber Insurance following security incidents that trigger regulatory scrutiny or client notification obligations
-
Professional Indemnity where clients allege failures in safeguarding, disclosures, or system performance
-
Crime Insurance for internal or external misappropriation
While regulatory fines may not always be insurable, defence costs and civil proceedings frequently carry significant balance sheet impact.
Institutional investors and banking partners increasingly evaluate whether firms have structured risk transfer aligned with their cross-border footprint. Licensing alone is rarely sufficient.
A Structured Review of Cross-Border Exposure
Hong Kong focuses on defined licensing standards and enforceable safeguarding.
Singapore tests whether firms keep pace with supervisory expectations.
Japan centres custody integrity.
For firms operating across these markets, regulatory exposure should be mapped to financial impact before a supervisory issue arises.
Continuum works with digital asset firms across APAC to align insurance-led risk mitigation with jurisdiction-specific obligations. This includes reviewing D&O, Cyber, Professional Indemnity, Crime, and custody programmes against operating models and cross-border activity.
If your organisation operates in more than one APAC market, a structured exposure review can clarify where assumptions may not hold under supervisory scrutiny.
To review your regulatory and financial risk posture, contact us for a confidential discussion.
