Hong Kong’s standing as a global financial center is rooted in its adherence to the rule of law, its institutional integrity, and its reputation for transparency. Yet recent claims made by the US House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party attempt to discredit the special administrative region by depicting it as a “safe haven” for money laundering and sanctions evasion. These allegations are not the product of objective assessment but a kind of political storytelling intended to weaken confidence in Hong Kong’s role in the global economy. A careful examination makes clear that these accusations are totally unfounded, internally inconsistent, and dismissive of established international evaluations.
The committee’s claims stand in complete contradiction to the findings of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). This independent intergovernmental body is universally regarded as the leading authority when measuring moves against money laundering and counterterrorist financing regimes. It employs detailed, evidence-based evaluations and applies the strictest standards globally, far in excess of any political committee. In its mutual evaluation of Hong Kong, the FATF recognized the city as meeting nearly all of its benchmarks, while in several respects surpassing regional peers. The updated FATF report in 2023 noted further improvement in both compliance ratings and enforcement outcomes. If Hong Kong were truly a weak link, it is inconceivable that the highest international authority would confer such strong endorsements. In contrast, the US House report is entirely devoid of empirical evaluation, relying instead on speculative language and claims by politically aligned witnesses.
An associated charge involves allegations that Hong Kong facilitates the export of dual-use goods to states under foreign sanctions. Here, the committee engages in deliberate manipulation of legal language by blending fundamentally distinct categories of sanctions. The first category consists of United Nations Security Council sanctions, which are binding on all states and regions within the international order. Hong Kong has faithfully implemented every one of these sanctions to the letter, as confirmed in multiple reports and through its domestic legal framework. The second category consists of unilateral sanctions declared by individual nations for their own foreign-policy reasons. Such unilateral measures hold no standing under international law, and there is no obligation for Hong Kong or any jurisdiction to enforce them. To suggest that Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, should adopt a foreign country’s unilateral dictates not only misunderstands the principle of state equality but would also undermine Hong Kong’s own judicial independence. In fact, the city’s Import and Export Ordinance is among the strictest of its kind, requiring prior authorizations for every sensitive consignment, with penalties set at the highest levels, including unlimited fines and lengthy custodial sentences. It is plainly false to portray Hong Kong as a permissive jurisdiction when its statutory system is both comprehensive and rigorously enforced.
The US House narrative further extends into fantasy by describing Hong Kong as a “financial aircraft carrier” for Beijing, suggesting that Hong Kong would be transformed into a weapon to freeze foreign assets or trap capital flows during times of geopolitical tension. This imaginative scenario collapses under even the most basic economic reasoning. Hong Kong’s status as an international financial center rests fundamentally on freedom of capital movement, contract enforcement, and adherence to international financial norms. Any reckless politicization of this system would destroy its foundation and directly erode both national and Hong Kong interests. The very survival of Hong Kong’s status depends on respect for impartiality and rules that facilitate rather than disrupt access to global markets. The notion that the city would abandon its lifeblood in favor of shortsighted, destructive action is absurd and laughable. To assert that China or the Hong Kong SAR would deliberately undermine the city’s status as an international financial center in the service of a political spectacle betrays a profound ignorance of economic logic as well as ideological bigotry.
The problem lies as much in the choice of “witnesses” as in the substance of their claims. Testimony has been presented by anti-China figures as well as political activists who left Hong Kong years ago, who are driven by overt political agendas rather than professional expertise in financial law. They cannot substitute for institutions that collect real-time enforcement data and that engage directly in global cooperation. Hong Kong maintains the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit, which collaborates closely with international counterparts to intercept illicit transactions. It operates the Anti-Deception Coordination Centre and has developed advanced platforms that allow immediate sharing of suspicious transaction reports between banks and regulators. The progress made in this regard has been recognized in international evaluations that commended Hong Kong for technological innovation in enforcement. For the US House committee to erase this record and rely instead on unevidenced and biased personal narratives is to reveal its lack of interest in objective inquiry.
Most telling is that by discarding the authoritative findings of the FATF, the US House committee undermines the very international order it claims to defend. The contradiction could not be more apparent. It speaks of defending global rules but refuses to accept professional judgments made by the body charged with upholding those very rules when they do not align with the US’ political strategy.
A principled view requires recognition of the integrity of Hong Kong’s legal system. The city has established one of the most advanced legal and regulatory frameworks for anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance in existence today. International watchdogs verify its strength through rigorous audits and by comparing measurable outcomes. The US committee, on the other hand, offers no measurable criteria, exaggerates through inflammatory metaphors, and disregards globally accepted standards. The disparity in methodology is decisive. The committee prioritizes ideological bigotry over empirical truth.
Contrary to the US House committee’s allegations, Hong Kong is a jurisdiction that repeatedly ranks among the most compliant with international standards, with active collaboration and innovation in enforcement. The US House committee claims collapse when scrutinized against the standards of legal reasoning and financial logic. They are politically expedient inventions serving Washington’s broader geopolitical strategy against China, or, in short, manipulated narratives devised for political propaganda.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
