Enforcement Files · 2024 · Insurance Intermediaries

Unlicensed Referrals: The First IA-ICAC Joint Raid

Referral fees above 90% of commissions, business reps turned into rubber stamps, clients signing false declarations that everything happened in Hong Kong — a business model tolerated for years, finally criminalised.

Updated: 2026-10-21 Reading time: ~10 min Series: Enforcement Files
Home / Compliance Guides / Enforcement Files / Unlicensed Referrals

On 10–11 April 2024, the Insurance Authority and the ICAC ran their first-ever joint operation: search warrants executed at four premises over two days — including the offices of a licensed broker company and a referral company — with the ICAC arresting a broker and a referrer. The target was an open industry secret: unlicensed referrers in Mainland China sourcing clients for Hong Kong long-term policies, while the licensed broker company existed mainly as a paper shell. One month later (22 May), the IA circular formalised the crackdown. A tolerated industry practice had crossed into criminal enforcement.

>90%Share of commissions some brokers paid out as referral fees
2 yearsMax imprisonment — s.64G unlicensed regulated activities
Apr 10–11First IA-ICAC joint operation; four premises searched
3 principlesReferral-compliance lines drawn by the 22 May circular
Money and role flows in the non-compliant modelReferrers did the selling; the broker company only signed paper; over 90% of commissions flowed back out Mainland referrer (unlicensed)Sources · explains · closes Licensed broker co.Sells "on paper" only Authorised insurerIssues · post-sale calls hands over client application 90%+ of commission flows back as referral fee + illegal rebates Reps reduced to "rubber stamps"No client contact · no after-sales
The model's fatal feature: paper said the broker sold; in substance the unlicensed referrer did

How the model worked — the circular spells it out

The IA's 22 May circular describes the non-compliant model in operational detail, drawn from intelligence work and mystery shopping:

s.64G: why criminal, not disciplinary

Section 64G of the Insurance Ordinance (Cap.41) is the licensing regime's foundation: carrying on regulated activities without a licence is a criminal offence, punishable by fines and up to two years' imprisonment. "Regulated activities" covers selling insurance, advising on insurance matters, and arranging policies (Schedule 1A). So a Mainland referrer "explaining and closing" policies is not grey — it is black. The ICAC's involvement reflects suspected Prevention of Bribery Ordinance offences — an agent using documents to deceive his principal — meaning the false declarations deceived not just the regulator but the employer.

The circular's three principles — the referral compliance line

PrincipleRequirementPractical meaning
OneUnlicensed referrers must not provide regulated advice or carry on regulated activities/salesA referrer may only introduce — no product explanation, no pitching, no selection assistance
TwoThe broker company must perform the regulated activities itself — needs analysis, product explanation, advice, done with the client in personReps cannot merely sign — the "rubber stamp" model is itself evidence of breach
ThreeReferral fees must be commensurate with the referrer's actual work — inordinate fees are a red flag90%+ commission outflow indirectly proves who really did the work — fee structure becomes enforcement evidence

The HKMA recirculated the IA circular to all banks on 12 June 2024 — banks engaged in insurance referrals must likewise avoid regulated activities and maintain adequate policies, procedures, controls and training. The perimeter reaches beyond broker firms.

RegSir's take — this is the end of institutional tolerance. The referral model itself is not the problem (GBA clients buying HK policies is legal); the problem is that the fee ratio gave the game away: when a broker hands over 90% of its revenue to an unlicensed person, the licence is a shell. The regulators' clever move is they never needed to define a violating percentage — the fee structure is the evidence. Practical implications for broker firms: audit your referral arrangements on three questions today — is the referrer licensed? How is commission split? Did the rep actually meet the client? One failed answer means the model needs rebuilding.

What followed

The circular says the IA is "following up with other broker companies suspected of using such business models, and with the authorized insurers that sold long-term policies through them" — so the aim reaches past intermediaries to whether insurers had adequate controls against unlicensed selling. Against the annual-report backdrop (66 formal investigations and 24 conduct/fit-and-proper disciplinary actions in 2023–24, up 85%; the first criminal prosecution of a licensed broker company in 2024–25), enforcement density is clearly rising.

Official sources

DocumentIssuerDate
First IA-ICAC joint operationIA2024.4.11
Circular on non-compliant referral modelsIA2024.5.22
HKMA recirculation to banksHKMA2024.6.12
Insurance Ordinance (Cap.41)eLegislationCurrent
SHARE THIS ANALYSIS WhatsApp Telegram LinkedIn X

How would your case be characterised? Ask RegSir.

Describe the facts — RegSir analyses them against the Securities and Futures Ordinance, SFC guidance and enforcement precedent, provision by provision.

Try 3 questions free →