Two companies do not mean the two businesses have been separated
Group isolation should be reflected in a genuine division of contracting, decision-making, funds and service recipients, not merely an organizational chart. Assume that a mainland payment institution provides ordinary collection services for merchants, and an overseas subsidiary provides stablecoin services permitted locally. If mainland sales directly channel merchants into overseas products and domestic accounts redeem RMB for them, the arrangement must still be reviewed as a whole. An affiliate relationship between licensed entities cannot convert prohibited activities into lawful business.
A mainland payment license has its own boundaries
The Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Non-bank Payment Institutions require operation within the business types and operating regions stated in the license, prohibit renting, lending or disguised transfer of licenses, and impose restrictions on outsourcing of core business and merchant management. The 2026 virtual currency notice separately prohibits financial institutions, including non-bank payment institutions, from providing related account opening, transfer and clearing and settlement services. Therefore, mainland fiat currency business cannot become a RMB on-ramp and off-ramp tool for overseas crypto business.
Overseas payments and overseas issuance of coins cannot be conflated
The group's plan to connect to existing stablecoin payments and its own issuance of stablecoins are different projects. The 2026 notice provides that, without the consent of the relevant authorities in accordance with laws and regulations, domestic entities and the overseas entities they control may not issue virtual currencies overseas; RMB-pegged stablecoins are also subject to special restrictions. The room to assess general overseas services cannot be expanded into permission to issue coins through an overseas subsidiary. Investment, control structures and other approval obligations should also be separately verified before implementation.
Turn the isolation design into a verifiable responsibility matrix
It is recommended to separately list customer contracts, bank accounts, wallet controllers, brand pages, customer acquisition sources, employee permissions and related-party transactions. Sharing back-office, customer service or risk management systems is not merely a matter of signing an outsourcing agreement; it is also necessary to examine whether the mainland team actually undertakes restricted business and whether cross-border data transfer is involved. Banks and regulators need enforceable boundaries and evidence, not a statement that "the two entities are each responsible." Business that does not meet access requirements should be excluded rather than packaged.
Recommended actions
- List licenses, customers, asset accounts and personnel permissions by entity, and identify points of cross-use.
- Review item by item whether mainland channels divert customers, collect payments on behalf of others, or undertake delivery of overseas products.
- Submit overseas issuance, group investment and related services for separate special reviews.
Information note: This article provides general information only and does not replace legal advice based on specific facts.
References
- Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Non-Bank Payment Institutions — State Council / State Administration for Market Regulation
- Notice on Further Preventing and Addressing Risks Associated with Virtual Currencies and Related Matters (Yin Fa [2026] No. 42) — People's Bank of China and seven other departments
