From the journal

Hong Kong IFEC Warns Prediction Market Participation May Violate Gambling Ordinance, April 2026

In April 2026, the Investor and Financial Education Council, a statutory body under the Securities and Futures Commission, published a warning that participation in prediction markets by Hong Kong residents may constitute illegal gambling under the Gambling Ordinance (Cap. 148). The warning followed the government's decision to halt planned regulated basketball betting amid concerns about normalising prediction market activity.

3 min read

In April 2026, the Investor and Financial Education Council (IFEC), a statutory body established under the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), published a formal warning that trading on prediction markets may constitute illegal gambling under the Gambling Ordinance (Cap. 148, Laws of Hong Kong). The warning was issued as Hong Kong residents increased participation on platforms including Polymarket and Kalshi, and coincided with the government's decision to halt its proposal for regulated basketball betting.

Under section 8 of the Gambling Ordinance (Cap. 148), betting with a bookmaker is a criminal offence. The IFEC's position is that prediction market contracts, which pay out based on the outcome of future events, fall within the definition of a bet placed with an operator acting as bookmaker. The IFEC also noted that participants in prediction markets fall outside the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) and any regulatory regime administered by the SFC, meaning statutory investor protection does not apply to losses on these platforms.

Hong Kong residents trading on offshore prediction market platforms face potential criminal liability under Cap. 148 for each wager placed. Operators targeting Hong Kong users face prosecution risk for unlicensed bookmaking, which carries significant criminal penalties under the Ordinance. Institutional participants using prediction markets for hedging or event-driven research should obtain legal advice before continuing, given the IFEC's stated position. Locally incorporated entities offering access to, settlement for, or marketing of prediction market platforms to Hong Kong users may face regulatory scrutiny.

The IFEC warning is not a formal prosecution policy and does not draw a statutory bright line between prediction markets and lawful financial instruments. Open questions remain on whether play-money or non-monetary prediction markets fall within Cap. 148's prohibition, and on the extraterritorial reach of Cap. 148 to offshore operators with no Hong Kong presence. The HK government's policy position may shift if it revisits expanded sports betting legislation following the April 2026 suspension.

Licentium advises prediction market operators, fintech platforms, and digital asset businesses on regulatory risk in Hong Kong, Singapore, the UAE, and other Asia-Pacific jurisdictions. We maintain a partner network of gaming law specialists and local counsel in Hong Kong for regulatory opinion, licensing analysis, and Cap. 148 compliance review. To discuss the applicability of the Gambling Ordinance to your platform or product, contact us. Work we undertake includes regulatory risk assessment for prediction market operators, gambling licensing advice, Cap. 148 exposure analysis, and iGaming and digital asset cross-border regulatory strategy.

Source: Investor and Financial Education Council, Prediction Markets and the Essence of Investment (April 2026)

Prediction Markets

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

Matched-Category Analysis of the Hong Kong Stablecoin Issuer Route and the Singapore Digital Payment Token Service Route

This matter concerns whether current licensing data supports a commercial comparison between Hong Kong’s stablecoin issuer route and Singapore’s digital payment token service route. The question is whether the proposition remains legally accurate as of 12 August 2026. “Commercially useful” is assumed to mean useful for selecting a market-entry and operating model, not proof that either regulator is more permissive.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).