Update: freezing assets across the Hong Kong-Mainland

For any group with assets on both sides of the Hong Kong-Mainland boundary, the question of where a freezing order can be obtained – and where it will actually bind – is not academic. It is the difference between preserving a claim and watching assets move.

Freezing assets across the Hong Kong-Mainland boundary now runs through two interlocking mechanisms: the Interim Measures Arrangement (the 2019 agreement permitting Hong Kong-seated arbitration parties to apply to Mainland courts for preservation orders) and the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645, in force 29 January 2024), which extended mutual recognition to a broader class of civil and commercial judgments, including non-monetary relief. Counsel managing cross-border disputes must understand both instruments and the sequence in which they operate.

This briefing sets out what the current position is, who it affects, and what an award creditor or claimant with Greater China exposure should do now.

What the current position is

Before 2019, obtaining interim relief across the boundary required parallel proceedings or a separate application in the target jurisdiction. The Interim Measures Arrangement changed that. A party to a Hong Kong-seated arbitration administered by a designated institution – including the HKIAC – may apply directly to a Mainland people's court for a preservation order covering assets, evidence or conduct. The Arrangement has been in effect since 1 October 2019.

That mechanism is arbitration-specific. For court judgments, the position was more restricted until the Cap. 645 regime took effect on 29 January 2024. That Ordinance replaced the narrower 2008 choice-of-court regime and removed the old exclusive-jurisdiction requirement. Registration of an effective Mainland judgment with the Court of First Instance is now available across a materially wider category of civil and commercial matters. The exclusion list – insolvency, certain intellectual-property matters, succession and matrimonial proceedings – still applies, and practitioners should verify the current perimeter before relying on it.

Non-monetary relief is within scope under Cap. 645. That matters for asset preservation: an injunction-equivalent order made in one jurisdiction is now a recognised instrument in the other, subject to the registration procedure.

Who this affects across the corridor

The practical population is large. Any group or principal with operating entities, counterparties or assets in both Hong Kong and the Mainland will be within the relevant perimeter. That includes Asian holding structures with Mainland operating companies, joint-venture parties whose counterparty has cross-border assets, and claimants in commercial disputes where the defendant has shifted assets across the boundary during or before proceedings.

In our cross-border practice, we regularly see two recurring patterns. First, a claimant obtains an award or judgment in Hong Kong but delays the Mainland registration step – by which point assets have moved or been encumbered. Second, a party in a Mainland-seated dispute assumes that Hong Kong court proceedings are the natural next step, when the quicker route is often a direct preservation application under the Interim Measures Arrangement while the arbitration is still live.

Timing is the variable that most often determines the outcome. The asset-preservation window is typically shortest in the period immediately after a dispute becomes visible to the other side.

The immediate action

Three steps warrant immediate attention for any group with a live or anticipated cross-border dispute.

First, identify which mechanism applies. The Interim Measures Arrangement is available only in Hong Kong-seated arbitrations before a designated institution. If the arbitration is seated elsewhere, or the dispute is in litigation, the route is different.

Second, map the assets before filing anything. A preservation order obtained in the wrong jurisdiction, or against assets that have already moved, consumes time and exposes the application to challenge. Post-award asset tracing is a precondition, not a follow-on step. Our colleagues have written on this in the context of post-award asset tracing for related offshore corridors.

Third, review the dispute-resolution clause in any existing contract. An ill-drafted clause – one that does not name a designated institution or specify a Hong Kong seat – may foreclose the Interim Measures route entirely. For groups with CIS or other international award exposure looking at the Hong Kong enforcement route, the analysis in our guide to enforcing CIS arbitral awards in Hong Kong is relevant background.

The sequence matters. An application that proceeds in the wrong order – or that misidentifies which instrument governs – can prejudice the later enforcement step. Our disputes and arbitration practice covers both the Hong Kong and cross-border aspects of this work.

To discuss how these mechanisms apply to your cross-border position, contact info@lockhartyip.com.

Frequently asked questions

What is the first step in freezing assets across the Hong Kong-Mainland boundary?

The first step is identifying which mechanism applies to your situation. For Hong Kong-seated arbitrations before a designated institution, the Interim Measures Arrangement – in force since 1 October 2019 – permits a direct application to a Mainland people's court for a preservation order. For court judgments, the Cap. 645 registration procedure is the operative route. Asset mapping must precede any application; a preservation order directed at assets that have moved or at the wrong jurisdiction achieves nothing and can prejudice the later enforcement step.

What does the route look like for freezing assets across the Hong Kong-Mainland boundary?

Where arbitration is Hong Kong-seated and the institution is designated, the claimant applies to a Mainland people's court for a preservation order while proceedings are live. For court-judgment enforcement, the creditor registers the effective Mainland judgment with Hong Kong's Court of First Instance under Cap. 645, or uses the certified-copy procedure for a Hong Kong judgment in the Mainland. Non-monetary relief, including injunctive orders, is within scope under Cap. 645. The sequence – which jurisdiction is approached first, and at what stage – determines the practical outcome.

How does the cross-border element affect freezing assets across the Hong Kong-Mainland boundary?

The cross-border element means two legal systems must be engaged in the right order. Hong Kong operates under common law; Mainland courts apply civil-law procedure. A preservation order or enforcement step that is valid in one system may not translate automatically to the other. The Interim Measures Arrangement and Cap. 645 are the specific instruments that bridge this gap, but each has its own perimeter and exclusion list. International counsel coordinating with locally licensed firms on both sides is the standard structure for managing this interface effectively.

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.

Update: freezing assets across the Hong Kong-Mainland boundary

What the current position is

Who this affects across the corridor

The immediate action

Frequently asked questions

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

Related