TTPS Extension for Insurance Agents: Compliance Red Lines

Introduction

The initial limit of stay for the first group of approved Top Talent Pass Scheme (TTPS) applicants is about to expire — Category A applicants have 36 months, while Categories B and C have 24 months — driving a sharp rise in extension demand. Among the two extension routes of “secured employment” or “establishing a business in Hong Kong”, insurance agents are favoured by some applicants because the entry barrier is relatively flexible. However, market practices such as “buying insurance to count as performance” and “subscribing to large policies in exchange for an extension” have emerged one after another, prompting the Immigration Department to continually tighten its scrutiny. In the fourth quarter of 2024, senior Immigration Department officials stated on multiple occasions that applications for extension whose main source of income is commission would be subject to “strict review”, including requirements to submit client source records, tiered income flow data, and even referral of suspicious cases to the Insurance Authority. This seemingly smooth extension route harbours legal risks far more severe than applicants imagine.

The Legal Framework for TTPS Visa Extensions: Two Routes, One Bottom Line

The Immigration Department compares against industry monthly median earnings published by the Census and Statistics Department. In the third quarter of 2024, the monthly median earnings for managerial and administrative staff were approximately HK$45,000, and for professionals approximately HK$38,000, used as a reference for “reasonable remuneration”. If remuneration is clearly below this level, the Immigration Department may require the employer to explain the academic requirements of the position and the basis for setting pay, and may even refuse the extension.

If applying through the self-employment route of “establishing or joining a business”, the applicant must produce broader business proof documents, including a business registration certificate, company registration certificate (where applicable), audited accounts, bank statements, office lease, employee recruitment records and Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) contribution slips, among others. This set of review standards derives directly from Chapter 6 of the Immigration Department’s General Policy Guidance on Retention Applications in Hong Kong, and can be said to substantially compress the speculative space for “setting up shell companies” and “fabricating businesses”.

The Status of Insurance Agents: Employed or Self-Employed?

In Hong Kong, insurance agents are “insurance intermediaries” under the Insurance Companies Ordinance (Cap. 41), and must be licensed by the Insurance Authority. They typically sign an agency agreement with an insurer as an “independent contractor”. Such agreements generally state that the agent is “not an employee”, and is not entitled to statutory holidays or severance pay under the Employment Ordinance, and the agent must file profits tax returns on their own. However, in the context of TTPS visa extensions, the boundary between employment and self-employment is not defined solely by the form of the contract.

The Immigration Department adopts a substantive review principle in determining “employment”. This passage clearly conveys two messages: first, the Immigration Department will not automatically exclude the applicability of the employment route merely because the agency agreement is classified as “self-employment”, but will focus on whether actual income reaches market level; second, extending a visa as an insurance agent, regardless of which route is taken, must involve submitting quantitative data sufficient to demonstrate the authenticity of the business.

In practice, some insurers provide agents with an “onboarding arrangement” and a “base salary plus commission” pay structure, and offer MPF contributions. Under this model, the Immigration Department may accept it as “employment”, but will still verify the stability and source of income through tax records and bank credit records.

Operating Models of Buying Insurance as ‘Performance’ and Review Red Lines

“Buying for oneself, buying for family, buying for friends, pooling enough performance to get an extension” is the most discussed practice in the market. Typical operations include: the applicant, half a year before extension, purchases in a single transaction annual-premium policies of up to HK$2 million to HK$5 million in savings life insurance or universal life insurance, thereby generating considerable commission. Since insurers generally pay agents a first-year commission rate of about 15% to 35% (depending on the product), a single policy with HK$2 million in premium can bring the agent approximately HK$300,000 to HK$700,000 in first-year commission, enough to inflate the income figure for the year before extension.

However, in the latter part of 2024 the Immigration Department established clear review red lines for this model. The following three types of situations will be regarded as warning signals of “non-genuine business operation”:

First, there is a direct relative, spouse or close financial connection between the policyholder and the agent, and the number of policies is minimal, failing to show an intention to provide services to the public. Second, the agent’s commission income is highly concentrated in individual policies, and the premium amounts of those policies are clearly inconsistent with the client base and scale of marketing activities the agent claims. Third, the agent fails to provide any client solicitation records, product illustration documents, financial needs analysis forms and ongoing after-sales service records, and the overall operation resembles “only doing one’s own business”.

Once a case is flagged as high risk, the Immigration Department may invoke section 11(5A) of the Immigration Ordinance to launch an in-depth investigation, including requiring the applicant to attend an interview in person with an Immigration Officer, and to submit complete bank statements for the past two years, profits tax returns, the annual business return issued by the Insurance Authority, and even requiring the insurer to submit the agent’s policy issuance records directly to the Department. Legal professionals have pointed out that cases have already appeared in the market where extensions were refused due to false insurance business and the applicant was brought into a review procedure, showing that the Immigration Department’s enforcement is not merely theoretical.

Another easily triggered red line lies in “false statements”. If an applicant or agent colludes to falsely report client sources, forge financial needs analysis reports, or fill in untrue employment and income information in Form ID 91, they commit the offence of “making a statement to an Immigration Officer that is known to be false” under section 42(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, punishable on conviction by a maximum fine of HK$150,000 and 14 years’ imprisonment.

The Overlap Between False Self-Employment and Money Laundering Risk

If the practice of buying insurance to count as performance involves “premium rebates” or “surrendering the policy shortly after taking it out” to manufacture commission flows, it is more likely to touch the criminal boundary of money laundering. Under section 25 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455), any person who knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that any property represents the proceeds of crime and still deals with that property commits an offence. “Dealing” includes receiving, transferring, concealing or investing. If a TTPS applicant, in order to manufacture performance, arranges for others to transfer funds into their own agent account for “passing-through” style insurance, and surrenders the policy after the cooling-off period to recover the funds, this series of transactions, if found to be intended to disguise the source of funds or fabricate business income, may attract investigation by the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit.

In Circular 12 of the Continuing Professional Training and Conduct Circular issued by the Insurance Authority in 2024, it was also emphasised that licensed insurance intermediaries must abide by the principle of “acting in the best interests of the client” and must not participate in any false or misleading sales arrangements. If the Immigration Department refers a suspected case to the Insurance Authority, the agent’s licence may face a disciplinary hearing, and in the most serious cases the licence may be revoked and a maximum fine of HK$1 million imposed.

It is worth noting that the Immigration Department’s data-matching capability has improved substantially in recent years. This means that even if an applicant does not proactively disclose self-purchased policies, the Department can trace them backwards through premium tax deduction records (tax deductions for Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme premiums and qualifying deferred annuity premiums).

Practical Guidance on Building an Insurance Business Compliantly

Under the current review environment, applicants who genuinely pursue insurance as a profession are fully capable of obtaining an extension; the key lies in the business’s “authenticity”, “continuity” and “contribution to the Hong Kong economy”.

First, the applicant should establish a clear business record system, including but not limited to: client solicitation channel records (social media advertisement screenshots, referrer contact records), client financial needs analysis forms, product comparison illustrations, after-sales policy review reports and renewal reminder records. These documents can be submitted to the Immigration Department as evidence of “actively operating a business”.

Second, the business should not rely solely on one or two large policies. The Immigration Department understands that insurance business has seasonal fluctuations, but places greater emphasis on the diversity of client numbers. It is generally advised to have no fewer than 10 independent clients (non-relatives) within the 12 months before the extension application, with commission income from diversified sources, and the commission proportion from a single policy should be kept below 40% of total income. This advice is not a statutory threshold, but a “safe value” summarised from case practice by several law firms.

Third, if the applicant operates as self-employed and sets up a company, they should ensure the company has an actual office address (not merely a virtual office), employs at least one local employee (who may be an administrative assistant), and submits profits tax returns and employee salaries tax returns on time. The Immigration Department attaches great importance to the indicator of “job creation”.

Fourth, the number of days stayed in Hong Kong is another easily overlooked implicit indicator. In FAQ question 35, the Immigration Department explicitly lists “actual number of days stayed in Hong Kong” as a consideration. Applicants should retain proof of residence in Hong Kong, including tenancy agreements, utility bills, Octopus consumption records and local medical and banking service records. If an applicant spends more than half a year outside Hong Kong within the year before extension, they must prepare a full explanation of the reasons for leaving Hong Kong and the connection to their Hong Kong business (for example, going to the Mainland to develop clients), otherwise they are highly likely to be regarded as “not treating Hong Kong as their principal place of residence”.

Conclusion: Visa Extension Is Not a One-Off Performance Show

The original intent of establishing the TTPS was to attract high-income and highly educated talent to develop in Hong Kong and fill gaps in the local labour market. The fine-grained review the Immigration Department demonstrates at the extension stage is in effect operating a screening mechanism — retaining talent that genuinely has a commitment to Hong Kong, rather than passers-by who merely treat Hong Kong as a stepping stone. Grey-area practices of buying insurance to count as performance, under the pressure of cross-departmental data linking, criminal investigation deterrence and Insurance Authority disciplinary action, now carry costs and risks far beyond most people’s imagination. From the Immigration Department’s perspective, extension is not a performance show that a single policy can get one through, but a comprehensive test of whether the applicant has already taken root and operated in Hong Kong.

This article is for informational reference only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance on an individual case, you should consult a licensed Hong Kong lawyer.