Key answer
The cost of a Hong Kong TCSP AML audit depends on the agreed independent-review scope; there is no official tariff or one responsible price for every firm. The professional fee starts with four facts: the approximate number of active client files, previous independent AML/CFT audit history, the services provided and whether the client base is limited to Hong Kong companies or also includes BVI, Cayman or other offshore entities. Document readiness, systems, deadlines and requested deliverables can then change the work required. Chronovate confirms one scope-specific professional fee only after human review.
The four facts needed for an initial fixed quote
A prospect should not have to complete a long administrative form simply to learn whether the service is commercially suitable. For a standard Independent AML/CFT Audit enquiry, the first pricing step can focus on four facts:
- Active client files: the approximate number of active client files.
- Previous audit: whether the firm has completed an Independent AML/CFT Audit before and, if so, when.
- Services provided: the business activities in scope, such as company-secretarial services, trust services or both.
- Client base: whether clients are all Hong Kong companies or also include BVI, Cayman and other offshore entities. Offshore entities generally increase scope complexity and may affect the quoted fee.
These facts establish the likely population, prior assurance baseline, service complexity and entity profile. Additional information may be needed for unusual structures, cross-border exposure, urgency or bespoke deliverables, but qualification should remain proportionate.
What normally drives the fee
| Fee driver | How it affects the work |
|---|---|
| Active customer population | A larger or more varied population usually requires more planning, sampling and exception analysis. |
| Services provided | Trust, nominee, director, registered-office and complex structuring services can create different control and evidence needs. |
| Customer and jurisdiction risk | Higher-risk relationships may require deeper EDD, screening, source-of-wealth and monitoring review. |
| Prior review history | A recent credible review with evidenced remediation can shape scope; unresolved findings may require follow-up testing. |
| Document readiness | Organised, retrievable records reduce avoidable administration. Missing or fragmented records may expand interviews and follow-up. |
| Systems and delivery channels | Multiple platforms, outsourced processes or remote onboarding can require additional walkthroughs and control testing. |
| Deadline | A compressed timetable may require prioritisation or additional resources and should never reduce necessary evidence silently. |
| Deliverables | The independent report is distinct from policy drafting, forms, training or remediation support. |
Three illustrative scope profiles—not price quotations
These profiles show why a single public number can mislead. They are illustrations of scope, not quotations, price bands or conclusions about any actual TCSP.
| Illustrative profile | Likely scope emphasis | Why effort differs |
|---|---|---|
| Smaller company-secretarial-only practice with a reliable customer list and recent credible review | Governance update, targeted walkthroughs, risk-based file testing and follow-up on earlier actions | A clear population and organised evidence reduce reconstruction work, while independence and operating-effectiveness testing remain necessary |
| Growing practice with remote onboarding, overseas exposure and no recent independent review | Broader process walkthroughs, stratified customer sampling, screening, EDD, monitoring and staff-awareness work | New delivery channels and a longer unreviewed period increase the evidence and change history to understand |
| TCSP providing trust or nominee services with complex structures or unresolved findings | Deeper ownership, control, purpose, source-of-wealth/source-of-funds, approval and remediation testing | Higher complexity and prior issues may require specialist judgement, broader samples and follow-up evidence |
The lowest-cost route is therefore not automatically the smallest headline fee. It is a scope that is proportionate, transparent and capable of producing a useful independent conclusion without silently excluding the controls that matter.
What a fixed review fee should describe
A price without scope is difficult to compare. The proposal should state the entity, services and period in scope; principal control areas; expected document request and interviews; approach to risk-based file review; form of report; treatment of management comments; key dependencies; limitations; and whether follow-up or remediation is included.
It should also say what is not included. A review report does not automatically include rewriting the entire AML/CFT policy, rebuilding every customer file, providing legal advice on unrelated issues or guaranteeing a regulatory outcome. Where optional documentation or implementation support is useful, it should be priced and governed as a separate scope extension.
Why the cheapest quote may not be the lowest-cost outcome
A very low quote may still be appropriate for a genuinely simple, well-prepared firm. The concern is not price by itself; it is whether the proposed work can support the claimed conclusion. Warning signs include no questions about the customer population or services, no operational file testing, a generic certificate, an undefined reviewer, or a promise of guaranteed compliance.
An under-scoped exercise can create three costs: management time spent on a report that does not identify the real gaps, later remediation after issues surface, and false comfort that delays action. A good proposal connects price to risk, evidence and a useful management output.
How to compare two proposals
- Regulatory fit: Does the scope address the independent audit function described in the Companies Registry Guideline?
- Business fit: Has the provider understood the firm’s services, customer profile and operating model?
- Independence and competence: Who will perform the work and how are conflicts managed?
- Evidence: Will the work include walkthroughs, risk-based files and operational records, or only a document read?
- Report quality: Will findings include evidence, risk, actions, owners and limitations?
- Data handling: How will confidential customer and suspicion information be protected?
- Commercial clarity: Are dependencies, exclusions, payment terms and change control explicit?
Compare like with like. One proposal may include remediation drafting or a follow-up review while another covers the independent report only.
How Chronovate provides a professional-fee quotation
A prospective client can provide four core scope facts directly by WhatsApp or email: the approximate number of active client files, previous independent AML/CFT audit history, the services provided, and whether the client base is limited to Hong Kong companies or also includes BVI, Cayman or other offshore entities. The longer information form is optional at this initial stage.
After the facts are sufficient, an authorised person reviews complexity, confirms the scope and approves one professional fee. The proposal should identify the entity, review period, workstreams, principal dependencies, report, exclusions and any separate remediation work. Chronovate does not automatically quote from a web calculator and does not treat a generic public range as approval for a live engagement.
The independent review is the core assurance work. Policy drafting, onboarding forms, training, backlog remediation or follow-up testing should be separately identified where requested so that independence, ownership and commercial scope remain clear.
Before requesting a quote, review how review frequency is determined, the document readiness checklist, report deliverables and the guide to selecting an independent provider.
Frequently asked questions
Can a professional-fee quote be given by WhatsApp or email?
Can offshore client entities affect the quoted fee?
Does the review fee include rewriting the AML/CFT policy?
Primary sources
Regulatory references were checked on 25 August 2026. Always consult the current official text for a live matter.