Moving a fund between domiciles: inward re-domiciliation in Singapore, Hong Kong and Ireland

Re-domiciliation (also called continuation or migration) moves an existing fund from one jurisdiction to another while keeping the same legal entity. The fund is not wound up and relaunched. Its investors, contracts and track record carry over, provided both the exit and the receiving jurisdiction allow the move. Singapore, Hong Kong and Ireland each have a statutory inward route: into a VCC, into an OFC or an LPF, and into an ICAV. This page compares those three receiving regimes and sets out what has to happen on the exit side.

This page compares legal and regulatory features; it does not rank domiciles. Each move needs advice in both the exit and the receiving jurisdiction.

Why managers consider moving a fund

Managers usually have one of four reasons. The first is bringing the fund closer to the manager: a manager that has moved to Singapore or Hong Kong may want the fund's board and decisions there too, which can matter for supervision and tax residence. The second is following the investor base, where new commitments increasingly come from Asia-based investors (see investor perception). The third is access to a local regime, such as a fund tax scheme or a residence certificate, each subject to conditions (see tax and treaty access). The fourth is consolidation of several standalone funds into one umbrella, where the receiving regime allows it. The alternative, launching a new fund in the target domicile, is compared in the last section.

Three receiving regimes side by side

Sources are listed in the page references.

Three rows matter most. Eligibility: Singapore and the Hong Kong OFC route take corporate funds, the LPF route takes partnerships, so the existing fund's legal form often settles which regime is open. Receiving authority: a re-domiciling OFC also needs SFC registration, and Irish registration does not authorise the fund as a UCITS or AIF. Exit proof: Singapore and the LPF route both set 60-day windows, so exit steps must be ready before filing. Fees are small next to legal and administration costs and are not converted. "Confirm" means no published official figure was found.

Who qualifies: corporate funds and partnerships

The most important eligibility point is legal form. ACRA's Step 1 page (29 January 2026) states that "only overseas funds with a similar corporate structure can re-domicile as a Singapore VCC", and the fund's home jurisdiction must allow the transfer. A corporate fund such as a Cayman exempted company or SPC is the obvious candidate. A Cayman exempted limited partnership has no separate legal personality, so whether it can move directly into a VCC is a question for counsel, and a conversion or restructuring may be needed first.

Hong Kong separates the two forms. Overseas corporate funds can move in as OFCs. Overseas limited partnership funds can register as LPFs if they meet the LPF Ordinance's requirements, including one general partner and at least one limited partner. The Companies Registry states that LPF registration "does not cause the original partnership to be dissolved", that the partnership "continues in existence as an LPF" and that it "does not create a new legal entity" (FAQ Q18). Existing contracts and legal proceedings are not affected.

Ireland's route is for foreign bodies corporate continuing as ICAVs under Part 9 of the ICAV Act 2015. This site has not reviewed the full text of the continuation section, so confirm eligibility for a specific vehicle with Irish counsel.

Fees, timing and deregistration deadlines

The Singapore figures are in the table above (ACRA re-domiciliation page, 12 October 2026); the Singapore filing steps are covered on vccfund.com.sg and, for Cayman funds, on vccsg.com. For the other regimes:

• Hong Kong LPF: HK$2,555 registration plus a HK$479 lodgement fee, filed through a Hong Kong law firm or solicitor. Certificates are normally issued within 4 working days, and fees other than the lodgement fee are refunded if the application fails. The fund must be deregistered in its place of establishment "within 60 days after the registration date", or the Registrar may strike it off; the Registrar may extend the period (Companies Registry FAQ Q20–Q25).
• Hong Kong OFC: published SFC OFC fees apply (HK$5,000 for a private single fund; HK$10,000 for an umbrella plus HK$1,250 per sub-fund); confirm with the SFC how they apply to a re-domiciling fund. The SFC grant scheme pays 70% of eligible expenses, capped at HK$150,000 for a private OFC, for applications until 9 May 2027, and may be clawed back if the OFC is wound up within two years (Terms and Conditions, 11 April 2025).
• Ireland: the Central Bank reviews a complete registration application in 10 business days and returns incomplete ones; authorisation as a UCITS or AIF is separate.

Where a 60-day exit window applies, prepare the deregistration before filing the receiving application.

Should the fund move, and where to?

This decision table is a starting checklist for counsel, not a recommendation.

Legal form carries the most weight. ACRA's "similar corporate structure" condition makes a partnership an unlikely direct VCC candidate, whereas Hong Kong's LPF route was built for partnerships. Licensing comes next, because both Asian corporate regimes tie the vehicle to a locally regulated manager. Distribution follows: if EU investors are central, neither Asian regime replaces an EU passport.

The exit side, consent, tax and banking

Re-domiciliation works only if the exit jurisdiction permits outward continuation. In outline, the fund must confirm that its constitution and home law allow the transfer; obtain board and investor or partner approvals required by its documents; deal with its home regulator (a Cayman fund registered with CIMA must address that registration); deregister with the home registry within the receiving regime's deadline; and update banks, custodians, administrators, counterparties and investors.

The legal entity survives a successful move, but none of these consequences is settled by the receiving regime alone, so instruct counsel in both jurisdictions together.

Re-domiciling versus launching a new fund

Neither route suits every fund; the choice depends on the documents, investor mix, tax position and remaining life. For the vehicle-level comparisons behind each route, see VCC vs Cayman, VCC vs Hong Kong and VCC vs Irish ICAV.

This page is general information, not legal or tax advice. To discuss your situation, register your enquiry through the contact details on this site.