MAS regulated custody in Singapore starts with verifying the entity, license, and activity.

When evaluating a custody arrangement in Singapore, an MAS reference on a provider’s website is only the beginning. The more useful question is whether the exact entity handling the account has regulatory status and authority relevant to the service being offered.

Providing custodial services is a regulated activity under Singapore's Securities and Futures Act 2001, although licensing requirements and exemptions can differ depending on the type of institution.

If you first need the operational basics, our guide to how custody services work explains the role custodians play after a trade.

How Do I Check if a Custody Provider is MAS Regulated?

A practical verification process should cover four checks. The goal is not merely to find the provider's name, but to connect the legal entity, regulatory status and actual custody arrangement.

Confirm the Exact Legal Entity

Start with the company name appearing on your account agreement, onboarding documents and terms, not only the group's trading name.

Global financial groups can operate several legal entities under different regulators. A license held by one Singapore entity does not automatically apply to another group company or an offshore entity.

Record the legal name before searching the regulator's database. This reduces the risk of verifying the right brand but the wrong company.

Search the MAS Financial Institutions Directory

Use the official MAS Financial Institutions Directory and search for the exact legal entity.

The directory allows investors to review a firm's license type or status and its listed activities. MAS also warns that scammers can impersonate regulated institutions and recommend checking official identity and contact information before transferring funds.

Do not rely solely on screenshots, badges or license claims reproduced on a provider's own website.

Check Whether the Regulatory Scope Matches the Service

Being “MAS regulated” does not mean a firm is authorized for every financial activity.

Under the SFA, providing custodial services is a distinct regulated activity. At the same time, licensed banks and certain other institutions can operate under different statutory exemptions, so the absence of a separate CMS custody activity does not automatically mean an institution is unregulated.

For a broker, ask a more specific question: Who maintains custody of my assets?

Singapore's conduct regulations provide for CMS licensees to place customer assets in custody accounts with specified custodians. A licensee may maintain the custody account itself when licensed to provide custodial services.

Verify How Client Assets Are Held

Regulatory status is one check; the custody structure is another.

Ask the provider where assets are held, which entity controls the custody account, whether a third-party or sub-custodian is involved, and what the contractual documentation says about segregation.

A broker may be required to place customer assets with a specified custodian without being licensed to provide custodial services.

For example, Straits Financials Singapore disclosures state that customer funds and assets received by SFSPL are held on trust in accounts with eligible financial institutions and separately from SFSPL's own property.

This customer-asset arrangement should not be confused with holding a separate CMS license to provide custodial services. The MAS Financial Institutions Directory should be checked for the exact regulated activities of the relevant entity.

Investors should still review the applicable account documents because custody arrangements can differ by product, market and customer type.

Key Takeaway

MAS regulated custody in Singapore should be verified at the entity and activity level, not simply at brand level.

A useful checklist is to confirm the legal entity, search MAS records, match the regulatory scope to the service, understand where assets are held and cross-check account documents and official contact details.

Regulatory oversight and asset-segregation requirements can provide important safeguards, but they do not eliminate operational, counterparty, market, cyber or insolvency risks. Verification should therefore form part of broader due diligence rather than replace it.