Consulting Fee, Singapore Office, and Vietnam Loan: Reporting Routes
Daehan Bio, a Korean resident corporation with no financial-institution status, plans three payments from its USD account at a designated foreign exchange bank: (1) USD 180,000 to a US consultant for a market study performed entirely in the US; (2) USD 650,000 to acquire an office unit in Singapore that will be held by its newly formed wholly owned Singapore subsidiary; (3) a USD 300,000 loan to its 100%-owned Vietnamese subsidiary for working capital. The CFO has not filed any report and asks the bank to process all three on the same day. The consultant contract has no withholding-tax clause. The bank's compliance officer notes that the Singapore subsidiary was incorporated last month but the investment report was never filed. The company's prior overseas investment was a USD 1 million equity injection into the Vietnamese subsidiary two years ago.
1. Classify each of the three payments under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act as a current transaction or a capital transaction, and identify the required report or permission route and timing.
Read the worked answer
Consulting fee: current transaction-payment for services. The bank verifies the contract, invoice, and payee; no prior Bank of Korea capital-transaction report is required for the service payment itself. Tax is separate: because the study was performed entirely in the US, the fee is generally not Korean-source, so Korean withholding may not apply, but the company should confirm. If services were performed in Korea, withholding would apply.
Singapore office: capital transaction. Acquisition of foreign real estate by a resident, and the related funding of a newly formed overseas subsidiary, are capital transactions. An overseas direct-investment report for the subsidiary and the property acquisition should have been filed before the payment. The bank should not process the USD 650,000 without evidence of the report or permission.
Vietnam loan: capital transaction-overseas loan to a subsidiary. A resident's loan to a non-resident is a capital transaction requiring a report before remittance. The prior equity injection does not exempt the new loan. The report route and limit depend on the amount and the bank's delegated authority, but prior reporting is the key point.
2. What is the role of the designated foreign exchange bank in each payment, and what are the consequences if Daehan Bio executes the payments without the required reports?
Read the worked answer
The designated bank is the gatekeeper. For the consulting fee, it checks the contract, invoice, payee, and tax documentation and processes the current transaction. For the Singapore office and Vietnam loan, it must confirm that a valid capital-transaction report or permission exists before remitting; it cannot treat the bank's own debit instruction as a substitute for the report.
If the company executes the payments without reports, the transactions violate the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act. Consequences can include corrective orders, fines, restrictions on future foreign-exchange transactions and export/import financing, tax scrutiny, and-for serious or repeated violations-criminal sanctions. The bank may also face supervisory sanctions for processing without required verification. A later “retroactive” report is not a reliable cure and may not be accepted.
3. The CFO argues the Singapore office purchase is a current transaction because it is a one-time purchase of property, not a business investment. Evaluate.
Read the worked answer
Frequency does not determine the classification. Current transactions are generally payments for goods, services, income, and current transfers. Acquiring foreign real estate is the acquisition of a capital asset abroad and is a capital transaction. The fact that it is a one-time purchase does not make it a service payment.
The structure also matters. If the Korean parent funds a new Singapore subsidiary that then holds the office, the parent's remittance is an overseas direct investment or capital injection; if the parent buys the property directly and transfers it to the subsidiary, that is still a capital transaction. In either case, the overseas investment report for the subsidiary should have been filed. The CFO's “one-time” argument would also allow any large capital transfer to escape reporting, which is not the purpose of the Act.