（Singapore, 08.01.2026）Banks across Asia are becoming increasingly cautious about financing technology deals that could expose them to heightened scrutiny from the United States, particularly those involving advanced artificial intelligence chips and Chinese end-users. As Washington and Beijing continue to compete for leadership in artificial intelligence, lenders find themselves navigating an increasingly complex regulatory and political landscape.
According to people familiar with the matter cited by Bloomberg, concerns have been raised by at least nine bankers at major global financial institutions. These bankers have either financed or reviewed proposals that would allow Chinese companies to remotely access advanced US-made artificial intelligence chips through data centres located outside mainland China. While such arrangements remain legal, they are attracting increased scrutiny from US authorities, prompting internal debates within banks over whether the potential returns continue to justify the growing regulatory and geopolitical risks.
In several cases, these concerns have already influenced lending decisions. One proposed transaction involving a major US bank has stalled after months of preparatory work, while another Western lender opted to walk away from a Malaysia-based data center financing late last year due to links with Chinese clients. People involved in those discussions said the possibility of US regulatory backlash played a key role in the decisions.
The growing caution highlights how sensitive the issue has become, even as demand for financing from technology firms remains strong. Companies continue to seek funding to build or expand data centers abroad as a way to work around US restrictions that limit the direct sale of high-end AI chips to Chinese firms operating within China. Under current rules, Chinese companies are prohibited from purchasing certain advanced chips outright, but they can still legally access computing power through overseas facilities.
Despite this workaround, banks are increasingly aware that financing such structures may invite unwanted attention. Industry observers note that US banks, in particular, are no longer treating these deals as ordinary commercial transactions. Instead, they sit at the intersection of investment rules, export controls, and national security considerations, making them far more sensitive than traditional infrastructure or technology loans.
One high-profile example involves a proposed loan of about US$300 million to a Silicon Valley-based artificial intelligence firm seeking to purchase advanced chips for use in a Tokyo data center. The end-user of the computing power would be a popular Chinese lifestyle and social media platform. While the deal has been under discussion for several months, it has yet to make meaningful progress. People familiar with the situation said that although a major US bank helped prepare materials to market the loan, it remains uncertain whether the bank will ultimately participate.
In another case, a Western bank declined to finance a data center project after assessing the risks linked to potential US objections. According to those involved, the possibility of future regulatory action or reputational damage outweighed the expected financial returns.
Earlier in 2025, however, some deals did proceed. A banking group that included major US lenders provided a multi-billion-dollar loan to support the construction of a data center facility in Malaysia. The project had ties to a large Chinese technology company, disclosed publicly through official investment announcements. At the same time, the data center maintained service agreements with a Singapore-based AI firm that has since come under investigation by US authorities over questions related to chip sourcing and ownership structure.
The AI firm has stated that it operates fully in compliance with all applicable laws, including US export control regulations. Separately, the chip manufacturer involved said its own review found no evidence of improper diversion and confirmed that the company is owned and operated outside China.
Neither the banks involved nor the data center operator have commented publicly on customer relationships or regulatory concerns.
In recent years, Washington has tightened oversight of capital flows into advanced technology sectors connected to China. In 2024, the US government finalized restrictions limiting investments by US individuals and companies into certain high-tech fields in China, including semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. While these rules do not automatically prohibit overseas data center financing, they have added to uncertainty over how future enforcement might evolve.
That uncertainty deepened further in late 2025 after US President Donald Trump announced a policy shift allowing shipments of certain advanced AI chips to China under strict conditions. The chips would be subject to a significant surcharge and limited to approved buyers. Market participants are still assessing how this decision might affect existing regulations and future enforcement.
For Asian bankers, the timing is particularly challenging. Loan volumes across the region, excluding Japan, fell to their lowest level in five years in 2025. As a result, any viable lending opportunities are highly sought after. Yet the risk of political or regulatory backlash is forcing banks to weigh caution against the pressure to deploy capital.
Recent history offers a cautionary tale. Earlier in 2025, a US venture capital firm faced swift political backlash after investing in a Chinese AI startup. Within weeks, lawmakers accused the firm of supporting Beijing’s technological ambitions, prompting calls for congressional scrutiny. The US Treasury later contacted the firm to seek further information about the investment.
For banks operating in Asia, the message is clear. While the demand for AI-related financing remains strong, deals that intersect with Chinese technology firms and advanced US chips are no longer straightforward. As geopolitical tensions intensify, lenders are finding that even legally structured transactions can carry significant strategic and reputational risks—ones that many are now far less willing to take.
