Core Viewpoint - The Hong Kong High Court's ruling has significant implications for the trust industry, indicating that trusts can no longer be used as tools for fraudulent debtors, thereby undermining their asset isolation function [4][19][20]. Group 1: Legal Ruling and Its Implications - The court authorized the liquidator to take full control of Xu Jiayin's assets, including freezing a $2.3 billion offshore trust set up for his children in Delaware [3][5]. - This ruling is referred to as the "first case of trust piercing," emphasizing that if a trust is used as a tool for fraudulent debtors, its protective function will be rendered ineffective [4][19]. - The judgment has triggered a broader investigation into Xu Jiayin's wealth transfer activities across multiple countries, revealing a complex web of asset relocation and family disputes [5][16]. Group 2: Wealth Transfer and Financial Manipulation - Xu Jiayin's family reportedly transferred approximately 50 billion yuan ($7.5 billion) overseas over a decade, with significant discrepancies in Evergrande's reported financial performance [6][7]. - The company inflated its revenue by 213.99 billion yuan ($30.5 billion) in 2019 alone, which constituted 50.14% of its total revenue for that year [7]. - The offshore trust, designed to appear legitimate, was ultimately controlled by Xu Jiayin, undermining its intended purpose of asset protection [8][9]. Group 3: Family Dynamics and Asset Division - Xu Jiayin's ex-wife, Ding Yumei, is now at the center of the asset freeze, having previously engaged in a "technical divorce" that allowed for the division of 42.7 billion yuan ($6.4 billion) in assets [10][13]. - Ding Yumei's assets include multiple properties in London and Vancouver, as well as significant funds held in various offshore accounts [13][14]. - The court's ruling has raised questions about the legitimacy of the asset transfers, particularly concerning the timing and nature of Ding Yumei's claims [14][15]. Group 4: Global Asset Recovery Efforts - The asset recovery efforts span across 12 countries, with a team of over 50 professionals involved in the liquidation process [17][18]. - In the UK, assets belonging to Ding Yumei have been frozen, while in Hong Kong, Xu Jiayin's properties and private jet are being auctioned off to settle debts [18]. - The ruling has prompted a reevaluation of trust structures in the wealth management industry, with institutions tightening their processes to prevent fraudulent activities [19][20].

Group 1 - Zong Fuli has resigned as the chairman and general manager of Wahaha Group due to non-compliance with trademark usage, and she plans to operate her own brand "Wah Xiaozong" [2][3] - Wahaha confirmed that Zong Fuli's resignation was processed through the shareholders' meeting and board of directors [3] - A source indicated that Zong Fuli's decision was influenced by issues related to trademark compliance [3] Group 2 - Qualcomm is under investigation by the State Administration for Market Regulation for allegedly violating antitrust laws related to its acquisition of Autotalks [5] - The Hong Kong government has launched initiatives to assist mainland enterprises in expanding overseas, including tax incentives and support for establishing regional headquarters [5] - The recent fire incident involving the Avita 06 has been investigated, confirming that the fire did not originate from the battery or core control systems [6][8] Group 3 - ByteDance announced a new employee support policy for those laid off due to organizational adjustments, offering up to 72,000 yuan in transitional subsidies [11] - Netflix is expanding its gaming business by introducing video games to television screens, allowing subscribers to use their phones as controllers [9] - CATL's intelligent chassis technology company has completed its first round of financing, achieving a valuation exceeding 10 billion yuan [18]

（一）香港：发迹屋与豪宅群的崩塌 许家印在香港的资产处置呈现两极分化。位于九龙柯士甸道144号祥景楼6楼A室的"发迹屋"（1999年以 175万港元购入，现市值约496万港元）成为首个被强制拍卖的物业，而山顶布力径10号三栋豪宅（B 屋、C屋、E屋）的命运更具象征意义。这三栋2009年购入的物业总市值曾达25亿港元，其中B屋在2021 年抵押给建设银行亚洲后，于2024年5月以4.7亿港元折价出售，较市值缩水4.1亿港元。C屋、E屋虽在 2021年抵押给欧力士亚洲资本，但最终未能逃脱被接管的命运。 2025年10月，香港高等法院一纸判决将许家印家族资产处置推向全球舆论中心。法庭裁定中国恒大清盘 人黄咏诗、杜艾迪接管许家印及其关联方价值不超过77亿美元的全球资产，并冻结其名下及关联公司控 制的7个银行账户。这场涉及香港山顶豪宅、英国海德公园公寓、加拿大温哥华别墅、津巴布韦锂矿股 权乃至两架劳斯莱斯幻影的资产接管，不仅标志着中国房地产史上最大规模的企业清算进入深水区，更 揭示出全球司法体系对跨国资本逃逸的联合围剿。 （二）全球资产网络：23个司法管辖区的联动 接管令覆盖的资产遍布四大洲： （三）银行账户冻结：资金 ...

2025.10.10 据每日经济新闻，近期，香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭（下称香港高等法院）判令中国恒大集团的 清盘人为许家印家族相关资产的接管人。 此前，香港高等法院已针对许家印名下资产作出全球禁制令，明确禁止其处置全球范围内价值上限为77 亿美元的资产。针对此消息，香港高等法院相关法律材料显示，中国恒大的清盘人要求冻结的许家印家 族资产涉及33家境外公司，7个以许家印本人或境外名义公司开设的银行账户。而在本次判决中，香港 高等法院允许中国恒大的清盘人接管许家印100%实际控股的境外公司，7个相关银行账户均已被冻结。 微信编辑| 小羊 第一财经持续追踪财经热点。若您掌握公司动态、行业趋势、金融事件等有价值的线索，欢迎提供。专 用邮箱：bianjibu@yicai.com （注：我们会对线索进行核实。您的隐私将严格保密。） ...

2025.10. 10 微信编辑 | 小羊 第一财经持续追踪财经热点。若您掌握公司动态、行业趋势、金融事件等有价值的线索，欢迎提供。 专用邮箱： bianjibu@yicai.com （注：我们会对线索进行核实。您的隐私将严格保密。） 推荐阅读 知名投资人肖庆平因车祸离世 筒肤平 据每日经济新闻，近期，香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭（下称香港高等法院）判令中国恒大集团的清盘人为许家 印家族相关资产的接管人。 此前，香港高等法院已针对许家印名下资产作出全球禁制令，明确禁止其处置全球范围内价值上限为77亿美元的资 产。针对此消息，香港高等法院相关法律材料显示，中国恒大的 清盘人 要求冻结的许家印家族资产涉及33家境外公 司，7个以许家印本人或境外名义公司开设的银行账户。而在本次判决中，香港高等法院允许中国恒大的清盘人接管 许家印100%实际控股的境外公司，7个相关银行账户均已被冻结。 ...

近期，香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭（下称香港高等法院）判令中国恒大集团的清盘人为许家印家族相关资产的接管人。 此前，香港高等法院已针对许家印名下资产作出全球禁制令，明确禁止其处置全球范围内价值上限为77亿美元的资产。 针对此消息，香港高等法院相关法律材料显示，中国恒大的清盘人要求冻结的许家印家族资产涉及33家境外公司，7个以许家印本人或境外名义公司开设 的银行账户。而在本次判决中，香港高等法院允许中国恒大的清盘人接管许家印100%实际控股的境外公司，7个相关银行账户均已被冻结。 来源：每日经济新闻 编辑：菡木 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling has exposed the offshore trust of Xu Jiayin, revealing $2.3 billion that was previously hidden, and has significant implications for his assets and the broader trust industry [1][3]. Group 1: Xu Jiayin's Financial Situation - Xu Jiayin's family is facing a massive debt of 2.4 trillion yuan, while simultaneously having a hidden offshore "savings account" [3]. - As of mid-2023, Evergrande's total liabilities reached 2.39 trillion yuan, with a shortfall of 644.2 billion yuan in assets [3]. - The court ruling has frozen $7.7 billion in assets across 12 countries, providing a glimmer of hope for the 6 million homeowners and creditors who may recover 9.34% of their principal [7]. Group 2: Legal Implications of the Trust - The court utilized two main legal principles to dismantle Xu's offshore trust: the substance-over-form doctrine and fraudulent transfer [5]. - The court found that Xu retained control over the trust, which disqualified it as a legitimate trust and categorized it as a "dummy account" [5]. - The divorce between Xu and his ex-wife was deemed a strategy to evade debt, further undermining the legitimacy of the trust [5]. Group 3: Industry Impact - The ruling has caused panic among wealthy individuals who previously relied on offshore trusts for asset protection, as the trust is now viewed as a potential liability [8]. - The trust industry is facing increased scrutiny, with a clear message that legitimate trusts are protected, but those used to defraud creditors will not be [9]. - Future trends indicate a global shift towards stricter enforcement of debt recovery and a demand for genuine trust structures that relinquish control [11].

Group 1 - The article discusses the collapse of Xu Jiayin's family trust, which was intended to protect his wealth from corporate risks and debt disputes, following a court ruling in Hong Kong that allowed liquidators to take control of his assets [4][8]. - The family trust, established in 2019 with $2.3 billion, was funded by dividends from Evergrande, but the court found that Xu retained too much control over the trust, leading to its classification as a fraudulent asset transfer [9][10]. - The ruling is based on principles such as "substance over form," "fraudulent transfer," and "creditor protection," indicating that trusts cannot be used to evade debt obligations [10][11]. Group 2 - Following the court's decision, a global asset recovery operation was initiated, freezing $7.7 billion in assets across 12 countries, including luxury properties and yachts [12][13]. - The liquidators are seeking to challenge the validity of the family trust in U.S. courts, arguing that it was established to evade debt responsibilities, which could lead to further legal complications for Xu [13][14]. - The case serves as a cautionary tale for entrepreneurs, emphasizing the importance of legal compliance and ethical business practices over attempts to exploit legal loopholes [15].

Core Viewpoint - The case of Xu Jiayin's family trust illustrates that offshore trusts are not foolproof mechanisms for asset protection, especially when used to evade debts. The Hong Kong court ruling emphasizes that the substance of the trust arrangement is more important than its form, and fraudulent asset transfers can be challenged legally [6][9][11]. Group 1: Trust Structure and Legal Implications - Xu Jiayin established a family trust in the U.S. with $2.3 billion, primarily funded by dividends from Evergrande, intending to protect family wealth from corporate risks [8]. - The Hong Kong court ruled that despite the trust's complex structure, Xu retained significant control over the assets, which led to the classification of the trust as a fraudulent asset transfer [9][12]. - The ruling was based on three legal principles: the substance-over-form principle, the anti-fraud principle, and the priority of creditor protection during debt crises [9][11]. Group 2: Global Asset Recovery Actions - Following the court ruling, a global asset recovery initiative was launched, freezing $7.7 billion in assets linked to Xu Jiayin across 12 countries, including luxury properties and yachts [14]. - The liquidators have filed a request in a U.S. court to annul the family trust based on fraudulent transfer claims, which could challenge the trust's validity under U.S. law [16]. - The outcome of the U.S. court's decision will depend on the recognition of evidence submitted by the Hong Kong liquidators regarding the intent behind the asset transfers [17]. Group 3: Broader Implications for Wealth Management - The case serves as a cautionary tale for entrepreneurs, highlighting that legal loopholes cannot safeguard wealth in the long term; legitimate business practices are essential for true asset protection [17][18]. - The increasing global regulatory scrutiny indicates that offshore trusts are not a guaranteed shield against legal and financial repercussions [18].

Core Insights - The Hong Kong High Court's recent ruling has set a record with a judgment of 55 billion, exposing the underlying issues of offshore trusts and their management [1] - The case involves Xu Jiayin's family trust established in 2019, which was initially valued at 2.3 billion USD (approximately 164 million RMB), revealing significant control by the investor over the trust [1] - The ruling has implications for the wealthy, highlighting the risks of asset transfer and debt evasion strategies in light of global tax transparency systems [6] Summary by Sections - **Judgment Details** - The judgment of 55 billion is unprecedented and has drawn significant public attention, especially after being reported by major financial media [2] - **Trust Management Issues** - The trust set up by Xu Jiayin was criticized for allowing excessive control by the investor, undermining the intended purpose of the trust [1] - The court identified the actions taken before the debt crisis as "textbook malicious debt evasion," with funds being transferred to children's trust accounts in the U.S. [4] - **Implications for Wealth Management** - The ruling serves as a wake-up call for the wealthy, indicating that traditional methods of asset concealment are no longer viable under the scrutiny of the CRS global tax transparency system [6] - The court's decision emphasizes the need for legitimate business practices as the foundation for wealth management [6]