宗馥莉上诉被香港法院驳回，杭州法院判决前汇丰账户内18亿美元资产“动不得”

Core Viewpoint - The Hong Kong High Court has upheld the asset preservation order regarding $1.8 billion in HSBC accounts related to the Wahaha family trust case, pending a decision from the Hangzhou court, indicating that the assets will remain frozen until the substantive issues are resolved [1][2]. Group 1: Court Rulings and Legal Proceedings - The recent ruling does not affect the direction of the case, and the timeline and outcome were anticipated, with all eyes on the Hangzhou court's decision [2]. - The Hong Kong High Court's decision to freeze the assets of Jian Hao Ventures Limited was made to assist the litigation process in Hangzhou, with no conclusions on the substantive issues yet [2][3]. - The High Court rejected the appeal from Zong Fuli, maintaining the asset freeze but temporarily delaying the disclosure of account information until further court instructions are provided [3]. Group 2: Trust Validity and Legal Arguments - The core issue in Zong Fuli's appeal revolves around the validity of the trust, with the court affirming the potential existence of a trust under Hong Kong law, despite Zong Fuli's claims to the contrary [4][5]. - The judge emphasized that the establishment of a trust largely depends on the intentions of the parties involved, which will be assessed through the interpretation of key documents [5][6]. - The court highlighted that the interpretation of the "Letter of Authorization" and the "Agreement" is crucial in determining whether a trust was created, with significant uncertainties regarding the rights of the three children in the HSBC account assets [7][8]. Group 3: Key Evidence and Implications - Three key documents are central to the case: a handwritten instruction from Zong Qinghou indicating the intention to establish a trust, a "Letter of Authorization," and an "Agreement" between Zong Fuli and the three children [5][7]. - The court noted that the "Letter of Authorization" does not explicitly create a trust, and the "Agreement" is seen as outlining personal obligations rather than establishing a trust for the benefit of the three children [7][8]. - The judge concluded that despite the lack of detail in the agreements, they could still be enforceable, and practical difficulties in establishing the trust do not invalidate it [9].