恒大“二号人物”上诉被驳回!法院明确禁止夏海钧转移资产

Core Viewpoint - The former CEO of Evergrande Group, Xia Haijun, has faced legal setbacks as his application to lift a court order preventing him from disposing of HKD 60 billion in assets and the proceeds from the sale of a luxury property was rejected by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal [1][15]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Hong Kong Court of Appeal denied Xia Haijun's application for leave to appeal on January 2, 2026, maintaining the injunction against his HKD 60 billion assets and the proceeds from the sale of the luxury property [1][15]. - Evergrande Group, which is over HKD 2.5 trillion in debt, was ordered into liquidation in 2024, with the liquidators pursuing claims against Xia Haijun as part of efforts to recover approximately USD 6 billion in dividends [1][9]. - A global Mareva injunction was granted against Xia Haijun, preventing him from transferring assets within Hong Kong and disposing of the proceeds from the sale of the property [1][12][15]. Group 2: Financial Background - Xia Haijun received approximately HKD 2 billion in salary during his 15 years at Evergrande, with his compensation significantly increasing in line with the company's rapid expansion [2][5]. - His salary rose from HKD 5 million in 2008 to HKD 73 million in 2016, marking an increase of over 14 times in just seven years [6][8]. - Despite fluctuations, Xia's salary remained high, with figures of HKD 298 million, HKD 242 million, HKD 154 million, HKD 205 million, and HKD 202 million from 2017 to 2021 [8]. Group 3: Financial Misconduct - Xia Haijun was implicated in financial misconduct, including the preparation of false financial reports for 2019 and 2020, which inflated revenues by HKD 2.14 trillion and HKD 3.50 trillion, respectively [9][10]. - He was also involved in fraudulent bond issuances, with multiple bonds issued in 2020 totaling HKD 21 billion to HKD 82 billion [10]. - Following the exposure of Evergrande's debt crisis, Xia engaged in asset liquidation, selling off significant holdings and transferring funds abroad, which led to legal repercussions [12][13].