恒大梦魇:起底夏海钧的20亿薪酬、财务造假与跨国追责

Core Viewpoint - The legal troubles of Xia Haijun, former CEO of Evergrande Group, are closely tied to the company's collapse, with a global Mareva injunction preventing him from transferring or disposing of assets worth HKD 60 billion [2][3]. Group 1: Legal and Financial Issues - The Mareva injunction is a cross-border asset freezing measure aimed at preventing the defendant from transferring or disposing of assets during litigation, ensuring the enforcement of final judgments [3]. - The injunction prohibits Xia from transferring HKD 60 billion in assets within Hong Kong and from disposing of proceeds from the sale of his luxury property [3]. - Xia's attempts to lift the injunction have been unsuccessful, with multiple court rejections from July 2024 to January 2026 [3]. Group 2: Compensation and Corporate Governance - Xia Haijun received approximately HKD 2 billion in compensation during his 15 years at Evergrande, with his salary peaking at HKD 270 million in 2016 [4]. - His compensation growth was closely linked to the company's rapid expansion, which raised concerns about the alignment of executive incentives with long-term risk management [4][8]. Group 3: Financial Misconduct - Xia played a central role in financial fraud at Evergrande, overseeing the preparation of false financial reports that inflated revenues and profits significantly in 2019 and 2020 [5][6]. - The inflated financial data was used as a basis for issuing over HKD 20 billion in corporate bonds, raising questions about the integrity of the company's financial practices [5]. - Following the exposure of Evergrande's debt crisis, Xia engaged in significant asset liquidation, selling bonds and shares at steep discounts, which was perceived as an attempt to mitigate personal risk [6]. Group 4: Broader Implications - Xia's strategies contributed to the aggressive leverage model that defined Evergrande's rapid growth, which ultimately proved unsustainable when market conditions shifted [8]. - The ongoing legal proceedings against Xia reflect broader systemic issues within the Chinese real estate sector, where accountability for the crisis remains a contentious topic [9].