Core Viewpoint - The case of Xu Jiayin's family trust illustrates the limitations of offshore trusts as a means of asset protection, highlighting that legal frameworks prioritize creditor rights over perceived asset isolation strategies [1][5][10]. Group 1: Xu Jiayin's Family Trust Structure - In 2019, Xu Jiayin and his wife established a family trust in the U.S. with $2.3 billion, funded by over 50 billion RMB in dividends from Evergrande between 2009 and 2022 [2][6]. - The trust was designed to ensure wealth transfer, with the eldest son, Xu Zhijian, receiving only income while the principal was reserved for future generations, reflecting a controlled wealth management strategy [2][6]. - The younger son, Xu Tenghe, was not included in the same trust arrangement and faced legal issues related to Evergrande, indicating a disparity in family wealth distribution [2][6]. Group 2: Legal Principles and Court Rulings - The Hong Kong court's decision was based on the principles of "substance over form" and "fraudulent asset transfer," asserting that if the grantor retains control over the assets, the trust cannot be considered independent [3][5]. - The court emphasized that using a trust to shield assets from creditors while incurring significant debts is not permissible, prioritizing the rights of ordinary creditors in debt crises [3][5]. - The ruling demonstrated that the trust lacked independence due to Xu Jiayin's retained decision-making powers and the questionable origins of the trust's funding [6][10]. Group 3: Global Asset Recovery Efforts - Following the court ruling, a global asset recovery initiative was launched, leading to the freezing of $7.7 billion in assets across 12 countries, including luxury properties and yachts [7][9]. - The liquidators filed a request in a U.S. court to annul the $2.3 billion family trust under fraudulent transfer laws, which could challenge the trust's validity based on the intent to evade debt obligations [9][10]. - The outcome of the U.S. court's recognition of the Hong Kong ruling will significantly impact the future of Xu Jiayin's family trust and its assets [10]. Group 4: Implications for Wealth Management - The case serves as a cautionary tale for entrepreneurs, emphasizing that legal loopholes cannot safeguard wealth, and that legitimate business practices are essential for long-term asset protection [10]. - The increasing global regulatory scrutiny indicates that offshore trusts are not immune to legal challenges, and attempts to evade debt through such structures may lead to asset freezes and reputational damage [10].
许家印的23亿美元，藏不住了