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].
许家印的23亿美元，藏不住了