Core Insights - The Hong Kong High Court's landmark ruling on September 16, 2025, authorized liquidators to take control of Xu Jiayin's assets, including those in his offshore family trust, leading to the freezing of $7.7 billion (approximately 55 billion RMB) in assets across 12 countries and regions [1][5][6] Group 1: Legal and Financial Implications - The ruling dismantled the myth that offshore trusts are a foolproof means of asset protection, emphasizing that actual control over assets negates the independence of the trust [6][12] - The court's decision was based on principles of "substance over form" and "fraudulent asset transfer," indicating that debtors cannot shield wealth from creditors through trusts while incurring massive debts [6][12] - Xu Jiayin's family trust, established in 2019 with $2.3 billion (approximately 1.64 billion RMB) in assets, was found to be under his control, undermining its intended protective function [5][6] Group 2: Financial Condition of Evergrande - Evergrande's total liabilities reached 2.38 trillion RMB, with 320.3 billion RMB overdue domestically and $19.1 billion overseas, resulting in 750,000 unfinished housing projects and numerous suppliers trapped in debt [3][5] - The company's market capitalization plummeted from over 370 billion HKD at its peak to just 2.15 billion HKD, reflecting a loss of over 99% in value [3][5] - Following its delisting from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on August 25, 2025, Evergrande faced a complete lack of funding options in the capital market, with retail investors left holding worthless shares [3][5] Group 3: Asset Details and Recovery Efforts - The liquidators initiated a global asset recovery operation, targeting Xu Jiayin's luxury properties, including 33 high-end residences in central London and a commercial building in Manhattan valued at $750 million [8][12] - The assets were structured through offshore companies, but investigations revealed that Xu Jiayin retained decision-making power, rendering the trust ineffective for asset protection [8][12] - The ongoing legal battles within Xu Jiayin's family, particularly involving his ex-wife, highlight the complexities and potential conflicts arising from asset distribution within the trust [9][12] Group 4: Lessons and Broader Implications - The case serves as a cautionary tale for business leaders about the risks of using legal loopholes for asset protection, emphasizing the importance of legitimate wealth planning [12][14] - The increasing scrutiny of offshore trusts and the legal frameworks surrounding them indicate a shift towards protecting creditor rights over debtor interests in financial crises [6][12] - The downfall of Evergrande illustrates the consequences of poor financial management and the need for a balanced approach to risk and reward in business operations [14]

Core Viewpoint - The Hong Kong High Court's ruling has significant implications for the trust industry, indicating that trusts can no longer be used as tools for fraudulent debtors, thereby undermining their asset isolation function [4][19][20]. Group 1: Legal Ruling and Its Implications - The court authorized the liquidator to take full control of Xu Jiayin's assets, including freezing a $2.3 billion offshore trust set up for his children in Delaware [3][5]. - This ruling is referred to as the "first case of trust piercing," emphasizing that if a trust is used as a tool for fraudulent debtors, its protective function will be rendered ineffective [4][19]. - The judgment has triggered a broader investigation into Xu Jiayin's wealth transfer activities across multiple countries, revealing a complex web of asset relocation and family disputes [5][16]. Group 2: Wealth Transfer and Financial Manipulation - Xu Jiayin's family reportedly transferred approximately 50 billion yuan ($7.5 billion) overseas over a decade, with significant discrepancies in Evergrande's reported financial performance [6][7]. - The company inflated its revenue by 213.99 billion yuan ($30.5 billion) in 2019 alone, which constituted 50.14% of its total revenue for that year [7]. - The offshore trust, designed to appear legitimate, was ultimately controlled by Xu Jiayin, undermining its intended purpose of asset protection [8][9]. Group 3: Family Dynamics and Asset Division - Xu Jiayin's ex-wife, Ding Yumei, is now at the center of the asset freeze, having previously engaged in a "technical divorce" that allowed for the division of 42.7 billion yuan ($6.4 billion) in assets [10][13]. - Ding Yumei's assets include multiple properties in London and Vancouver, as well as significant funds held in various offshore accounts [13][14]. - The court's ruling has raised questions about the legitimacy of the asset transfers, particularly concerning the timing and nature of Ding Yumei's claims [14][15]. Group 4: Global Asset Recovery Efforts - The asset recovery efforts span across 12 countries, with a team of over 50 professionals involved in the liquidation process [17][18]. - In the UK, assets belonging to Ding Yumei have been frozen, while in Hong Kong, Xu Jiayin's properties and private jet are being auctioned off to settle debts [18]. - The ruling has prompted a reevaluation of trust structures in the wealth management industry, with institutions tightening their processes to prevent fraudulent activities [19][20].

王爷说财经讯：许家印最新情况来了！时间回到2025年9月16日，香港高等法院的一纸判决，让许家印藏了6年的23亿美元彻底见了光。 法院不仅授权清盘人接管他的全部资产，还直接 "砸开" 了号称 "债务隔离墙" 的离岸信托，连带着冻结了他在12个国家的 77 亿美元资产 —— 这其中有伦敦 33 套豪宅，还有纽约的写字楼。 要知道，这23亿可是许家印给儿子们留的"永久饭票"，设计得比保险箱还精密：长子只能拿利息动不了本金，本金要留给孙辈。 可如今，这张饭票可能要变 "罚单"。问题来了：这号称富豪终极保障的离岸信托，怎么说破就破了？ 01、许家印家族的两面：一边是 2.4 万亿窟窿，一边是海外 "存钱罐"！ 要弄清这事，得先扒清楚时间线 —— 许家印的操作，早藏着猫腻： 2017 年，恒大已经开始系统性造假，可外人压根没察觉。到 2019 年，公司危机快捂不住了，许家印夫妇却悄悄在美国搭起信托架构，把钱转了出去。 这笔钱哪儿来的？是 2009 到 2022 年从恒大分的 500 多亿人民币红利，通过离岸公司一层套一层转出去的。 这边在转移资产，那边的窟窿却越捅越大：截至 2023 年中，恒大总负债 2.39 万亿元 ...

法律界老司机们早就划出三条铁律：没欠债时设立、彻底放权、不坑债权人。结果许家印精准踩爆所有雷区，BVI公司玩套娃式转账， 钱最后全溜进子女的美国信托账户，这波"左右手互搏"在法官眼里简直比直播带货翻车还明显。 更绝的是，恒大债务爆雷前还在疯狂分红转移资产，这波操作直接被法院盖章认证为"教科书级恶意避债"。 说好的"财富永续"美梦瞬间碎成渣！ 香港高等法院这一波操作直接刷新了吃瓜群众认知天花板！550亿的惊天判决不仅破了纪录，更把离岸信托的遮羞布撕得明明白白。 谁能想到，许家印2019年搞的23亿美元（按照今天的汇率，约合人民币164亿元）家族信托，表面高大上，背地里却玩着遥控指挥的把戏 ——投资他说了算，受益人想换就换，就差直接把"我就是老板"刻在信托协议上了。 可能很多人不知道的是，上述判决其实早在上个月中旬就已经生效，直到今天（10月10日）上午时分知名财经媒体（凤凰网财经）发布 微博，并于中午时分登顶热搜榜首（同时位列社会榜Top2），广大网友才知晓。 这场大戏哪止是恒大债权人的胜利，根本给所有想钻空子的人上了硬核一课：再骚的信托操作，在司法界的X光机面前都是皇帝的新 衣。 说到底，真正的财富密码还得是 ...

登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 （本文作者韩良为南开大学法学院教授、博士生导师，北京市京都律师事务所家族信托法律事务中心名 誉主任、京华世家家族办公室首席法律顾问；魏东达为北京市京都律师事务所律师） 9月26日，香港高等法院颁布书面判词，驳回了宗馥莉的五项上诉申请，仍禁止宗馥莉在汇丰银行账户 的提款或转账，但批准暂缓执行部分披露令。该案件再次在内地法律界与企业家圈中引发了广泛关注， 让人对未来中国内地法院的实体裁决判决结果充满了期待。该案件不仅横跨信托法、继承法、婚姻法、 公司法、民事诉讼法等实体法以及诉讼法等法律律部门，而且也横跨了香港法、离岸法、中国内地法等 不同的法域，给中国内地法院的实体裁决带来了具有。"国际兼容性"的巨大挑战。 一、多法域交织的宗氏家族财富传承诉讼争议 本案所涉诉讼法律关系错综复杂。从本案涉及的当事人与法律关系人来看，本案的原告宗继昌、宗婕 莉、宗继盛为美国籍。被告宗馥莉女士具有中国香港居民身份，被告（在杭州中院被列为"第三人"） 建浩创投有限公司（以下称"建浩公司"）则根据BVI的法律注册成立。"Handwritten Instructions"（《手 写指示》） ...

此次聆讯主要围绕被告方（即宗馥莉及Jian Hao）在8月1日法庭裁决之后提出的上诉申请展开。宗馥莉（宗庆 后之女，娃哈哈集团董事长）方不服原裁决，于2025年8月15日提交传票并提出了五项上诉理由，包括法庭此 前裁决所依据的香港《高等法院条例》第21M条是否适用、原告应先向内地法院申请类似救济、原告不存在 可争辩的信托或财产权益、香港法院无需发出禁制令来提供担保，以及香港法院的披露令范围过宽且不适当 等问题。 9月26日，娃哈哈集团创始人宗庆后生前留下的18亿美元离岸资产案再次在香港进行聆讯。 法庭驳回宗馥莉方就2025年8月1日已作出的禁制令及披露令提起的上诉，但批准暂缓执行披露令，即暂不要 求被告披露汇丰账户的最新余额及资产流向等信息，直至其向上诉庭提出的上诉许可申请有结果，或法院另 有指令，法院判决宗馥莉方需要支付原告本次申请的费用。 三名原告指称是杜建英所生的3名宗氏子女，被告宗馥莉则是宗庆后与施幼珍之女，建浩创投则为一家英属维 尔京群岛公司，宗庆后生前为此公司的唯一董事，他去世后由宗馥莉接任。 8月1日，据香港高等法院官网公布的裁决书，法院颁发临时禁制令和披露令，要求宗馥莉在杭州中级人民法 院及浙 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent developments in the inheritance dispute involving the late founder of Wahaha Group, Zong Qinghou, and his children, focusing on the court's decision to restrict the current chairman, Zong Fuli, from accessing certain assets in a HSBC bank account until the legal proceedings in Hangzhou are resolved [2][4]. Group 1: Court Ruling and Legal Proceedings - The Hong Kong High Court issued a non-judicial injunction preventing Zong Fuli from withdrawing or transferring any assets from the HSBC account of Jian Hao Ventures Limited until the outcome of the litigation in Hangzhou [2][4]. - The court ordered Zong Fuli to disclose the current balance and transaction details of the HSBC account, which held approximately $1.799 billion (around HKD 141 billion) as of May 31, 2024 [3][4]. Group 2: Background of the Dispute - The dispute arises from Zong Qinghou's two families, with the plaintiffs being his children from his relationship with Du Jianying, and the defendant being Zong Fuli, his daughter from another relationship [7][9]. - Zong Qinghou passed away on February 25, 2024, leaving behind two wills that did not name the plaintiffs as beneficiaries, which has led to the current legal conflict over the inheritance [12][26]. Group 3: Financial Details and Allegations - Jian Hao Ventures Limited's HSBC account primarily consists of bonds, fixed-income assets, and some cash and time deposits [3][11]. - The plaintiffs allege unauthorized withdrawals by Zong Fuli from the HSBC account, totaling approximately $5.244 million and $1.085 million, which they claim were not for the purpose of establishing the offshore trusts as per Zong Qinghou's instructions [34][35][46]. Group 4: Trust Establishment Issues - The plaintiffs argue that Zong Fuli has failed to establish the offshore trusts as outlined in the agreements and has not provided necessary documentation for the trust setup [36][54]. - Zong Fuli contends that the establishment of the trusts is contingent upon the valuation of the assets in the HSBC account, which she claims has not reached the expected amount of $2.1 billion [32][32][33].

Core Viewpoint - The Hong Kong High Court ruled on a lawsuit involving the Zong family, focusing on the establishment of a $2.1 billion offshore trust and the legal disputes surrounding it [2][3]. Group 1: Court Ruling - The court ordered that the defendant cannot withdraw or encumber assets in the HSBC account, and this order will remain effective until the outcome of related lawsuits in Hangzhou [2]. - The ruling highlighted the evidence provided by both the plaintiffs and the defendant regarding the establishment of the offshore trust [2][3]. Group 2: Evidence and Disputes - The plaintiffs, Jacky, Jessie, and Jerry Zong, claim to be beneficiaries of a $2.1 billion offshore trust that has not been successfully established, leading to ongoing legal battles [3]. - The defendant, Kelly Zong, argues that the plaintiffs are being overly hasty and that discussions regarding the trust's establishment are genuine [9][10]. Group 3: Trust Structure and Legal Implications - The plaintiffs assert that the trust should consist of $700 million for each beneficiary, while the defendant contends that only the interest from the principal should be considered trust assets [10][11]. - Legal experts indicate that the trust's establishment involves a two-step process, transitioning from a Private Trust Company (PTC) to a professional trustee [12][13]. Group 4: Future Legal Considerations - The case raises questions about the legal jurisdiction and applicability of laws governing the trust, especially since the assets are located offshore [16]. - The ongoing litigation in Hangzhou is expected to be the main battleground for resolving the disputes over the trust's existence and its assets [16].

Core Viewpoint - The inheritance dispute involving Zong Fuli and three individuals claiming to be the children of Zong Qinghou has escalated, with legal actions initiated to prevent asset disposal from a bank account linked to Jian Hao Ventures Limited, which is believed to hold significant trust assets [1][2][6]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings and Asset Management - The Hong Kong High Court issued a ruling prohibiting Zong Fuli and Jian Hao Ventures Limited from disposing of or diminishing the assets in the HSBC bank account [2]. - The plaintiffs are required to provide detailed account information, including balance, transfer records, and transaction details since February 2, 2024, highlighting a significant fund transfer shortly after Zong Qinghou's death [2][6]. - The account in question is reportedly a trust account established for Zong Qinghou's three children, with a total value of $2.1 billion [6]. Group 2: Trust Structure and Legal Implications - There are speculations regarding the existence of a trust set up by Zong Qinghou, potentially in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), which may have allowed Zong Fuli to act as a director or controller of Jian Hao Ventures Limited [3][9]. - Legal experts suggest that the validity of the trust is not contingent on the total amount deposited, indicating that the trust could be effective even with minimal initial funding [10][12]. - The conflict between the trust and Zong Qinghou's will raises questions about which document holds precedence, with legal opinions suggesting that trusts generally take priority over wills [12]. Group 3: Potential Scenarios for Asset Withdrawal - Various scenarios are proposed regarding how Zong Fuli may have accessed trust assets, including the possibility of her being designated to fulfill funding obligations for the trust [14][15]. - The structure of offshore trusts often involves multiple layers of companies, which may complicate the management and access to assets, potentially allowing Zong Fuli to operate without direct oversight [15]. - Legal interpretations indicate that if the trust is still in the establishment phase or if Zong Fuli is a beneficiary, she may have legitimate grounds to withdraw funds for specific purposes, such as business expenses [16][17].

Core Viewpoint - The inheritance dispute involving Zong Fuli and three individuals claiming to be the children of Zong Qinghou has escalated, with legal actions initiated to prevent asset disposal from a HSBC account linked to Jian Hao Ventures Limited [1][4]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Hong Kong High Court issued an order prohibiting Zong Fuli and Jian Hao Ventures Limited from disposing of or diminishing the value of assets in the HSBC account [4]. - The plaintiffs are required to provide the latest balance of the HSBC account and details of any asset transfers since February 2, 2024, including the circumstances surrounding a transfer of $1,085,120 on May 31, 2024 [3][4]. Group 2: Trust and Inheritance Issues - Reports suggest that the HSBC account may serve as a trust account established by Zong Qinghou for his three children, with a total amount of $2.1 billion [7]. - Legal experts indicate that the existence of a trust could complicate the inheritance process, especially since Zong Qinghou's will states that all overseas assets are to be inherited by Zong Fuli, excluding the other children [9][10]. Group 3: Company Structure and Trust Management - Jian Hao Ventures Limited, established in the British Virgin Islands, is speculated to be a vehicle for holding trust assets, potentially allowing Zong Fuli to manage these assets due to perceived gaps in the trust's legal framework [5][6]. - The trust's effectiveness is not contingent on the total amount deposited, as it can be established with minimal initial funding, which raises questions about the legitimacy of asset transfers made by Zong Fuli [8][9]. Group 4: Potential Scenarios for Asset Transfer - Several scenarios are proposed regarding how Zong Fuli may have accessed and transferred trust assets, including the possibility of her being designated to manage the trust or the lack of timely updates to the company's banking authority [10][11][12]. - Legal interpretations suggest that if the trust was not fully established, funds could still be accessed, or if Zong Fuli is a beneficiary, she may have rights to manage the assets under specific conditions [12][13].