本文来自微信公众号：凤凰网财经 （ID：finance_ifeng），作者：凤凰网财经，题图来自：AI生成 继信托资产被击穿后，许家印的资产处置迎来关键性转折。 此前，香港高等法院已对许家印发出"全球禁制令"，明确禁止其处置全球范围内价值不超过77亿美元 （约合人民币550亿元）的资产。而据《每日经济新闻》报道，法院在最新判决中进一步指定中国恒大 集团清盘人为许家印家族相关资产的接管人。 此次被清盘人接管的资产清单具体明确，覆盖三大核心类别：一是33家境外公司的权益，二是7个银行 账户内的资金，三是私人飞机、豪华汽车、游艇等价值高昂的个人贵重物品。 但公众的疑问仍在发酵：资产接连被管控的许家印，如今还剩多少自主支配的资产？其前妻丁玉梅此 前"月领2万英镑"的待遇，是否会随资产接管戛然而止？ 家族资产被清盘人接管 自恒大2009年上市至2022年期间，许家印与丁玉梅夫妇合计分得红利已超500亿元。 借助恒大搭建的红筹架构，这笔利润以股息形式通过多层架构逐步上划，最终流入由二人实际控制的离 岸公司账户。 2019年前后，许家印、丁玉梅夫妇曾在美国设立规模高达23亿美元的单一家庭信托基金，并明确指定其 二子为该信托 ...

Core Points - Zong Fuli has resigned from her positions as legal representative, director, and chairman of Wahaha Group as of September 12, 2023, following the necessary procedures through the group's shareholders' meeting and board of directors [2] - Several beverage companies related to Wahaha have undergone changes in business registration, including the renaming of Nanyang Wahaha Changsheng Beverage Co., Ltd. to Nanyang Hongsheng Hengfeng Beverage Co., Ltd. on September 2, 2025, and similar changes for other subsidiaries [2] - Zong Fuli is preparing a backup brand called "Wawa Xiaozong," having applied for multiple trademarks in various fields, including "Wawa Xiaozong," "Wawa Xiaohai," and "Zong Xiaohai" from February to May 2023 [2] - The official WeChat account of Wahaha Group has been renamed to "Haha Horn," and a new sugar-free tea beverage named "Wawa Xiaozong" has been revealed [2] Legal Disputes - Following Zong Fuli's resignation, the inheritance dispute involving Zong Qinghou's three children has gained attention, as they have initiated legal proceedings claiming equal inheritance rights [3] - The lawsuit involves companies such as Shenyang Wahaha Rongtai Food Co., Ltd., with the plaintiffs seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent Zong Fuli from disposing of assets in JianHao Ventures Ltd. [3] - A family trust established by Zong Qinghou, totaling $2.1 billion, includes only his three children and their offspring as beneficiaries, excluding spouses [4] - The outcome of the legal case may not be affected by Zong Fuli's resignation, but it could influence the execution of any court ruling depending on the success of her new brand ventures [4]

Core Viewpoint - The Hong Kong High Court has appointed a liquidator to oversee the assets of Xu Jiayin, the founder of China Evergrande Group, allowing for a comprehensive review of his wealth structure and freezing seven related bank accounts [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Developments - The court's decision marks a historic ruling regarding Xu Jiayin's family trust, permitting the liquidator to take control of assets held through offshore family trusts [1]. - The ruling indicates that the family trust, often seen as a protective measure for high-net-worth individuals, has been deemed ineffective in this case [2]. Group 2: Financial Misconduct - In 2019, Evergrande reported a contract sales figure of 601.1 billion yuan, but subsequent investigations revealed that the company inflated its revenue and profits through improper accounting practices, with 2019 showing a revenue inflation of 213.99 billion yuan, constituting 50.14% of total revenue [3][4]. - The inflated profits allowed Xu Jiayin's family to receive approximately 14.2 billion yuan in dividends, despite the underlying financial issues [4]. Group 3: Trust Structure and Control - Xu Jiayin established a family trust in the U.S. with a value of 2.3 billion USD, intending to secure wealth for his descendants while maintaining control over the assets [4]. - The court found that the trust's design failed to effectuate a genuine transfer of control, as Xu Jiayin retained significant decision-making power, undermining the trust's legitimacy [5][6]. Group 4: Ongoing Investigations and Asset Recovery - The liquidator is actively pursuing asset recovery from Xu Jiayin's ex-wife and former executives, aiming to reclaim approximately 6 billion USD from misreported dividends and compensation [7]. - Legal actions have led to global asset freezes against Xu Jiayin's ex-wife, with ongoing scrutiny of her financial disclosures and asset holdings [8].

Core Viewpoint - The Hong Kong High Court's ruling on September 16, 2025, 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, marking a significant legal precedent in asset protection and trust law [1][3]. Group 1: Legal and Financial Implications - The ruling is referred to as a key case in "piercing the trust," indicating that if a trust is used as a tool for fraudulent purposes, its protective function is nullified [1][5]. - Xu Jiayin's offshore asset structure, built since 2017, has been exposed, revealing a wealth transfer scheme that involved moving $60 billion through various offshore entities [4][10]. - The court's decision suggests that complex trust structures can be penetrated if there is evidence of intent to defraud creditors, impacting the trust and wealth management industry significantly [13][14]. Group 2: Asset Transfer and Family Dynamics - Xu Jiayin's family has been implicated in a wealth transfer scheme, with over 50 billion yuan in dividends distributed to his family from 2009 to 2022, while the company faced insolvency [4][9]. - The court found that Xu Jiayin's ex-wife, Ding Yumei, had engaged in asset division during their "technical divorce," which was deemed lacking genuine emotional basis, facilitating asset transfer [7][8]. - Ding Yumei's assets include luxury properties in London and Vancouver, as well as significant funds in offshore accounts, raising questions about the legitimacy of these transfers [8][9]. Group 3: Broader Impact on Trusts and Asset Protection - The case has triggered a ripple effect, prompting trust institutions to reassess their operational protocols and tighten scrutiny on asset sources and control clauses [14][15]. - The ruling emphasizes that trusts must not be used as tools for evading debts, reinforcing the principle that trust assets must be legally obtained to maintain their protective function [15]. - The ongoing investigations and asset recovery efforts span across multiple countries, indicating a global pursuit of Xu Jiayin's assets, which may lead to further legal challenges for similar offshore structures [10][12].

（一）香港：发迹屋与豪宅群的崩塌 许家印在香港的资产处置呈现两极分化。位于九龙柯士甸道144号祥景楼6楼A室的"发迹屋"（1999年以 175万港元购入，现市值约496万港元）成为首个被强制拍卖的物业，而山顶布力径10号三栋豪宅（B 屋、C屋、E屋）的命运更具象征意义。这三栋2009年购入的物业总市值曾达25亿港元，其中B屋在2021 年抵押给建设银行亚洲后，于2024年5月以4.7亿港元折价出售，较市值缩水4.1亿港元。C屋、E屋虽在 2021年抵押给欧力士亚洲资本，但最终未能逃脱被接管的命运。 2025年10月，香港高等法院一纸判决将许家印家族资产处置推向全球舆论中心。法庭裁定中国恒大清盘 人黄咏诗、杜艾迪接管许家印及其关联方价值不超过77亿美元的全球资产，并冻结其名下及关联公司控 制的7个银行账户。这场涉及香港山顶豪宅、英国海德公园公寓、加拿大温哥华别墅、津巴布韦锂矿股 权乃至两架劳斯莱斯幻影的资产接管，不仅标志着中国房地产史上最大规模的企业清算进入深水区，更 揭示出全球司法体系对跨国资本逃逸的联合围剿。 （二）全球资产网络：23个司法管辖区的联动 接管令覆盖的资产遍布四大洲： （三）银行账户冻结：资金 ...

Core Insights - The recent Hong Kong High Court ruling has significantly impacted Xu Jiayin's offshore family trust, which was designed to protect his wealth from corporate risks and debt disputes [1][2][3] - The court's decision allows liquidators to take control of Xu's assets, including those held in the family trust, leading to a global asset recovery effort [1][3] Group 1: Family Trust Structure - Xu Jiayin and his wife established a $2.3 billion family trust in the U.S. in 2019, funded by over 50 billion RMB in dividends from Evergrande between 2009 and 2022 [2] - The trust was intricately designed to ensure wealth transfer, with the eldest son, Xu Zhijian, only able to receive income while the principal remains untouched for future generations [2] - The second son, Xu Tenghe, did not receive the same trust arrangement and is currently under investigation due to the Evergrande crisis [2] Group 2: Legal Implications - The court emphasized that the substance of control over assets is more important than the formal structure of the trust, indicating that if the grantor retains control, it is not a true independent trust [3] - The ruling also invoked the principle of "anti-fraud," stating that debtors cannot use trusts to shield wealth while owing significant debts [3] - Following the ruling, liquidators initiated a global asset recovery operation, targeting $7.7 billion in assets across 12 countries, including luxury properties and yachts [3] Group 3: U.S. Legal Proceedings - Liquidators have filed a request in a Delaware court to void the $2.3 billion family trust based on fraudulent transfer claims, which is now in the evidence exchange phase [5] - The effectiveness of the trust may be challenged in U.S. courts, depending on the recognition of evidence submitted by Hong Kong liquidators [5]

每日经济新闻消息，近期，香港特别行政区高等法院初审法院（以下简称香港高等法院）判决中国恒大集 团的清盘人为许家印家族相关资产的接管人。此前，香港高等法院已针对许家印名下资产作出全球禁制 令，明确禁止其处置全球范围内价值上限为77亿美元（约合人民币550亿元）的资产。 | HUI KA YAN (許家印) | 1st Defendant | | --- | --- | | XIA HAIJUN (夏海釣) | 2nd Defendant | | PAN DARONG (潘大榮) | 3rd Defendant | | XIN XIN (BVI) LIMITED | 4th Defendant | | DING YUMEI (丁玉梅) | 5th Defendant | | YAOHUA LIMITED | 6th Defendant | | EVEN HONOUR HOLDINGS LIMITED | 7th Defendant | | HE KUN (何坤) | 8th Defendant | 家族33家境外公司、私人飞机、豪车等 被清盘人接管 《每日经济新闻》记者从香港高等法院获取的起诉书显示，中国恒大的清 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case of Xu Jiayin's family trust highlights the limitations of offshore trusts as a means of asset protection, demonstrating that legal frameworks prioritize creditor rights over perceived asset isolation strategies [3][6][8]. Group 1: Xu Jiayin's Family Trust Breach - Xu Jiayin established a family trust in the U.S. in 2019, funded by over 50 billion RMB in dividends from Evergrande, with a structure designed to ensure wealth transfer to his sons [5][9]. - The Hong Kong court ruled that the trust was not a legitimate asset protection mechanism due to Xu retaining control over key decisions, leading to the classification of the asset transfer as fraudulent [6][9]. - The court's decision was based on principles emphasizing substance over form, anti-fraud measures, and prioritizing creditor protection in debt crises [6][8]. Group 2: Global Asset Recovery Actions - Following the court ruling, a global asset recovery initiative was launched, freezing $7.7 billion in assets across 12 countries, including luxury properties and yachts [11][13]. - The liquidators filed a request in a U.S. court to annul the $2.3 billion family trust based on fraudulent transfer claims, which could challenge the trust's validity under U.S. law [13][14]. - The outcome of the U.S. court's recognition of the Hong Kong ruling will significantly impact the trust's status, with potential implications for Xu's ex-wife, who is also involved in legal disputes over asset division [14][15].

Core Insights - The Hong Kong High Court's recent ruling has set a record with a judgment of 55 billion, exposing the underlying issues of offshore trusts and their management [1] - The case involves Xu Jiayin's family trust established in 2019, which was initially valued at 2.3 billion USD (approximately 164 million RMB), revealing significant control by the investor over the trust [1] - The ruling has implications for the wealthy, highlighting the risks of asset transfer and debt evasion strategies in light of global tax transparency systems [6] Summary by Sections - **Judgment Details** - The judgment of 55 billion is unprecedented and has drawn significant public attention, especially after being reported by major financial media [2] - **Trust Management Issues** - The trust set up by Xu Jiayin was criticized for allowing excessive control by the investor, undermining the intended purpose of the trust [1] - The court identified the actions taken before the debt crisis as "textbook malicious debt evasion," with funds being transferred to children's trust accounts in the U.S. [4] - **Implications for Wealth Management** - The ruling serves as a wake-up call for the wealthy, indicating that traditional methods of asset concealment are no longer viable under the scrutiny of the CRS global tax transparency system [6] - The court's decision emphasizes the need for legitimate business practices as the foundation for wealth management [6]

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].