Core Viewpoint - The Hong Kong High Court issued a historic ruling on September 16, 2025, imposing a global injunction against the assets of Evergrande's founder Xu Jiayin, prohibiting the disposal of assets valued up to $7.7 billion (approximately 55 billion RMB) [2] Group 1: Asset Seizure Details - The court allowed the liquidators of China Evergrande to take control of Xu Jiayin's assets, which include properties in Hong Kong, the UK, and the US, as well as luxury items such as private jets and yachts [7] - The assets under seizure involve 33 offshore companies and seven bank accounts directly held by Xu Jiayin, with accounts frozen at major banks including Bank of China Hong Kong, HSBC, and DBS [6][3] Group 2: Family Trust Structure - Xu Jiayin and his wife, Ding Yumei, reportedly established a substantial offshore trust structure for their children before the Evergrande crisis, with a single-family trust fund amounting to $2.3 billion set up around 2019 [8][9] - The trust was designed with strict distribution rules, allowing the eldest son to receive periodic income while preserving the principal for future generations, indicating a strategy for long-term wealth preservation [11] Group 3: Legal Principles Behind the Ruling - The court's ability to penetrate the family trust was supported by four legal principles, including the substance-over-form principle, which examines the true intent and control behind the trust [13] - The fraudulent conveyance principle was applied, as evidence showed that Xu Jiayin transferred significant personal assets to the trust while being aware of Evergrande's financial troubles [17] - The court also highlighted the lack of independence in the trust, determining that Xu Jiayin retained excessive control, undermining the trust's intended asset protection function [19] Group 4: Implications for Offshore Trusts - The ruling challenges the perception of offshore trusts as "absolutely safe," emphasizing that trusts can be vulnerable to legal scrutiny if used to evade debt obligations [20][21] - The case reflects a broader trend where courts are willing to disregard the protective veneer of trusts when they are perceived as tools for asset concealment [24]