文章来源：用益研究 01 债权，如委托人对家族企业的债权，作为一种资产装入家族信托，和资金、股权、不动产装入家族信托 一样，都是正常的操作，此种"债权家族信托和一般家族信托并无差异，并无特别需要关注之处。 这几年不断看到有自媒体宣传债权家族信托的独特优点，有点不解。昨天，看到一篇博文，讲到债权家 族信托有两种可以化解"家企不分风险"的方式，帮助财富人士实现资产隔离之功能： "一是将委托人持有的存量债权转移至信托名下，使债权脱离个人或家庭资产负债表； 二是由家族信托以资金向家族企业发放合规贷款，形成明确的债权债务关系。" 下面对此做简要分析。 02 关于第一点，该文举例： · 某制造业家族的实操案例印证了这一点：该家族将8000万元企业债权装入家族信托后，企业后续因市 场波动陷入诉讼，法院最终认定信托财产独立于企业债务，成功保全了家族核心财富。 这是非常令人不解的。 该家族将其持有家族企业股权转入家族信托，是可以操作，因为家族企业股权是家族的资产； 但家族企业债权是企业的资产而非家族的资产，如何委托人如何将其装入家族信托？根据公司法，公司 能否把自己的资产（债权资产）以非交易的方式转移给别人？ ——这不恰恰正是 ...

Core Insights - The article discusses the increasing popularity of offshore fund structures, particularly the Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) and the British Virgin Islands (BVI) Approved Fund, as preferred choices for USD fund establishment due to their mature legal frameworks, flexible regulatory environments, and tax neutrality [2][27]. Group 1: Cayman Islands SPC - The SPC structure allows for statutory asset segregation, enabling multiple independent portfolios under a single legal entity, which is ideal for managing diverse investment strategies and isolating specific project risks [4][5]. - SPCs are exempt from various taxes for a period of 50 years, making them attractive for fund managers [4]. - The governance structure of SPCs includes managing shareholders with voting rights and participating shareholders without voting rights, ensuring clear decision-making processes [10]. Group 2: BVI Approved Fund - The BVI Approved Fund is designed for small-scale private funds, offering a streamlined regulatory path that enhances efficiency and reduces operational costs [20][22]. - The fund structure is characterized by its rapid approval process and flexibility in compliance requirements, making it suitable for emerging fund managers [20][23]. - BVI Approved Funds can manage various types of products, including private equity and hedge funds, and can seamlessly upgrade to more comprehensive regulatory frameworks as they grow [23][27]. Group 3: Comparative Analysis - The registration and establishment process for BVI Approved Funds is generally faster, taking 1-2 working days for company registration and about 1-2 months for regulatory approval, compared to the 7-10 working days and 2-3 months for Cayman SPCs [26]. - BVI Approved Funds have a strict limit of 20 investors, while Cayman SPCs do not have such limitations, although they typically require a minimum investment of $100,000 per investor [26]. - The operational costs for BVI Approved Funds are lower due to fewer mandatory compliance requirements, while Cayman SPCs incur higher costs due to mandatory audits and the need for multiple independent portfolios [26].

Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling regarding Xu Jiayin, founder of Evergrande, has raised significant discussions about the effectiveness of offshore family trusts in asset protection, indicating that such structures may not be immune to legal scrutiny and intervention [1][13][16]. Group 1: Court Ruling and Asset Management - The Hong Kong High Court appointed liquidators as the receivers of all assets belonging to Xu Jiayin, including those controlled through offshore companies, marking a significant legal precedent in the treatment of offshore trusts [1][3][5]. - The court's decision was influenced by Xu's non-compliance with asset disclosure orders, which raised concerns about potential asset flight, leading to the need for a more invasive investigation into his asset structures [2][4][11]. - The ruling allows liquidators to identify, preserve, and investigate Xu's assets, but does not grant them the authority to dispose of these assets without further court approval [4][11]. Group 2: Legal Implications for Offshore Trusts - The court emphasized that the effectiveness of offshore trusts in asset isolation is not absolute, and the actual control over assets can lead to legal actions that penetrate these structures [8][15]. - Legal experts noted that the ruling serves as a warning to those relying on offshore trusts for asset protection, highlighting that such arrangements must be established on legitimate grounds and with independent oversight [14][15]. - The ruling reflects a judicial principle that prioritizes substantive control over formal ownership, allowing courts to act against perceived fraudulent asset transfers [7][15]. Group 3: Future Considerations and Market Impact - The case may influence high-net-worth individuals and the wealth management industry, prompting a reevaluation of the perceived safety of offshore family trusts [16]. - The outcome of the liquidators' investigations and the cooperation between Hong Kong and U.S. courts will be crucial in determining the future of Xu's offshore trust assets [16]. - The ruling may lead to stricter compliance standards and scrutiny in the establishment of trusts, as reliance on complex structures to evade debt obligations could be challenged in court [13][16].

Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling regarding Xu Jiayin's offshore family trust has sparked significant discussion about the legal boundaries of asset isolation and the effectiveness of offshore trusts in protecting wealth from creditors [2][19][20]. Group 1: Court Ruling and Asset Management - The Hong Kong High Court appointed liquidators as the receivers of Xu Jiayin's assets due to his non-compliance with asset disclosure orders, indicating a serious risk of asset flight [3][6][7]. - The ruling allows for a comprehensive investigation into Xu Jiayin's assets, including those held through offshore companies and potential trust structures, emphasizing that offshore does not equate to being outside the law [2][11][19]. - The court's decision is seen as a temporary measure to ensure asset preservation and investigation, rather than a final ruling on asset ownership [3][15]. Group 2: Financial Implications and Debt Recovery - As of July 31, 2025, the liquidators reported claims totaling approximately HKD 350 billion (USD 45 billion) from creditors, significantly higher than previously disclosed liabilities [8]. - The liquidators have initiated global asset recovery efforts, including actions against Xu Jiayin and related entities to reclaim around USD 6 billion in dividends and compensation from 2017 to 2020 [5][8]. Group 3: Offshore Trusts and Legal Precedents - The court clarified that the assets of offshore companies associated with Xu Jiayin are subject to the same scrutiny as his personal assets, challenging the notion of absolute safety in offshore trusts [9][20]. - Legal experts noted that the ruling highlights the importance of the actual control over assets rather than mere legal ownership, suggesting that complex offshore structures may not provide the intended protection against creditors [11][19]. - The case serves as a warning to high-net-worth individuals regarding the limitations of offshore trusts and the necessity for compliance with legal standards to ensure asset protection [19][21].

Group 1 - Central banks are major buyers of gold, with China's central bank increasing reserves to 2,298 tons over ten consecutive months, alongside purchases from Russia, Turkey, and Poland, driven by a desire for de-dollarization [3][5][10] - Young consumers are increasingly purchasing small amounts of gold, with a 26.77% year-on-year increase in gold bar and coin consumption in China in the first half of 2025, reflecting a shift in investment strategy towards tangible assets [5][6] - Middle-class individuals, referred to as "Chinese aunties," are selling gold jewelry acquired in previous years to fund their children's home purchases, demonstrating a savvy approach to asset management [8][10] Group 2 - High-net-worth individuals are using gold as a means of asset protection, opting for discreet purchases through banks to isolate their wealth from market volatility [10][12] - Speculative traders are engaging in gold trading through ETFs, with a significant inflow of 46.4 billion yuan in the second quarter, indicating a trend towards short-term trading strategies [12][16] - Traditional gold jewelry remains in demand despite high prices, driven by cultural factors such as wedding customs, with consumers adapting to price changes by opting for lighter designs [14][16]

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].

Core Viewpoint - The establishment of family trusts by actual controllers of A-share listed companies faces significant challenges, including high tax burdens, transfer issues, and potential changes in control. However, with careful structural design, these trusts can achieve asset isolation and wealth succession, representing a complex "operating system" for family wealth management [2][3]. Group 1: Challenges in Wealth Succession - The lack of effective wealth succession planning can lead to four major potential harms for listed companies, including negative impacts on stock prices and investor confidence due to unstable control [4][5]. - Family disputes arising from succession failures can severely affect company operations and management, often leading to litigation and potential business dissolution [5][6]. - Risks associated with marriage and asset isolation are critical concerns, especially for the next generation, as marital disputes can threaten family business control [6][8]. Group 2: Successful Family Trust Case Study - The case of Puyang Huicheng illustrates a successful family trust structure that maintains control over the listed company while ensuring wealth transmission and isolation from personal liabilities [12][14]. - The trust structure involves a layered approach with a family trust at the top, followed by a limited partnership, and a holding company, effectively separating control and economic benefits [12][13]. - This design allows the actual controllers to retain decision-making power while transferring significant economic interests to the trust, thus complying with regulatory requirements and avoiding triggering a change in actual control [14][15]. Group 3: Regulatory and Structural Obstacles - Establishing family trusts for listed companies faces six major regulatory challenges, including compliance with securities laws and the need for clear ownership structures during IPOs [15][17]. - Tax planning is crucial in determining the most efficient structure for trust establishment and share injection, aiming to minimize tax burdens while adhering to regulatory frameworks [18]. - The differences in regulatory requirements between A-share and New Third Board companies necessitate tailored approaches for each case, emphasizing the importance of individual analysis [18][19]. Group 4: Advantages and Limitations of Family Trusts - Family trusts offer four key advantages: they provide mechanisms to address unexpected risks, isolate assets from external disputes, facilitate smooth transitions to the next generation, and enable tax-efficient wealth transfer [21][22]. - However, the establishment of a family trust is only the beginning of the succession process, and additional governance and management structures are necessary to ensure long-term stability and effectiveness [22][25]. - The successful management of family wealth requires addressing numerous governance issues, including decision-making processes, succession planning, and conflict resolution among family members [26][28]. Group 5: Conclusion and Future Directions - The establishment of trust structures is a complex endeavor that requires a deep understanding of legal, financial, and family governance dynamics [28][29]. - The real challenge lies in translating legal frameworks into effective governance mechanisms that align family interests with professional management needs [29].

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of family trusts as a crucial tool for wealth management and intergenerational wealth transfer in high-net-worth families in China, especially in the context of increasing wealth accumulation and the complexities of wealth succession [1][2][5]. Group 1: Understanding Family Trusts - Family trusts are defined as a legal structure that allows individuals to manage and protect their assets according to their wishes, ensuring compliance, asset isolation, and tax planning [3][4]. - Contrary to the belief that family trusts are exclusive to the ultra-wealthy, they can be tailored for families with varying asset scales, starting from as little as 1 million yuan [3][4]. Group 2: Growth and Adoption - The adoption of family trusts in China has seen significant growth, with the number of family trust clients at Shanghai Trust increasing from 1,200 to 12,000 in three years, marking a tenfold increase [4]. - This growth reflects a shift in focus from short-term gains to long-term wealth preservation among families [5]. Group 3: Functions and Benefits - Family trusts serve multiple functions, including risk isolation, asset protection, and structured wealth transfer, particularly in complex family dynamics [6][7]. - They provide legal independence and long-term stability, effectively safeguarding assets from marital disputes, debt issues, or inheritance conflicts [4][7]. Group 4: Planning for the Future - Family trusts allow for proactive planning, enabling clients to set specific conditions for wealth distribution, such as educational milestones or age thresholds for beneficiaries [8][11]. - In the context of an aging population, family trusts are increasingly seen as essential for ensuring the financial security of dependents and managing wealth transitions [13][14]. Group 5: Professional Management - The complexity of modern family wealth necessitates professional management, as family assets now often include diverse forms such as equity, intellectual property, and cross-border assets [14]. - Family offices, like Shanghai Trust's family management office, provide comprehensive support for family trusts, integrating legal, tax, investment, and governance expertise [9][10].