1. 娃哈哈宗氏家族信托案（HCMP 2772/2024，香港高等法院，2025年8月1日裁决） 为跨境家族信托争议中香港《高等法院条例》第21M条资产保护令的适用提供了重要指引。关键结论：申请第21M条保护令无需证明“资产流失风险”，也无需事先向内地法院申请资产保全或被拒，只需满足“存在严重争议事项”及措施“公正且便利”的标准即可。然而，判决的重要局限在于：香港法院在作出裁决时未能考虑2023年修订的《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第103条内容，因双方中国法律专家的报告均未涵盖该新法条。
The Wahaha Zong Family Trust decision (HCMP 2772/2024, HK High Court, August 1, 2025) provides crucial guidance for section 21M asset preservation orders in cross-border family trust disputes. The key finding is that section 21M applications do not require proof of "risk of dissipation" nor prior application to PRC courts for preservation, requiring only "serious issue to be tried" and "just and convenient" standards. However, a critical limitation is that the Hong Kong court did not consider the 2023 amendments to Article 103 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law, as neither party's PRC law experts addressed the new provisions.
2. 随着2023年修订的《民事诉讼法》第103条在理论上扩大了内地法院对境外资产的保全权限，未来如有相关实务突破，则可能构成重大"情势变更"，导致香港法院先前签发的资产保护令不再符合“公正且便利”的标准。
With the amended Article 103 theoretically expanding PRC courts' authority over overseas asset preservation, future practical breakthroughs may constitute a material "change of circumstances," making Hong Kong orders no longer "just and convenient".
3. 争议核心：宗庆后于2024年2月25日逝世后，其与前妻杜建英所生的三名子女（原告宗继昌、宗婕莉、宗继盛）与现任娃哈哈集团董事长宗馥莉（被告，与施幼珍所生）就价值约17.99亿美元的香港汇丰银行账户资产产生争议。
Core Dispute: Following Zong Qinghou's death on February 25, 2024, his three children with former wife Du Jianying (plaintiffs Jacky, Jessie, Jerry Zong) disputed with current Wahaha Group Chairman Kelly Zong Fuli (defendant, with Shi Youzhen) over approximately USD 1.799 billion in HSBC Hong Kong account assets.
4. 法律文件依据： 争议围绕三份关键文件展开：2024年1月的《手写指示》、2024年2月2日的《委托书》以及2024年3月14日的《家族协议》。原告主张这些文件确立了被告有义务为其设立总值21亿美元的离岸信托。
Legal Documentation: The dispute centers on three key documents: Handwritten Instructions from January 2024, a Letter of Entrustment dated February 2, 2024, and a Family Agreement dated March 14, 2024, which plaintiffs claim established defendant's obligation to set up offshore trusts totaling USD 2.1 billion.
5. 诉讼架构： 原告在香港高等法院申请第21M条资产保护令和披露令，旨在协助在杭州市中级人民法院进行的关于实体权利归属的诉讼。
Litigation Structure: Plaintiffs sought section 21M asset preservation and disclosure orders from Hong Kong High Court to assist substantive rights proceedings in Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court.
核心法律测试：香港法院适用两阶段测试（源自终审法院案例 Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd (2016) 19 HKCFAR 586）
Core Legal Test: Hong Kong courts apply the two-stage test from Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd (2016) 19 HKCFAR 586.
(1) 第一阶段：外国法院判决（本案中指内地法院）是否为香港法院可执行的判决
Stage One: Whether foreign court judgment would be enforceable by Hong Kong courts.
(2) 第二阶段：香港法院除依据第21M条外对争议实体问题并无管辖权的事实，是否使得批准该条下的救济变得“不公正”或“不便利”。
Stage Two: Whether Hong Kong court's lack of jurisdiction apart from section 21M makes granting relief "unjust" or "inconvenient".
7. 裁决/Ruling：
(1) 无需证明资产流失风险：与传统玛瑞瓦禁令（Mareva Injunction）不同，第21M条保护令无需申请人证明被告存在耗散资产的风险
No need to prove risk of dissipation: Unlike traditional Mareva injunctions, section 21M orders don't require proof of asset dissipation risk.
(2) 无需事先申请内地保全：申请人无需以向内地法院申请财产保全被拒作为向香港法院申请第21M条保护令的前提条件。
No prior PRC application required: Applicants need not first seek PRC court preservation or be refused before applying in Hong Kong.
(3) “严重争议事项”标准： 申请人只需证明存在“需要审理的严重争议事项”且采取保护令措施符合“公正且便利”原则即可。
Serious issue standard: Only requires proof of "serious issue to be tried" and that relief is "just and convenient".
中国法律影响：2023年《民诉法》第103条修订的理论意义与实务空白/PRC Law Impact: 2023 Article 103 Amendments -Theoretical Significance and Practical Gaps
8. 法律修订要点： 2023年修订的《民事诉讼法》第103条在理论上显著扩大了内地法院对位于境外（包括香港）财产的保全权限。该条规定：“对于可能因当事人一方的行为或者其他原因，使判决难以执行或者造成当事人其他损害的案件，根据对方当事人的申请，人民法院可以裁定对其财产进行保全、责令其作出一定行为或者禁止其作出一定行为。”
Pre/Post-Amendment Comparison:The 2023 amended Article 103 of the Civil Procedure Law theoretically expands PRC courts' authority over overseas asset preservation. The provision states: "For cases where judgment execution may become impossible or difficult due to a party's conduct or other reasons, people's courts may, upon application, order property preservation, mandate specific conduct, or prohibit certain conduct."
9. 本案关键漏洞： 在娃哈哈案中，双方提交的中国法律专家报告均未提及或分析2023年第103条的修订内容。这导致香港法院在评估跨境保全格局及“公正且便利”标准时，未能充分考虑该新法条的潜在深远影响。
Critical Gap in This Case: In Wahaha, neither party's PRC law experts mentioned or analyzed the 2023 Article 103 amendments in their expert reports[1], preventing the Hong Kong court from fully considering the potential impact of new provisions on cross-border preservation frameworks.
10. 实务发展的不确定性：目前，内地法院依据新第103条对香港等境外资产成功实施有效保全的公开案例极为有限，其实际执行力仍面临挑战。然而，随着相关司法解释的出台和司法实践的积累，这一局面存在发生根本性变化的可能性。
Uncertainty in Practice Development: Currently, few cases show PRC courts effectively implementing preservation over Hong Kong or overseas assets under the new Article 103, with enforcement remaining limited. However, this situation may change fundamentally as relevant judicial interpretations and practical cases develop.
诉讼架构与内地和香港实践协调/Litigation Structure and HK-PRC Practice Coordination
11. 情势变更的潜在影响：香港法院在判决中明确指出，未来如内地法院就信托权利或财产分配作出实体判决，或依据修订后的第103条实际批出针对相关资产的财产保全令，均可能构成“情势变更”。届时，香港法院可能据此调整或撤销其先前签发的保护令。
Potential Impact of Changed Circumstances: Hong Kong courts explicitly stated that if PRC courts make substantive rulings on trust rights or asset allocation, or actually grant preservation under Article 103, this may constitute "changed circumstances," potentially leading to variation or discharge of existing Hong Kong orders.
12. 司法礼让与管辖权协调： 本案体现了香港法院在跨境争议中秉持的“司法礼让”原则——尊重内地法院作为实体争议主审法院的权威，同时发挥协助外国诉讼的辅助作用。
Judicial Comity and Jurisdictional Coordination: This case demonstrates Hong Kong courts' "judicial comity" principle in cross-border disputes—respecting PRC courts' authority as primary courts for substantive disputes while serving an auxiliary role in assisting foreign proceedings.
中国法律专家证据的角色与标准/Role & Standards of PRC Law Expert Evidence
13. 娃哈哈案中专家报告的疏漏（未涵盖第103条修订） 凸显了跨境案件中专家证据的关键作用及其潜在的局限性。
The omission of the Article 103 amendments in the expert reports in the Wahaha case underscores the critical role, yet potential limitations, of expert evidence in cross-border litigation.
14. 提升建议/Recommendations for Enhancement:
(1) 标准化模板： 推动使用标准化的专家报告模板，强制要求涵盖所有相关的最新法律修订（如本次遗漏的《民诉法》修订）及重要实务发展。
Standardized Templates: Promote the use of standardized expert report templates mandating coverage of all relevant recent legal amendments (such as the omitted CPL revision in this instance) and significant practical developments.
(2) 全面性与深度： 专家报告应确保分析全面、深入，能够为法庭提供评估跨境法律问题（尤其是可能影响“公正且便利”判断的因素，如第103条）所需的充分依据。
Comprehensiveness and Depth: Expert reports should ensure comprehensive and in-depth analysis, providing the court with sufficient basis to evaluate cross-border legal issues, particularly those factors (like Article 103) that may impact the "just and convenient" assessment.
15. 临时性与灵活性： 香港第21M条命令应被视为临时性、可调整的保全措施。其持续有效性和范围需根据内地法律发展（特别是第103条的实践）、司法判例以及案件具体进展进行动态评估和灵活调整。
Interim and Flexible Nature: Hong Kong section 21M orders should be viewed as interim and adjustable preservation measures. Their continued validity and scope require dynamic assessment and flexible adjustment based on PRC legal developments (especially Article 103 practice), judicial precedents, and the specific progress of the case.
16. 法律监测机制： 必须建立专门机制，密切监测内地法院依据新第103条对境外（尤其是香港）资产实施保全的实务进展与判例。
Legal Monitoring System: Establish dedicated mechanisms to closely monitor the practical developments and case law regarding PRC courts' implementation of preservation over overseas (particularly Hong Kong) assets under the new Article 103.
17. 专家意见更新： 在涉及跨境保全的香港诉讼中，务必确保中国法律专家报告全面涵盖并深入分析最新的法律修订（如2023年《民诉法》）及实务动态。
Expert Opinion Updates: Ensure PRC law expert reports in relevant Hong Kong proceedings comprehensively cover and deeply analyze the latest legal amendments (e.g., the 2023 CPL) and practical developments.
18. 应对预案： 制定策略预案，以应对内地法院可能作出的实体判决或依据第103条签发的资产保全令。
Contingency Planning: Develop strategic contingency plans for potential PRC court substantive rulings or preservation orders issued under Article 103.
19. 资产追踪与证据支持： 可考虑结合香港的披露令，追踪资产流向，为内地诉讼中的证据收集提供支持。
Asset Tracing & Evidentiary Support: Consider combining section 21M with disclosure orders to trace asset flows and support evidence gathering in PRC proceedings.
20. 管辖权冲突前瞻： 第103条修订理论上扩大了内地法院的域外保全权限，未来需密切关注是否会出现内地法院对香港资产主动发出保全令的情形，以及香港法院对此类命令的认可与执行态度，这涉及潜在的管辖权协调问题。未来两地达成新的司法协助安排可能有助于缓解此问题。
Proactive Watch on Jurisdictional Conflict: The Article 103 amendment theoretically expands PRC courts' extraterritorial preservation authority. Closely monitor future instances where PRC courts may actively issue preservation orders over Hong Kong assets and the recognition and enforcement stance of Hong Kong courts towards such orders, involving potential jurisdictional coordination. New judicial assistance arrangements between the two jurisdictions may help alleviate this issue in the future.
21. 信托文件完善： 在信托文件中清晰界定设立人意图、受托人职责及争议解决机制（包括管辖法律和法院/仲裁地），有助于从源头上减少纠纷。
Refine Trust Documentation: Clearly define settlor intent, trustee duties, and dispute resolution mechanisms (including governing law and forum/arbitration seat) within trust documents to help prevent conflicts at the source.
22. 架构设计考量： 可考虑设计融合香港与适宜离岸法域优势的多层信托架构，以增强资产保护与传承规划的灵活性。
Structural Design Consideration: Consider designing multi-tiered trust structures leveraging the advantages of both Hong Kong and suitable offshore jurisdictions to enhance flexibility in asset protection and succession planning.
五、结论与建议/Conclusion and Recommendations
23. 娃哈哈案确立了香港第21M条资产保护令在跨境家族信托争议中灵活适用的框架——其核心在于“存在严重争议事项”和“公正且便利”标准，摒弃了证明“资产流失风险”和“事先申请内地保全被拒”的传统要求。
Wahaha establishes a flexible application framework for Hong Kong section 21M asset preservation orders in cross-border family trust disputes—centered on "serious issue to be tried" and "just and convenient" standards, abandoning traditional requirements of asset dissipation risk and prior PRC preservation applications.
24. 然而，本案最重要的启示在于法律环境的动态性： 虽然2023年《民诉法》第103条的修订在本案中未被考量，但其理论上的突破性意义及未来实践潜力不容忽视。强烈建议在处理所有跨境家族信托事务时：
However, the paramount lesson of this case lies in the dynamic legal landscape: Although the 2023 CPL Article 103 amendments were not considered in this ruling, their theoretical breakthrough significance and future practical potential cannot be ignored. It is strongly recommended that for all cross-border family trust matters:
(1) 持续监测： 密切跟踪内地与香港相关判例法的发展及立法更新（特别是第103条的执行情况）。
Continuous Monitoring: Maintain close track of relevant case law developments and legislative updates (especially regarding the implementation of Article 103) in both the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong.
(2) 前瞻性与适应性： 确保信托文件架构和争议解决策略具备前瞻性和适应性，能够应对两地法律互动的深化。
Foresight and Adaptability: Ensure trust documentation structures and dispute resolution strategies are forward-looking and adaptable to cope with the deepening legal interaction between the two jurisdictions.
(3) 系统性机制： 法律从业者应建立系统性的跨境法律监测与评估机制，确保为客户提供及时、准确且考虑周全的法律建议。
Systematic Mechanisms: Legal practitioners should establish systematic cross-border legal monitoring and assessment mechanisms to ensure the provision of timely, accurate, and well-considered legal advice to clients.
25. 特别关注点： 在“一国两制”框架下，随着内地与香港法律互动的深化，香港法院在未来类似案件中的自由裁量权可能越来越多地受到内地法律发展（如第103条的有效实施）的影响。建议特别关注未来内地法院对香港资产发出保全令的实践及香港法院的回应。
Critical Focus Area: Under the "One Country, Two Systems" framework, as Hong Kong-Mainland legal interaction deepens, the exercise of discretion by Hong Kong courts in future similar cases may be increasingly influenced by Mainland legal developments (such as the effective implementation of Article 103). Particular attention should be paid to monitoring future instances of PRC courts issuing preservation orders over Hong Kong assets and the responses of Hong Kong courts.
关注我们
粤公网安备 44030502001500