Case Summary

• Dispute Type: Cross-Border Entrusted Wealth Management Dispute
• Forum: Guangzhou Tianhe District People's Court & Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court
• Amount in Dispute: Approximately 6.5 Million RMB
• The Outcome: The court sustained our defense positions regarding contract invalidity under public policy frameworks and dismissed the plaintiff's claims in their entirety, ruling that cryptocurrency investment losses are borne by the investor.

Case Background & Context

The Plaintiff entrusted Defendant D to manage virtual currency investments. Upon Defendant D's introduction, the Plaintiff instructed a third party, C, to transfer nearly 6.5 million RMB into the account of Defendant B for the purpose of purchasing cryptocurrency on an overseas platform. Defendant B executed the transactions according to the given instructions. Following a severe downturn in the cryptocurrency market, the digital assets incurred a total loss.

The Plaintiff subsequently initiated a lawsuit before the Guangzhou Tianhe District People's Court, alleging unauthorized misappropriation of funds. Because the Plaintiff’s habitual residence was outside mainland China, the court classified the matter as a cross-border entrusted wealth management contract dispute. The case involved complex initial challenges regarding centralized and transferred jurisdiction before proceeding to a trial on the merits.

Our Core Strategy: Jurisdictional Mastery & Public Policy Defense

To protect our client against this high-value claim, our defense team executed a rigorous, multi-layered litigation strategy focused on procedural propriety and financial regulatory realities:

• Resolving Complex Jurisdictional Disputes: Our team successfully managed procedural challenges regarding cross-border centralized jurisdiction and jurisdiction transfers. Following an appellate review, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court delivered a final ruling affirming the jurisdiction of the Tianhe District Court, ensuring a procedurally sound foundation for the defense.
• Establishing Contractual Invalidity via Public Policy: We constructed a robust defense centered on China's stringent regulatory stance on cryptocurrency trading. We successfully demonstrated that entrusted wealth management agreements for virtual currency transactions run counter to public order and good customs, rendering the underlying contractual relationship void under the PRC Civil Code.
• Refuting Misappropriation with Empirical Evidence: Our team compiled and presented comprehensive transaction histories, account flows, and communication logs. We proved that Defendant B acted strictly in accordance with the user's directives, establishing that the losses stemmed entirely from market volatility rather than any unauthorized diversion of capital.

The Judgment & Outcome

The People's Court fully adopted our legal reasoning and evidentiary presentation. The court ruled that the virtual currency investment arrangement violated public policy, rendering the contract void, and determined that the resulting market losses must be borne by the investor. Consequently, the court delivered a definitive judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims and shielding our client from liability.

Why Clients Trust Us: Cross-border disputes involving overseas digital asset platforms present unique jurisdictional and regulatory hurdles. Our firm excels at translating complex financial tracking into clear, legally binding defenses. By combining absolute procedural precision with deep insights into PRC public policy frameworks, we ensure our clients are robustly protected against unsubstantiated commercial liability.

Case Summary

• Dispute Type: Cross-Border Private Lending & Inheritance Enforcement
• Forum: The Qianhai Court & The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court
• Key Elements: Canadian Citizen Heir, International Notarization Protocols, Asset Seizure, Execution Objection Dismissal
• The Outcome: The courts sustained the private lending relationship, holding the primary debtor and joint guarantor liable. Our firm successfully initiated forced execution, secured a real estate seizure for public auction, and defeated a third-party execution objection to safeguard the recovery of a debt totaling nearly 10 million RMB in principal and interest.

Case Background & Context

In 2013, a decedent advanced a substantial loan to Defendant B, who issued a formal receipt acknowledging a principal of 5.6 million RMB alongside an agreed interest framework. Following the passing of the decedent in 2015, the family discovered the outstanding debt. Because the legal heirs had since relocated overseas and changed their nationalities—including Plaintiff A, who obtained Canadian citizenship—they faced significant structural hurdles regarding cross-border legal standing and a lack of direct familiarity with the historical transaction details.

Our firm was retained to represent Plaintiff A. We initiated a comprehensive cross-border litigation strategy, filing the claim before the Qianhai Court. Defendant B contested the action, arguing that the transaction constituted an entrusted lending relationship rather than private lending, while also raising procedural objections regarding the historical delivery of funds and the legal identity of the foreign heirs.

Our Core Strategy: Cross-Border Verification & Relentless Asset Enforcement

To overcome the spatial and evidentiary hurdles inherent in cross-generational, cross-border claims, our litigation and enforcement team deployed a targeted, multi-stage strategy:

• Establishing Cross-Border Legal Standing: We coordinated an intricate network of domestic and international notarization and legalization protocols. This seamlessly verified the cross-border inheritance chain and established Plaintiff A’s absolute legal standing before the specialized cross-border tribunal.
• Reconstructing the Evidentiary Chain: Through extensive document retrieval, we systematically substantiated the capital flow and financial mechanics, providing the court with a clear factual foundation that effectively countered the defense's alternative contractual interpretations.
• Pre-emptive Asset Preservation and Enforcement Security: Recognizing the risk of asset dissipation over a multi-year dispute, we secured early-stage judicial preservation over a high-value real estate property in Shenzhen. When the debtors failed to honor the final judgment, we immediately transitioned the matter into forced execution proceedings to prepare the asset for public auction.
• Defeating Third-Party Interventions: During the enforcement phase, an outside party, Third Party D, filed a formal execution objection to halt the real estate liquidation. Our team immediately intervened, demonstrating a lack of factual and legal merit in the objection, which led the court to dismiss the intervention and clear the path for asset recovery.

The Judgment & Outcome

The Court of First Instance fully sustained the private lending claim, ordering Defendant B to repay the outstanding principal and accrued interest—bringing the total enforceable debt to nearly 10 million RMB—while holding Defendant C jointly and severally liable. The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court subsequently rejected the defendants' appeal and affirmed the original judgment in its entirety.

Following the definitive dismissal of the third-party execution objection, the judicial auction of the seized Shenzhen real estate successfully advanced to secure actual capital recovery for our client.

Why Clients Trust Us: Managing a cross-border dispute becomes exponentially more complex when it intersects with inheritance and foreign citizenship. Our firm excels at managing the entire lifecycle of international claims—from navigating overseas notarization and proving historical debts to aggressively executing judgments against local assets and defeating bad-faith third-party objections. We ensure that cross-border rights are fully converted into tangible financial recovery.

Case Summary

• Dispute Type: Commercial Contract & Distribution Dispute
• Forum: First Instance (Nansha District People's Court); Second Instance (Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court)
• Core Achievement: Successfully established the legal grounds for the termination of an ongoing commercial distribution agreement, resolving a contractual deadlock and recovering the principal and interest through judicial enforcement proceedings.

Case Background & Context

The Plaintiff entered into a Cooperation Agreement with the Defendants to secure a specialized brand distributorship, making an initial lump-sum payment exceeding 160,000 RMB. Following an initial delivery of inventory valued at approximately 34,000 RMB, the Plaintiff discontinued further ordering and subsequently sought to terminate the commercial relationship and obtain a refund for the remaining balance.

The Defendants contested the termination, maintaining that they were not in breach of contract, and formally requested specific performance—demanding that the distribution agreement continue to be executed. Faced with this commercial deadlock, our firm was retained to represent the Plaintiff through both first-instance and appellate litigation.

Our Core Strategy: Resolving Contractual Deadlock & Strategic Enforcement

To break the impasse and secure actual financial recovery for our client, our litigation team executed a highly targeted strategy focused on the nature of long-term commercial relationships and effective asset recovery:

• Evaluating the Nature of Distribution Contracts: We presented comprehensive legal arguments demonstrating that distribution agreements inherently rely on continuous, voluntary cooperation and a shared commercial purpose. We established that when the foundation for ongoing business collaboration has permanently eroded, forcing specific performance is commercially unviable and counterproductive to both parties.
• Securing Legal Grounds for Termination: Our team successfully navigated the statutory framework regarding the dissolution of ongoing commercial obligations under PRC Contract Law. We guided the court to recognize that a contract can be lawfully dissolved to prevent deadlocks, even when a fundamental breach by the supplier is not the primary trigger.
• Executing Seamless Transition to Enforcement: Beyond securing favorable judgments across two levels of the judiciary, our team immediately activated enforcement procedures. We tracked verifiable assets to ensure that the court order transitioned swiftly from a judgment on paper into actual capital recovery.

The Judgment & Outcome

Both the Court of First Instance and the Appellate Court fully affirmed our legal positioning regarding the dissolution of the contract. Following the conclusion of the appellate proceedings, our firm successfully executed the judgments, recovering a total combined sum of nearly 150,000 RMB in principal and accrued interest for the client.

Why Clients Trust Us: Commercial distribution disputes often become trapped in prolonged standoffs when one party insists on forcing continued performance. Our firm excels not only in diagnosing the exact legal mechanics required to dissolve deadlocked commercial relationships but also in maintaining a relentless focus on the final enforcement phase. This ensures that our clients successfully reclaim their capital and mitigate long-term operational risks.