Private Wealth Disputes 2026 Comparisons

At this stage, there are no specialised probate courts or family courts in China (for the avoidance of doubt, references to “China” in this article refer solely to the Mainland of the People’s Republic of China, excluding the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan Region), nor are there specialised courts to adjudicate on disputes relating to family businesses or trusts. Such cases fall within the jurisdiction of the same courts as other civil and commercial matters.

In relation to family cases, however, China encourages local courts to establish family trial institutions (such as family tribunals), either by adding a specific designation or by setting them up independently. China also encourages local courts to establish specialised trial teams within relevant trial divisions. These institutions or teams are specifically responsible for adjudicating family-related cases, such as divorce disputes, disputes over child custody, inheritance disputes and so forth.

In terms of trial mechanisms, some Family Divisions adopt flexible judicial approaches such as round-table mediation and psychological intervention. The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China also requires judges hearing family-related cases to have certain knowledge in fields such as sociology, education and psychology, in addition to their legal expertise. Moreover, the collegial panel for family trials must include at least one female judge or female people’s assessor.

Disputes concerning civil capacity and guardianship shall be heard by the basic people’s court in the place where the respondent is domiciled.

In China, private wealth disputes can be resolved through court mediation. A mediation agreement reached during litigation shall be formalised as a conciliation statement by the court. The conciliation statement has the same legal effect as a judgment and is directly enforceable upon application to a competent court.

Disputes relating to marriage, adoption, guardianship, maintenance and inheritance are fundamentally different from general contract disputes or property rights disputes, as they involve personal status, familial relations and other non-property rights and interests. Chinese law explicitly stipulates that such disputes cannot be resolved through arbitration.

Beyond the above, Chinese law allows disputing parties to submit economic contract disputes and other property rights disputes to arbitration. Once an arbitral award is rendered, it shall have legal effect and may be enforced through application to the court.

Regarding the allocation of legal fees, the primary principle is that the outcome of the adjudication determines the liability for such fees. Both the provisions of the Supreme People’s Court and the rules of major arbitration institutions explicitly stipulate that adjudication fees shall be borne by the losing party. In specific cases, the proportion of fees to be borne by each party shall also be determined according to the degree of liability of each party or the extent to which the court supports the claims in litigation of both parties.

This method of legal fees allocation not only ensures the fairness of adjudication but also, to a certain extent, encourages parties to make prudent decisions before commencing disputes. This is because the party initiating a dispute faces the risk of bearing not only their own legal fees but also those of the opposing party. In this regard, rules of the allocation of legal fees under Chinese law seem to align with the “costs follow the event” (or “loser pays all”) principle adopted by other countries, such as the United Kingdom.

An exception applies to family disputes relating to personal relationships, in which there is usually no distinction between winning and losing parties. Legal fees for such disputes are usually shared equally among all parties involved.

From 2013 to 2024, the number of foreign-related civil and commercial cases concluded by Chinese courts increased from 14,800 to 26,000, which represents a 75.7% growth over the decade. In the first three quarters of 2025 alone, the number of first-instance foreign-related civil and commercial cases accepted reached 35,000, marking a year-on-year increase of 59.73%. This indicates that China is gradually becoming a preferred forum for international dispute resolution.

This achievement is attributed to the expanded jurisdiction of Chinese courts over foreign-related cases following the amendment to the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. This amendment has also removed the mandatory requirement of “actual connection” so that, since 2024, parties may agree to submit their dispute to the jurisdiction of Chinese courts, even if it is a foreign-related case with no actual connection to China. Such changes have greatly expanded the parties’ freedom to choose Chinese courts.

Conversely, China’s rules on limitation periods are relatively strict. The general statute of limitations stipulated by Chinese law is three years and cannot be varied by agreement, which is shorter than that in some other countries. This may prompt parties to prioritise commencing disputes in jurisdictions with more lenient limitation periods – a factor that could undermine the competitiveness of China’s judicial jurisdiction to some degree.

When addressing private wealth disputes in China, it is crucial to fully utilise litigation procedures and strategies to maximise the protection of rights and interests. For example, when selecting a competent court, it is necessary to strictly comply with the exclusive jurisdiction of the court where the real estate is located if the dispute involves real estate, to avoid delays resulting from improper jurisdiction.

Some provinces or cities exercise centralised jurisdiction for certain types of cases. For example:

• the Shanghai Financial Court exercises centralised jurisdiction over specific first-instance financial civil and commercial cases within the Shanghai jurisdiction that would otherwise be heard by intermediate courts;
• the Fourth Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing exercises centralised jurisdiction over first-instance commercial cases involving Hong Kong-Macao-Taiwan and foreign factors within the Beijing jurisdiction with a subject matter value of less than CNY5 billion; and
• the Shenzhen Family Trial Center Involving Hong Kong-Macao-Taiwan and Foreign Factors of the Primary People’s Court of Longhua District of Shenzhen exercises centralised jurisdiction over first-instance family cases involving Hong Kong-Macao-Taiwan and foreign factors.

In contract-based wealth disputes, parties may agree on a court with an actual connection to the dispute when signing the contract, such as the domicile of one’s own party or the place where assets are concentrated. This allows the parties to avoid courts with heavy case backlogs and to choose courts with rich experience in hearing similar cases, thereby enhancing the professionalism and efficiency of the trial. In addition, if the counterparty’s assets are mainly distributed in a specific region, choosing the court of that region for jurisdiction can reduce cross-regional obstacles for subsequent property preservation and enforcement.

To take another example, when applying for property preservation, parties may prioritise using litigation preservation liability insurance issued by insurance companies as an alternative to traditional cash guarantees. This can help them to reduce the cost of fund occupation. It is worth noting that certain courts will designate qualified insurance companies to issue guarantees – typically local branches of major insurance companies in the relevant jurisdiction.

Paying attention to the preservation period is also of great importance, and parties should be sure to apply for the renewal of preservation seven to 15 days prior to its expiration in order to prevent the counterparty from transferring assets. If new asset clues are discovered after preservation, it is advisable to submit supplementary preservation applications promptly in order to ensure that the disputed wealth is not lost.

Discovery is a crucial pre-trial procedure in civil litigation, which is functionally analogous to the pre-hearing evidence exchange process. However, Chinese civil procedure has not adopted the Anglo-American discovery mechanism, so parties do not have a right to compel comprehensive document production from the opposing party. Instead, evidence is primarily collected and submitted by the parties themselves, and the court only intervenes to investigate and gather evidence when necessary. This mechanism is characterised as “judge-led, party-assisted” rather than relying on reciprocal disclosure between the parties.

In private wealth disputes, the absence of a discovery mechanism often creates marked informational asymmetries between parties, with the party that controls the asset chain typically holding the procedural advantage. For example, in cross-border inheritance matters involving equity interests, a party may need to determine the estate’s value, which requires access to corporate financial records. Such materials are generally obtainable through public sources, by retaining professional investigators, or by applying to the court to co-ordinate the production of evidence.

Chinese courts generally require requested evidence to have a direct connection with the disputes; common law discovery regimes do not impose the same strict requirements regarding the scope of disclosure or the threshold of relevance for materials to be produced. Consequently, in the field of private wealth, litigation in China often depends more on who can obtain the evidence than on whether the evidence exists. The difficulty of securing key information directly shapes litigation strategy and outcomes. This structural information asymmetry is one of the main risks that should be assessed in advance when designing litigation strategies for high net worth families in China.

In the absence of a systematic discovery mechanism, evidence is obtained primarily through party-led collection, lawyer investigation, court-issued investigation orders and evidential examination during trial.

At the pre-litigation stage, lawyers typically gather materials such as contracts, bank statements, asset ownership certificates, family trust documents and wills. Law firms also rely on publicly available information, corporate registration archives, financial reports and due diligence findings to construct the evidentiary chain. When key evidence such as detailed bank transaction records or real estate registration files is held by third parties, counsel may apply to the court for an investigation order, with which lawyers may collect the documents directly from the relevant institutions. Alternatively, they may request the court to investigate of its own motion or to compel a party or third party to produce the documents. The success of such applications, however, depends heavily on judicial discretion and the applicant’s justification for “necessity” and “relevance”.

For cases involving cross-border asset tracing or multi-layered ownership structures, lawyers often instruct specialised investigative firms, employ property preservation and utilise judicial assistance mechanisms to track assets and obtain evidence. Overall, China’s evidentiary process is oriented toward fragmented, party-driven collection rather than systematic disclosure, making it essential for counsel to design investigation and litigation strategies concurrently at the outset of the case.

Chinese law does not recognise the concept of “attorney-client privilege”. Consequently, there is no general rule that protects certain categories of documents from disclosure during the evidentiary process. Several provisions, however, operate with a functionally similar effect as testimonial refusal rights or statutory confidentiality obligations. For example, the Lawyers Law of the People’s Republic of China requires attorneys to maintain the confidentiality of state secrets, trade secrets and clients’ privacy.

In private wealth disputes, communications and documents exchanged between clients and attorneys receive a certain degree of protection. However, this “confidentiality obligation” does not amount to a substantive right to withhold such materials from disclosure in litigation. Where matters involving money laundering, bribery or public safety are implicated, attorneys remain subject to mandatory reporting obligations. This is a key distinction between private wealth disputes and ordinary commercial disputes.

In China, the core grounds for challenging the validity of a will focus on aspects such as formal requirements, the authenticity of the intent expressed, and conflicts in the content of multiple wills.

Regarding the formal requirements of a will, the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China stipulates six statutory types of wills. A will would be invalid if it fails to meet the specific requirements of these six statutory types. When challenging the formal requirements of a will, it is usually sufficient to point out flaws in the formalities during the cross-examination stage. However, if the dispute involves whether the main content and signature of the will were personally written by the testator, it is necessary to prepare corresponding rebuttal evidence or to file an application for handwriting authentication.

Regarding the authenticity of the intent expressed, a will would be deemed invalid if it fails to reflect the true intent of the deceased. In this regard, it is necessary to examine whether the deceased had capacity for civil conduct and whether the will was made under illegal means such as fraud or coercion. The challenging party may provide mental diagnosis medical records, disability certificates or judgments from special procedures that show the deceased was unable to recognise their own actions as evidence to refute the testator’s full civil capacity at the time the will was executed. Chat records, written documents or applications for witnesses to testify in court may be submitted to prove the authenticity of the intent expressed.

In cases where the parties present multiple wills, the court will make a determination based on an examination of the validity of each will. If the deceased left multiple authentic and valid wills, the content of the last one shall prevail.

In China, inheritance disputes fall under the category of civil litigation proceedings but have particularities in the following aspects.

• Party identification: all other heirs shall be listed as co-plaintiffs or co-defendants.
• Jurisdictional determination: a claim arising from a dispute over estate inheritance shall be under the jurisdiction of the court where the deceased was domiciled at the time of death or where the main part of the estate is located.
• Mediation requirement: mediation shall be conducted as a preliminary step in inheritance disputes.

In the legal practices of the United Kingdom and the United States, the “no-contest clause” is commonly found in legal disputes related to cross-border will succession and overseas trust distributions. Typically, the no-contest clause would stipulate that if any heir/beneficiary or interested party associated with the will or trust challenges the validity of the will or trust instrument and commences legal proceedings, they shall be disinherited from their corresponding inheritance rights/beneficial interests.

As systems such as trusts, testamentary trusts and will succession are still in the development stage in China, the no-contest clause remains unfamiliar to the general public. Based on traditional etiquette and trust in family members, most high net worth families in China rarely consider incorporating such clauses when drafting family charters or wills, or establishing trusts. In addition, there are no direct legal provisions concerning a no-contest clause in Chapter 6 (Succession) of the Civil Code.

An individual who, due to age or mental health conditions, is unable to independently perform all civil juristic acts is referred to as a person with limited capacity for civil conduct. In China, such individuals must have some or all of their civil affairs handled by a guardian on their behalf.

An application for declaring a citizen with no capacity or with limited capacity for civil conduct shall be made by an interested party or a relevant organisation with the basic people’s court at the place where the citizen is domiciled. Interested parties include close relatives, as well as relatives, friends, creditors or debtors outside the scope of close relatives. Attorneys may act as agents for the applicant or the respondent, and present corresponding opinions.

In China, limited liability companies, family trusts, limited partnerships and holding companies are the primary structures used to facilitate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and control rights. Mainstream strategies comprise:

• targeted equity succession;
• co-succession arrangements;
• the introduction of professional managers; and
• asset segregation with diversification.

Ambiguous structural design, unbalanced distribution of interests and authority, intergenerational differences in values, and the lack of supporting governance systems may trigger disputes over wealth distribution and control rights.

Primary types of conflict include:

• battles over corporate control;
• disputes regarding property ownership;
• wealth division controversies;
• management decision-making conflicts; and
• intergenerational value clashes.

Resolution mechanisms range from autonomous methods such as family charter provisions and internal mediation to non-litigious avenues like people’s mediation and commercial arbitration, as well as civil litigation governed by the Civil Code and the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China, supplemented by administrative oversight and property preservation measures.

Trust assets enjoy independence in China. Where a settlor contributes lawfully owned property to a trust that is free from any statutorily invalidating circumstances, it can effectively shield the assets from creditors’ claims and protect them from infringement. The advantages of trusts lie in:

• the absence of a public registration requirement;
• the ability to execute documents privately;
• considerable flexibility in tailoring terms; and
• suitability for managing diverse assets (such as cash, large insurance policies, stocks and real estate).

The risks include uncertainty in the adjudication of circumstances such as “how to define a beneficiary’s squandering” or “how to establish liability in respect of a trustee’s misconduct”, as outcomes depend heavily on judicial interpretation. Furthermore, the security of the trust is highly dependent on the trustee’s competence: if the trustee engages in unauthorised investments or becomes uncontactable, the assets may fall into an administrative vacuum.

It is important to note that, under Chinese law, foundations are permitted only to provide services for public welfare purposes and must disclose their financial and operational information to the public. A foundation engaging in profit-making activities breaches the law and is subject to corresponding legal penalties. Consequently, foundations are not a suitable vehicle for shielding assets from creditors’ claims.

From a legal perspective, a divorcing spouse may adversely impact the family wealth structure in the following ways:

• premarital personal property may be mixed with matrimonial property and become subject to division, leading to the diminution of individual wealth;
• property acquired by one spouse during the marriage through inheritance or gift may be classified as matrimonial property and divided, resulting in the erosion of family wealth;
• corporate equity interests deemed marital matrimonial property may be divided, compromising the stability of corporate control; or
• the divorce of an actual controller may trigger a decline in the share price and market capitalisation of a listed company, among other consequences.

Within the marital relationship, various legal instruments are available to safeguard individual and family wealth. Common tools include specified gifts, wills, life insurance and family trusts/family service trusts. Chinese law also permits spouses to enter into written agreements specifying that property acquired during the marriage, as well as premarital property, shall be owned separately or jointly, or partly separately and partly jointly. Entering into a property agreement not only helps to protect premarital property but also effectively prevents disputes over the scope of divisible marital property should the marriage end.

In China, common defence strategies include the following.

• Contract validity – this typically involves challenging the contract on four grounds:
1. whether the parties had the requisite capacity to act;
2. whether the declaration of intent was genuine;
3. whether the contract violates mandatory legal provisions or public order and good morals; and
4. whether it complies with specific form requirements.
• Limitation defences – if a right-holder does not exercise their rights within a specified period, they lose their entitlement to claim benefits. After the limitation period has expired, the obligor acquires the right to refuse performance, and the court cannot compel the obligor to perform their obligations.
• Contract-based defences – if the creditor’s claim is based on a bilateral contract, the obligor may also assert defences such as the defence of simultaneous performance, the defence of insecurity or the defence of prior performance.

The rights that a beneficiary may assert against a trustee fall primarily into three categories: the beneficial interest in the trust; the right to supervise the administration of trust affairs; and the right to seek remedies when their interests are infringed.

• Trust beneficial rights encompass not only the right to request distribution of trust income during the trust term and the principal upon its termination, but also the right to transfer or renounce such beneficial interest.
• Trust administration supervision rightsinclude the right to:
1. request an account of the management, disposition, and income and expenditure of the trust property;
2. inspect, transcribe or copy trust accounts and other documents related to the trust’s administration;
3. consent to the settlor’s modification or disposition of the beneficial interest;
4. consent to adjustments in the trustee’s remuneration or the trustee’s resignation; and
5. request adjustments to the trust administration.
• Remedial rights include the right to:
1. raise an objection against the unlawful compulsory enforcement of trust assets;
2. rescind a trustee’s act in breach of the trust;
3. request restoration of the trust property;
4. claim damages; and
5. request the removal of the trustee

Furthermore, the settlor and trustee may agree by contract to grant the beneficiary additional rights beyond those stipulated by law.

Under the following two circumstances, a third party may assert a claim against the trustee:

• the trustee incurs a debt towards a third party due to expenses arising from the administration of trust affairs; or
• the trustee breaches their management duties or conducts trust affairs improperly.

Expenses incurred by the trustee in the course of administering the trust and debts owed to third parties are borne by the trust property. Even if the trustee makes an advance payment from their self-owned property, they are entitled to be reimbursed from the trust property on a preferential basis. However, if a debt owed to a third party or any loss suffered by the trustee results from a breach of management duties or improper administration of trust affairs, such debt or loss must be borne by the trustee’s self-owned property.

Under Chinese law, there is no explicit “piercing the veil of the trust/foundation” doctrine, but analogous regimes exist, namely “disregard of corporate personality” (applicable to foundations) and the “trustee’s liability for fault” (applicable to trusts). A trust does not possess independent legal personality: when a trustee incurs debts to third parties in the course of administering the trust, the trustee is the legal entity held liable, and situations may arise where the trustee’s self-owned property becomes exposed to satisfy obligations arising from trust administration.

According to Article 37 of the Trust Law of the People’s Republic of China, debts incurred by the trustee to third parties in the course of trust administration are to be satisfied primarily from the trust property. However, if the trustee acted intentionally or with gross negligence (for instance, by disposing of trust property in violation of the trust’s purposes, or failing to fulfil the duty of prudent management, resulting in loss to the trust property or the incurrence of debts), then the liability shall be borne by the trustee’s self-owned property. This means that, under normal circumstances of proper administration, the trust property serves as the primary source for covering debts arising from trust affairs; however, where the trustee fails to meet the requisite standard of care, self-owned property becomes the source for liability.

In practice, to limit the aforementioned liability, a trustee may agree by contract with third parties that liability shall be limited to the trust assets only.

China has not adopted a “forced heirship” system of the kind commonly found in civil law jurisdictions. However, the provisions in Chapter 6 (Succession) of the Civil Code regarding the “necessary legitimate portion of the estate” (“compulsory share”) serve a functionally similar role in restricting testamentary freedom and safeguarding the basic livelihood of certain heirs. However, in China this compulsory share applies only to a narrowly defined group: heirs who lack the ability to work and have no source of stable income or support (“dual-lack heirs”). This category typically includes minors and adults without income who are incapable of work, such as incapacitated elderly people.

Currently, there is no explicit statutory provision on whether alternative arrangements can be made by agreement. In practice, a testator may utilise estate planning instruments such as appointing an estate administrator or establishing a testamentary trust, which can designate heirs and legatees (or devisees) as beneficiaries. Nevertheless, such arrangements must still comply with the compulsory share requirements.

In China, inheritance disputes involving the compulsory share are relatively few in number. The main issues typically concern the criteria for identifying dual-lack heirs and conflicts over the validity of the will. Furthermore, courts have not applied uniform standards for determining dual-lack status, assessing the validity of the will or calculating the compulsory share. Regarding the latter, for instance, some courts calculate the compulsory share as a fixed proportion of the estate under dispute, with the specific percentage varying, while others grant a lump-sum amount determined at the judge’s discretion.

Regarding the apportionment of the compulsory share, courts generally deduct the required portion directly from the total estate and grant it to the eligible heir. Only the remaining portion of the estate may then be distributed according to the terms of the will. Although the compulsory share affects the distribution of the estate, it does not render the will itself invalid. Judicial practice treats the compulsory share as a “necessary” rather than “absolute” limitation: as long as the will ensures the basic livelihood of compulsory share heirs, courts will not overly restrict the testator’s freedom to dispose of his or her property.

Because the compulsory share regime under Chinese law aims only to guarantee the basic subsistence of heirs who lack both the ability to work and a stable source of income or support, the threshold is very low. In practice, the compulsory share is typically pegged to the local minimum subsistence level, ensuring that “dual-lack heirs” can maintain basic living conditions. Even in China’s most developed cities, such as Beijing and Shanghai, the annual minimum income level does not reach USD10,000. Consequently, for high net worth individuals seeking wealth management solutions, this threshold generally poses no substantial restriction and thus rarely creates any incentive to adopt avoidance strategies.

The Chinese tax authorities maintain a zero-tolerance stance toward high net worth individuals who evade tax obligations through means such as concealing personal income, entering into “duplicate contracts” and falsifying business transactions to disguise the nature of income, and a series of prominent tax evasion cases have been publicly exposed. China commenced the exchange of information under the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) in 2018, whereby financial account details of Chinese tax residents held overseas are exchanged with the Chinese tax authorities. Starting in 2021, several provinces have piloted the implementation of fully digitalised electronic invoices to synchronise tax-related information.

Tax authorities have identified professional service providers, including law firms and accounting firms, as key monitoring targets for high-income groups. It has been stipulated that the verified assessment method for calculating individual income tax is not adopted for such institutions. This policy has raised their tax compliance costs and administrative burden.

In the Chinese jurisdiction, criminal enforcement in the private wealth sector serves primarily to protect lawful property and uphold financial and market order. It does not intervene in legitimate wealth management activities but focuses on combatting traditional property crimes such as fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement, as well as wealth-related economic offences, including money laundering, tax evasion, illegal fundraising and pension fraud. Through investigation, prosecution and asset recovery, authorities seek to compensate victims for their losses. Simultaneously, by employing measures such as seizing and freezing case-related assets and securing transaction evidence, criminal enforcement provides robust support for civil recovery.

“Gatekeepers” including lawyers, accountants, financial institutions and their practitioners are key targets of strengthened criminal supervision, with accountability measures being consistently strengthened. Under regulations such as the Anti-Money Laundering Law of the People’s Republic of China revised in 2024, these entities bear statutory obligations, including client due diligence and the reporting of suspicious transactions. Failure to fulfil these duties, or assisting clients in concealing illicit proceeds or participating in wealth-related crimes, may lead to criminal liability, including imprisonment and fines. This underscores a regulatory philosophy focused on “strictly controlling accomplices and preventing risks at the forefront”.

Two main categories of private wealth-related criminal cases may be pursued through private prosecution.

• First, the crime of conversion – such as when one spouse takes over the couple’s matrimonial property or an individual forges a will to take possession of property co-owned by heirs – can only be brought as a private prosecution by the victim.
• Second, for the crime of encroachment on property, if the public security organs or the people’s procuratorate refuses to pursue the criminal liability of the suspect after the victim has filed a criminal complaint, the victim may also bring a private prosecution.

Another criminal offence relevant in the context of private wealth management is bigamy, which is defined as the act of a person entering into a marriage with another person during the existence of a legal marriage, or knowingly marrying a person who is already married. This offence may be pursued as either a private or public prosecution. Generally, if the victim has sufficient evidence to prove the crime of bigamy, they may file a private prosecution directly with the court. Where collecting evidence proves difficult, however, the victim may opt to report the case to the public security organs, after which the matter will be investigated by the public security organs and prosecuted by the procuratorate as a public prosecution case.

In addition to the general principles of Chinese civil procedure, cross-border wealth disputes are governed by several special principles, as follows.

• International Treaty Application Principle – unless China has declared a reservation to specific provisions, where a difference exists between the Civil Procedure Law and an international treaty concluded or acceded to by China, the provisions of that treaty shall prevail.
• Chinese Language and Character Principle – Chinese courts shall conduct proceedings in foreign-related civil cases using the commonly used Chinese language and script. Interpretation or translation may be provided in accordance with the request of a party, but the associated costs shall be borne by that party.
• Chinese Legal Counsel Representation Principle – foreign nationals, stateless persons, foreign enterprises and other organisations that initiate or respond to litigation in a Chinese court must instruct lawyers licensed to practise in the People’s Republic of China if they wish to be represented by legal counsel.

It is important to note that judgments made by foreign courts cannot be enforced directly in China. Instead, a party must apply to a Chinese court for recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment.

Regarding wills, there are three primary methods for revocation or modification:

• express revocation or modification – the testator may voluntarily revoke or modify the will by making an explicit declaration of such change;
• implied revocation – where the testator does not explicitly declare the modification of the will but performs acts that are clearly inconsistent with the will’s provisions, such acts shall constitute revocation of the will’s content; and
• execution of a subsequent will – if a testator has made multiple wills with conflicting provisions, the last-made will shall prevail.

Regarding trusts, the settlor may change the beneficiary under any of the following circumstances:

• the beneficiary has committed a material infringing act against the settlor;
• the beneficiary has committed a material infringing act against another co-beneficiary;
• the beneficiary consents to the change; or
• other circumstances specified in the trust instrument.

Where the method of administering the trust property is no longer conducive to fulfilling the purposes of the trust or is inconsistent with the interests of the beneficiary, due to unforeseen circumstances at the time the trust was established, the settlor or the beneficiary is entitled to request the trustee to adjust the method of administering such trust property.

Where the trustee disposes of trust property in violation of the trust purposes, or where loss is caused to the trust property due to a breach of management duties or the improper conduct of trust affairs, the settlor or the beneficiary is entitled to apply to the court to set aside such disposition, and may demand that the trustee restores the trust property to its original state or provides compensation.

Where the trustee disposes of trust property in violation of the trust purposes or commits gross negligence in the management or disposal of trust property, the settlor or the beneficiary is entitled to remove the trustee pursuant to the terms of the trust instrument, or may apply to the court for the trustee’s removal.

Where any of the following circumstances exists, the settlor or beneficiary may apply to the court to set aside the trustee’s disposition:

• the trustee disposes of trust property in violation of the trust purposes; or
• the trustee causes the trust property to suffer loss by breaching management duties or improperly conducting trust affairs.

Once the act is set aside, the settlor or beneficiary may also require the trustee to restore the trust property to its original state or provide compensation. If the transferee of the trust property accepted the property knowing that the trustee’s disposition violated the trust purposes, the transferee is also obligated to return the property or provide compensation.

It is specifically provided that the settlor must file an application for revocation with the court within one year from the date they knew or should have known of the grounds for revocation. Otherwise, the right of revocation is extinguished.

China has developed several private wealth disputes and corresponding legal rules arising from its specific cultural factors.

Betrothal Gift

The bride price originates from Chinese folk tradition, whereby the groom’s family pays a specific sum of money to the bride’s family before marriage, with typical sums such as CNY188,000 or CNY288,000. Upon divorce, disputes frequently arise over matters such as distinguishing the bride price from gifts given during the courtship period, and the return of the bride price if the marriage does not proceed beyond engagement or breaks down.

Parental Financial Support for Children’s Property Purchases and Inter-Spousal Property Transfers

Due to the close kinship ties, the “face culture” and the prevailing expectation that a newly married couple should have their own property, coupled with high property prices in China that often lead to young couples relying on financial support from parents, situations commonly arise where parents contribute funds towards a child’s property purchase, or where a child adds their spouse’s name to a property registered solely in their own name. Upon divorce, disputes often occur between spouses regarding the nature of such property, such as:

• whether ownership lies with the parents or the child;
• whether it constitutes marital joint property;
• how shares of property should be calculated; and
• whether the other party is obliged to provide compensation.

Given the unique cultural roots of these issues, the Supreme People’s Court has consistently conducted extensive and in-depth research to understand public opinion. Over the past two decades, the Supreme People’s Court has promulgated multiple judicial interpretations addressing disputes related to parents funding property purchases for their children, inter-spousal property transfers and bride price attribution. In 2024 and 2025, the Supreme People’s Court promulgated the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Bride Price Disputes and the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Chapter of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (II). These interpretations have established more comprehensive, detailed and culturally appropriate legal norms that align with Chinese family values, emphasising the balance between protecting individual property rights and the collective interests of the marriage and family unit, thereby providing legal guidance for resolving such issues.

Matrimonial and Inheritance Disputes

In recent years, matrimonial disputes and disputes concerning the succession of domestic entrepreneurs have occurred with increasing frequency. Against the backdrop of cautionary tales from unsuccessful cases, a growing number of cross-border families are adopting dual-trust structures to implement systematic matrimonial and succession planning, complemented by diversified instruments such as wills, insurance policies and gift agreements.

Trust-Related Disputes

Drawing on overseas experience, many high net worth families in China have set up onshore and offshore family trusts to pass on family assets. In practice, however, many clients still set up trusts using standardised templates without instructing lawyers to conduct systematic legal and tax structuring, and remain unfamiliar with the underlying logic and methodology of trust utilisation. This gives rise to two major potential risks:

• the improper use of trusts; and
• frequent disputes following the death of the settlor.

Tax-Related Disputes

In recent years, the Chinese government has sped up the refinement of tax rules, and strengthened tax collection and administration capabilities. Enterprises and individuals now face stricter tax supervision, and a series of high-value tax dispute cases involving penalties being imposed on businesses and individuals have arisen. In the future, tax disputes among enterprises, individuals and the government are likely to become a common feature of the private wealth landscape.

Cross-Border Disputes

China implements a strict foreign exchange control regime, requiring individuals and enterprises to comply with relevant regulations when transferring funds into or out of the country. However, against the trends of internationalised education for high net worth Chinese families, the globalisation of Chinese corporate operations and the increasing frequency of foreign investment in China, lawful cross-border fund flows have become a significant legal demand in the private wealth landscape.