Speakers

Katie Pearson
Claritas Legal, Grand Cayman
katie@claritaslegal.com

Helen Wang,
Carey Olsen, Singapore
helen.wang@careyolsen.com

James Tunkey
 I-OnAsia, New York
james@ionasia.com.hk

Rongping (Larry) Wu,
DGW Kramer, New York
lwu@dgwllp.com

Ronghua (Andy) Liao
Han Kun Law, Shanghai
andy.liao@hankunlaw.com

On 21 January 2026, the IBA Asset Recovery Committee hosted a webinar exploring the realities, misconceptions and emerging trends in cross-border asset recovery involving China. The panel brought together experienced practitioners working across China, the United States and major offshore jurisdictions, each offering practical insights into how creditors can trace assets, access information and enforce judgments across borders with increasing effectiveness.

The discussion revealed a consistent theme: there is far more that can be achieved in China, and for China‑related cases abroad, than many litigants appreciate. As global transparency increases and cross‑jurisdictional cooperation becomes more structured, practitioners now have a more predictable set of tools at their disposal.

Publicly available information: China and offshore jurisdictions

China’s corporate transparency

Contrary to popular perceptions, China’s public records environment is robust. Corporate registries provide extensive information, including on directorships and shareholder structures, while commercial data aggregators offer reliable, consolidated datasets.

Even more significant is the China Judgments Online platform, which now contains more than 130 million judgments, some with audio recordings. This creates unparalleled visibility into judicial reasoning, which is helpful for understanding local court approaches and developing enforcement strategies.

However, public access is limited. Land records and certain local government repositories require court approval to obtain access. Once litigation begins, the volume of information available expands dramatically.

Offshore searches: the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands

The BVI and the Cayman Islands remain central nodes in Chinese outbound corporate structuring. Public searches in both jurisdictions can reveal incorporation details, registered agents, company status and, thanks to transparency reforms, the names of current directors.

Although shareholder registers remain private, director information is often enough to link individuals to offshore entities, supporting a range of enforcement strategies, including third‑party disclosure applications.

Evidence gathering: China, the US, the Cayman Islands and the BVI

Attorney investigation orders in China

China’s civil law system does not include common law discovery. Instead, courts permit evidence gathering through attorney investigation orders, which allow litigators, once proceedings commence, to obtain documents and information directly from banks, registries, employers and other institutions.

The procedure is judge led and varies by province, but the tool is extremely powerful. It covers financial records, asset registries and digital‑footprint information. Resistance from financial institutions can occur, although sanctions exist in theory. Even with some inconsistencies, investigation orders remain a central evidence‑gathering tool in People’s Republic of China litigation and enforcement.

Section 1782 discovery in the US

When Chinese debtors move assets abroad, US discovery tools become critical. Section 1782 of the US Code allows litigants in foreign proceedings, including reasonably contemplated proceedings, to seek broad discovery from individuals or entities within US judicial districts.

Key advantages for China‑related cases include:

• access to global US dollar wire‑transfer information held by banks in New York;
• the ability to obtain corporate, real estate and investment data held by third parties; and
• flexibility in regard to how the discovery is used across multiple jurisdictions.

The threshold for obtaining Section 1782 relief is low and courts impose few restrictions on downstream use, making it a mainstay of cross‑border investigations.

Norwich Pharmacal orders in the Cayman Islands and the BVI

Where Chinese parties use offshore structures, Norwich Pharmacal orders are frequently necessary to obtain records held by registered agents or other intermediaries.

A 2024 BVI decision^[1] clarified the two‑stage process:

1. ex parte seal‑and‑gag order; and

2. inter partes hearing on the Norwich Pharmacal application.

Although urgent cases may justify a single‑stage application, this is exceptional. Registered agents are common targets, but liquidators and group companies may also be ordered to disclose financial or governance records.

Freezing orders in the Cayman Islands and the BVI

Offshore courts can freeze assets in support of foreign proceedings (including Chinese proceedings), and freezing orders are typically accompanied by disclosure orders.

The main challenge for Chinese creditors is demonstrating a risk of dissipation. Courts look for concrete indicators, such as prior transfers of property or competing creditors in mainland proceedings, to justify relief. Evidence of asset transfers inside China can be adduced in support of applications in the Cayman Islands and the BVI.

Service of process and evidence taking in China

The Hague service

The Hague service in China has become significantly more efficient. Experienced practitioners can navigate the online application process, translation requirements and procedural nuances. Post‑Covid-19 practice shows timelines of three to six months, a major improvement over previous years.

Evidence taking challenges

China restricts foreign judicial authorities from collecting evidence within its borders. US courts have sometimes interpreted this broadly, leading litigants to conduct depositions in Hong Kong or other jurisdictions.

Practitioners argue that voluntary evidence taking by private parties is not prohibited under Chinese law and future test case litigation may clarify the issue.

Judgment recognition trends

China’s shift to legal reciprocity

Historically, China required de facto reciprocity, namely proof that the foreign jurisdiction had previously recognised a Chinese judgment, before recognising a judgment from a foreign state that does not have an enforcement treaty with China. This created challenges in countries like the US, where recognition cases were relatively rare.

This changed dramatically following the Shanghai Maritime Court’s recognition of an English judgment based on legal reciprocity: it was sufficient that English law could recognise Chinese judgments in principle.^[2]

The case became Guiding Case No. 235, endorsed by the Supreme People’s Court, and marked a national shift.^[3] Chinese courts now focus on whether foreign law allows for recognition, not whether it has occurred.

This has already paved the way for recognition of US judgments in China.

Recognition of Chinese judgments in the US

Most US states have adopted the Uniform Foreign‑Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, enabling the enforcement of Chinese civil money judgments if they meet due process standards.

A prominent New York appellate decision confirmed that Chinese judgments are not categorically unenforceable and must be assessed on a case‑by‑case basis.^[4]

Recognition in the Cayman Islands and the BVI

Offshore courts apply common law principles, considering finality, conclusiveness and jurisdiction. Because the assets held by offshore companies are often shares in holding companies, recognition is frequently followed by:

• a charging order over shares; and
• the appointment of a receiver to manage and realise the underlying assets.

Both jurisdictions also enforce foreign arbitral awards under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention.

Enforcement within China

The centralised enforcement system

China’s enforcement system is highly centralised. Courts can instantly query and freeze bank accounts, real estate, vehicles, digital assets and securities through the ‘online execution, enquiry and control system’.

This nationwide network coordinates information from numerous governmental and financial bodies, giving enforcement judges exceptional reach.

Termination and resumption

If no assets are found, enforcement is suspended, not concluded. Creditors can revive proceedings when new asset information appears, and existing measures (for example, travel bans and freezes) may remain active.

Social credit sanctions

China’s ‘high‑consumption’ restrictions and ‘dishonest person’ designations significantly increase pressure on debtors. Sanctions include bans on flying or high‑speed trains, prohibitions on luxury spending and restrictions on children's enrolment in private school.

A failure to cooperate may lead to detention or criminal liability. Following the 2025 reforms, these sanctions are more integrated into the national social credit framework than ever before.

Conclusion

The landscape of China‑related asset recovery continues to mature. China now offers more transparency and more enforceable mechanisms than many practitioners recognise, while foreign jurisdictions, from New York to the BVI, provide powerful complementary tools.

As understanding grows across legal systems, the effectiveness of cross‑border litigation involving China is increasing rapidly. The opportunities for coordinated, multijurisdictional enforcement have never been stronger.