Why Xia Haijun's HK$335,000 Allowance Request Was Rejected

As the Evergrande fraud case concluded with founder Xu Jiayin sentenced to life imprisonment, former vice chairman and president Xia Haijun was not among those sentenced. He appeared instead in Hong Kong's High Court asking for his monthly living allowance to be raised from HK$50,000 to HK$335,000 while his assets remain frozen under the company's liquidation. The request cited spending on Dior and Chanel handbags for his daughter and top private-school fees for his son. Judge Gao Haowen rejected it, saying he did not trust Xia.

The receiver had set the HK$50,000 monthly cap after Hong Kong courts froze and took control of Xia's assets. His lawyers argued the figure was unrealistic for someone who is not bankrupt and needed to maintain the standard of a former Evergrande president. They listed family expenses including California property taxes, family trust fees, and school fees of HK$1 million to HK$2 million a year.

The court was told that after the freeze, Xia transferred about US$78 million to other accounts over two years and spent roughly US$300,000 in 2025 alone using an American Express black card. Four earlier attempts to unfreeze assets had been rejected. Chinese media reports place him in a seaside villa in Irvine, California; his wife reportedly holds three mansions and four luxury cars, with a family trust of about US$24 million. He earned more than HK$1.8 billion during 14 years at Evergrande.

Reports attribute his absence from the mainland sentencing to a time gap and geography. Evergrande's troubles were visible from August 2020, and Xia was linked in 2022 to the RMB13.4 billion Evergrande Property deposit guarantee matter before leaving the board while already overseas. By the time Xu Jiayin was detained in 2023, Xia was outside mainland China. There is no public confirmation that mainland authorities have opened a criminal case, issued an arrest warrant, or begun an international pursuit.

What the Court's Credibility Finding Means for Xia Haijun

What the Hong Kong court actually found

Judge Gao Haowen did not reject merely an inflated budget. He said he did not trust Xia. Receivers reported about US$78 million in transfers after the freeze and US$300,000 in black-card spending in 2025. Four previous requests to release assets had failed. Those findings support the court treating Xia as a continuing dissipation risk, not simply a former executive with expensive habits.

The 'time gap and border' explanation

Chinese media analysis suggests Xia avoided the mainland sentencing because he left and remained abroad before enforcement tightened. He was linked to the RMB13.4 billion Evergrande Property deposit pledge case in 2022 and departed the board while already overseas. By 2023, when Xu Jiayin was detained, Xia was outside the jurisdiction. This is a plausible explanation for his absence from the judgment, but it is not a finding of no wrongdoing.

What the ruling signals for further legal efforts

Xia's legal position was that he is not bankrupt and should keep his previous standard of living. The judge rejected that framing, prioritizing the integrity of the freeze and creditor protection over status. Until Xia can explain the disputed post-freeze transfers, any new request to ease the controls faces the same credibility problem.

What to Expect Next in the Xia Haijun Asset-Freeze Case

  • For the Hong Kong receivership: the HK$50,000 monthly cap remains in place. Any future request from Xia would need to address the roughly US$78 million in post-freeze transfers and the 2025 American Express black-card spending before the court is likely to loosen controls.
  • For mainland enforcement: no public criminal case, arrest warrant or international pursuit against Xia has been confirmed. A formal announcement from mainland authorities would be the clearest signal of whether he faces further legal exposure beyond the Hong Kong asset freeze.
  • For Evergrande creditors: the decision reinforces the freeze but does not by itself return assets. The receiver would still need to establish which assets are recoverable and outside Xia's control.