2025年8月1日，香港高等法院對中國知名企業娃哈哈集團的遺產爭議案作出重大裁定。法院頒布非正審禁制令，限制宗慶後獨女宗馥莉動用其在香港匯豐銀行所持、以建浩創投有限公司（Jian Hao Ventures Ltd.，註冊於英屬維京群島）名義設立的帳戶資產。該帳戶截至2024年5月底存有約17.99億美元（約141億港元），主要為現金與債券資產。

法院同時要求宗馥莉不得在中國內地法院對娃哈哈股權性質尚未作出最終裁定前，轉移或動用上述資金，並須在指定期限內提交自2024年2月以來的完整帳戶流動紀錄與資金用途明細。

整起爭議起於娃哈哈創辦人宗慶後於2024年逝世後遺產繼承問題。三名自稱宗慶後非婚生子女的原告——宗繼昌、宗婕莉與宗繼盛，在中國內地及香港兩地同步提起訴訟，指控宗馥莉未經授權轉移巨額資產，違反宗慶後生前設立信託的原意。他們主張宗慶後曾在過世前23天立下兩份遺囑，明確要求為三名子女各自設立7億美元信託，共計21億美元，並由宗馥莉代為執行。然而，宗馥莉一直未簽署相關法律文件，使信託無法正式生效。

面對質疑，宗馥莉則提供一份2020年的遺囑文件，聲稱宗慶後早已指定所有境外資產由她全權繼承，其他子女無權主張。然而，這份遺囑的合法性亦受到挑戰，原告方指出該文件並無家族成員簽名，僅由娃哈哈集團內部高層作為見證人，程序上存有瑕疵。

在證據層面，雙方各執一詞。原告遞交宗慶後親筆手寫的權益確認書與經由律所公證的遺願電郵，內容明言非婚生子女享有等同繼承權。宗馥莉則以程序漏洞與遺囑先後順序提出異議，強調2020年的遺囑應為最終有效文件。

這起官司的核心問題除是財產分配，還涉及娃哈哈集團的控制權問題。宗慶後生前持有集團約29.4%的股份，一旦這部分股權因遺產糾紛需重新分配，極有可能重塑集團的治理結構。杭州中級人民法院已同步展開對股權性質的審理程序，這將直接影響宗馥莉作為現任董事長的法律地位與經營權限。

事件曝光後，娃哈哈品牌形象遭受波及。部分經銷商對公司前景產生疑慮，暫停進貨或觀望觀察市場走勢。外界普遍認為，這場官司將曠日持久，不僅牽涉跨境金融與遺產信託的法理爭議，也暴露中國家族企業在法律架構、傳承規劃上的薄弱環節。

法律界人士指出，這起案件具高度代表性。它結合中國改革開放後興起的民營企業傳承難題、境外資產信託架構的法律空白，以及香港與內地法院如何協同審理跨境繼承糾紛等複雜問題。宗馥莉是否仍能穩固其繼承與管理地位，將取決於法院對遺囑效力、資產性質與信託文件合法性的最終認定。

總而言之，宗慶後家族的遺產紛爭如今已進入法律與輿論雙重焦點，宗馥莉正面臨來自親屬、司法與市場多方壓力。在漫長訴訟周期中，娃哈哈的品牌、治理與傳承機制都將經受前所未有的考驗。

Massive Wahaha Inheritance Battle Unfolds: Hong Kong Court Freezes $1.799 Billion USD in Assets Under Zong Fuli’s Control

On August 1, 2025, the Hong Kong High Court issued an interlocutory injunction in a high-profile inheritance dispute surrounding Chinese beverage giant Wahaha Group. The court ruled that Zong Fuli, daughter of the late founder Zong Qinghou and current chairwoman of the company, may not access or transfer approximately USD $1.799 billion (HKD $14.1 billion) in assets held under the name of Jian Hao Ventures Ltd.—a company registered in the British Virgin Islands and linked to her HSBC account in Hong Kong.

The court further mandated that Zong Fuli must not move or use these funds until the courts in mainland China reach a verdict on the ownership and nature of Wahaha’s equity. She is also required to submit a full accounting of all transactions in the account since February 2024, including fund flows and disbursements.

The legal storm erupted following the death of Wahaha’s founder, Zong Qinghou, in 2024. Three individuals claiming to be his illegitimate children—Zong Jichang, Zong Jieli, and Zong Jisheng—have filed lawsuits both in mainland China and Hong Kong, accusing Zong Fuli of misappropriating the assets meant to fund a family trust. According to the plaintiffs, Zong Qinghou had signed two wills just 23 days before his passing, instructing Zong Fuli to establish a $2.1 billion USD trust—$700 million for each of the three siblings. However, they claim Zong Fuli has refused to sign the necessary legal documents to execute the trust.

In response, Zong Fuli submitted a 2020 will, claiming that her father had already designated all overseas assets to her alone, thereby invalidating any claim by the other siblings. Yet the authenticity and legal standing of this 2020 will are now being questioned. The plaintiffs argue that it lacks valid witness signatures from family members and was signed only by Wahaha senior executives, suggesting procedural irregularities.

Both sides have submitted conflicting evidence. The plaintiffs provided handwritten notes and notarized emails allegedly from Zong Qinghou affirming the rights of his illegitimate children. Zong Fuli, meanwhile, challenges the timing and procedural validity of the documents provided, insisting the 2020 will should prevail as the final, binding legal document.

At the heart of the dispute lies not only the distribution of wealth, but potentially the control of Wahaha Group itself. Zong Qinghou reportedly held 29.4% of the company’s shares. If the mainland court determines that part of these shares should be divided among the plaintiffs, Wahaha’s governance structure could face a significant overhaul. The Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court has already opened a parallel trial to determine the legal nature of these disputed shares.

The case has already had a tangible impact on the Wahaha brand. Following media exposure, some distributors have paused orders and are closely monitoring the company’s stability, leading to short-term market volatility. Observers widely anticipate a protracted legal battle, underscoring the fragility of succession planning and legal infrastructure within Chinese family-owned conglomerates.

Legal experts describe this case as highly representative of broader systemic issues. It highlights common challenges faced by post-reform era Chinese private enterprises—such as succession ambiguity, cross-border asset structuring, and legal inconsistencies between Hong Kong and mainland jurisdictions. Whether Zong Fuli can maintain her position and control over Wahaha depends on how courts ultimately interpret the validity of the wills, the legitimacy of the trust structure, and the ownership status of the assets involved.

In essence, the dispute involving Zong Qinghou’s family has become a high-stakes legal, financial, and public relations battle. Zong Fuli now faces pressure from her relatives, the judiciary, and the market. As the litigation drags on, Wahaha’s brand image, corporate governance, and legacy continuity face unprecedented scrutiny.