近期圍繞中國飲料巨頭「娃哈哈」家族的繼承糾紛成為輿論焦點。根據多家港媒與內地財經媒體報導，娃哈哈現任董事長宗馥莉，因資產糾紛遭到三名自稱為「同父異母弟妹」的宗姓人士在香港提起訴訟。三位原告分別為宗繼昌（Jacky Zong）、宗婕莉（Jessie Zong）與宗繼盛（Jerry Zong），他們的律師已確認，這三人皆為已故娃哈哈創辦人宗慶後的子女，但並非與其原配所生，而是「非婚生子女」。

三名原告此次訴訟的核心爭點，在於對宗慶後生前設立的信託資金的主張。他們認為，自己作為宗慶後的子女，依法應享有與宗馥莉相等的繼承權或信託受益權，並要求取回本應屬於自己的部分——據報金額高達7億美元，占總信託資產約18億美元中的相當比例。此案一經曝光，立即引發市場與輿論對娃哈哈內部治理與家族關係的廣泛關注。

宗馥莉作為宗慶後與原配施幼珍的獨生女，長期被塑造成娃哈哈的唯一法定接班人，自2010年代起即逐步進入公司管理層，至2021年12月正式接任董事長一職。而宗慶後於2024年初病逝後，宗馥莉更是全面掌控集團運營。在過去的公眾形象與媒體敘事中，娃哈哈一直呈現出「單傳繼承」的穩定格局，此次三名「隱藏子女」的出現，無疑打破外界長期以來對宗家架構的認知。

對於此訴訟事件，娃哈哈官方僅簡短回應：「這是家族內部事務，與公司運營與業務無關，公司不會提供任何答覆口徑或相關回應。」這種回應模式亦反映出企業欲與家族糾紛切割的意圖，以穩定市場信心與員工情緒。

從法律角度來看，此案的關鍵，在於宗繼昌等人是否能在法律上被確認為宗慶後的子女。根據中國《民法典》第1127條規定，非婚生子女與婚生子女在繼承權上享有平等地位。只要能夠透過法律程序（如DNA鑑定、過往證據或法院認定）證明其為宗慶後的生理子女，那麼他們依法就擁有對宗慶後遺產的繼承權，包括信託基金的受益資格或可能持有的公司股權。

然而，事情並非這麼簡單。第一，此案目前是在香港提起的信託訴訟，主要涉及境外信託資產。若信託本身早已設計為指定受益人，例如僅限宗馥莉，則其他子女除非證明信託設定過程存在欺詐、脅迫或違反遺囑意願，否則成功取得受益權的難度較高。第二，若牽涉到公司股份繼承，則需視宗慶後是否持有個人股份、股份是否已轉移或納入信託。若他尚持有股份或其個人信託控制公司股權，其他子女可依法主張其份額；但若股份已轉移至宗馥莉名下或法人結構已調整，他們取得實質控制的機會恐將大幅降低。

此外，在中國企業實務中，「實際控制權」通常不完全等同於法律繼承權，尤其是家族企業多設有架構性防火牆，例如境外信託、VIE架構或特殊股份設計，這也使得非核心繼承人即使擁有法律地位，也未必能參與企業決策。

綜合而言，宗馥莉雖面臨來自同父異母弟妹的資產爭奪，但因信託安排、股份結構與企業控制權集中等因素，目前她對娃哈哈的掌控權尚未受到直接威脅。不過，此案的發展仍可能對宗家聲譽、企業形象與未來資產分配造成長期影響，若訴訟成功，宗繼昌等人未來或將具備主張部分財產甚至股權的正當基礎。未來中國與香港法院如何判定其親屬關係與繼承權，將成為本案的決定性關鍵。

Recently, a high-profile inheritance dispute within the family behind China’s beverage giant Wahaha has captured public attention. According to multiple reports from Hong Kong and mainland financial media, Wahaha’s current chairwoman, Zong Fuli, is being sued in Hong Kong by three individuals surnamed Zong, who claim to be her half-siblings. The plaintiffs — Jacky Zong (Zong Jichang), Jessie Zong (Zong Jieli), and Jerry Zong (Zong Jisheng) — have been confirmed by their lawyer to be biological children of the late Wahaha founder, Zong Qinghou, although not born of his legal marriage. They are considered illegitimate children.

At the core of the lawsuit is a claim over a trust fund established by Zong Qinghou prior to his death. The plaintiffs argue that, as Zong’s biological children, they are legally entitled to equal inheritance or trust beneficiary rights alongside Zong Fuli. They are seeking the return of what they claim to be their rightful share — reportedly around USD 700 million, a significant portion of the USD 1.8 billion trust. Once made public, the lawsuit sparked widespread concern over Wahaha’s internal governance and family dynamics.

Zong Fuli, the only daughter of Zong Qinghou and his legal wife Shi Youzhen, has long been portrayed as the sole legal heir of the Wahaha empire. Since the 2010s, she gradually assumed managerial responsibilities and officially became chairwoman in December 2021. Following her father’s death in early 2024, Zong Fuli took full control of the group. For years, Wahaha’s public narrative has emphasized a single-line inheritance, so the sudden emergence of three previously unknown children has upended public perceptions of the Zong family structure.

Wahaha’s official response to the lawsuit was brief and firm: “This is a private family matter and has nothing to do with the company’s operations or business. The company will not offer any official comment or response.” This reply reflects an attempt to clearly separate family affairs from corporate interests, aiming to maintain market confidence and internal stability.

From a legal standpoint, the critical question lies in whether the plaintiffs can be legally recognized as Zong Qinghou’s children. Under Article 1127 of China’s Civil Code, illegitimate children hold the same inheritance rights as legitimate children. If Jacky, Jessie, and Jerry Zong can prove their biological relationship through legal means (such as DNA testing, documented evidence, or court rulings), they are entitled by law to a share in Zong Qinghou’s estate, including any trust entitlements or company shares.

However, the situation is complex. First, the lawsuit was filed in Hong Kong, and the assets in question are held in offshore trusts. If the trust was legally structured to designate Zong Fuli as the sole beneficiary, other potential heirs would have to prove fraud, coercion, or violation of Zong’s original intent in the trust arrangement to have a chance at claiming beneficiary rights. Second, if the dispute involves company shares, it would depend on whether Zong Qinghou held shares personally, whether they were transferred before his death, or placed into a trust. If he retained direct ownership or control through a personal trust, the other children might have grounds to claim a share. However, if the shares have already been transferred to Zong Fuli or restructured within corporate entities, their chance of gaining actual control would be significantly diminished.

Additionally, in Chinese corporate practice, actual control of a company does not necessarily equate to legal inheritance rights. Many family-owned firms implement structural safeguards, such as offshore trusts, VIE (Variable Interest Entity) arrangements, or special share structures, which can effectively block non-core heirs from influencing management or ownership, even if they hold legal status.

In conclusion, while Zong Fuli is currently facing a serious challenge from her alleged half-siblings over family assets, her control over Wahaha remains unshaken for now due to the trust's legal design, the corporate shareholding structure, and her consolidated leadership. However, this case may carry long-term implications for the Zong family’s reputation, the company’s public image, and the future allocation of its vast wealth. Should the plaintiffs win the case, they may gain a legitimate basis to claim part of the family’s assets or even equity. The final outcome will largely hinge on how courts in both Hong Kong and mainland China rule on parentage verification and inheritance rights — which could set a precedent for similar high-profile cases in China’s corporate and legal landscape.