AsianFin -- Kelly Zong, the only publicly recognized daughter of the late Chinese beverage tycoon Zong Qinghou, is now at the center of a contentious family feud playing out in courts.
The high-profile dispute over assets of Wahaha Group, China’s largest private beverage company, pits Zong against three individuals who claim to be her half-siblings—and who are demanding access to the multibillion-dollar fortune left behind by the company’s founder.
According to filings and reports from Bloomberg and other Chinese and international media outlets, Jacky Zong (Zong Jichang), Jessie Zong (Zong Jieli), and Jerry Zong (Zong Jisheng) have jointly filed two lawsuits against Kelly Zong. One case, lodged with the High Court of Hong Kong, seeks to freeze an HSBC trust account allegedly set up under the late founder’s name. The other, filed in Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, aims to establish their legal inheritance claim over the 29.4% stake in Wahaha Group currently held by Kelly.
The three plaintiffs, whose lawyer has publicly stated that they are biological children of Zong Qinghou, argue that they are entitled to either equal inheritance or trust beneficiary rights. The Hong Kong case revolves around a trust account with a reported balance of $1.8 billion as of early 2024. The plaintiffs claim that Zong Qinghou had instructed aides to create this trust for them and later ordered funds to be transferred into it when initial deposits fell short. They allege that over $1 million has already been withdrawn and are seeking to block any further transactions.
jrhz.infoKelly Zong's legal team has denied receiving any instructions from her father regarding such a trust and has questioned the authenticity of the plaintiffs' evidence. The Wahaha Group has issued a statement saying the family’s legal matters will not impact normal business operations.
The inheritance dispute marks the first major test of Kelly Zong’s leadership since she officially took the reins of the family business following her father’s death. While much of the online discourse has referred to the plaintiffs as “illegitimate children,” such terminology is both legally and factually ambiguous under mainland Chinese law. The key issue, according to legal experts, lies in whether the plaintiffs can prove their relationship to the deceased and establish a valid claim to the contested assets.
Legal scholars note that this case may become a landmark in China’s evolving legal landscape regarding cross-border trusts and succession. Shi Yue, a senior partner at Beijing Hengdu Law Firm, says that while the Hong Kong case focuses on trust property, the Hangzhou case is centered on testamentary inheritance. The plaintiffs' success hinges on both proving their identities and challenging the validity of a 2025 will reportedly signed by Zong Qinghou in the presence of Kelly and several senior Wahaha executives.
If the trust’s beneficiaries were clearly designated as Kelly Zong, then her control over the assets would likely remain intact. If, however, other heirs were also named, the plaintiffs' status becomes crucial. Shi Yue further explains that for a will to be considered valid under Chinese civil law, it must meet specific conditions regarding intent, content, and legal form.
At this stage, the plaintiffs carry the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that the HSBC trust exists, that they were its intended beneficiaries, and that the 2025 will is flawed in substance or procedure. Until then, Kelly Zong is under no legal obligation to validate the will herself. From a legal perspective, particularly in the Hangzhou case, she may take a wait-and-see approach.
The conflict also highlights the complex interplay between common law and civil law systems. Hong Kong, a common law jurisdiction, will deliver a ruling within two months, but the mainland court will ultimately determine inheritance rights based on Chinese civil law, including whether the Hong Kong judgment can be recognized and enforced locally.
Despite the swirl of media attention and speculation—ranging from unverified reports about the plaintiffs’ mothers to questions about secret overseas marriages—no court has formally recognized the three plaintiffs as legal heirs. In the absence of hard evidence, many of these claims remain rumors.
