ArbiHonor 中诚 · Legal Finance
Case Review Sign in
The Firm Overview The FirmTeamCompliance & Governance
Funding Overview Claim Acquisition & Advance FundingSingle-Case FundingPortfolio FundingJudgment & Award EnforcementLaw Firm Fee FinancingDebt Restructuring & NPL Resolution
Disputes Disputes
Track Record Track Record
Insights Insights
Funders Funders
Language 中文
Compliance & governance

The constraints,written down.

Litigation finance is lawful in most of the places we work and specifically regulated in only some of them. Where the rules are thin, the question a client, a funder or an opposing party is entitled to ask is simple: what will you not do? Our answers are below.

What is workable in mainland China

01 / 4

Mainland China has no dedicated statute governing third-party litigation funding, and no prohibition on assigning claims. The workable route in practice is an assignment under Article 545 of the PRC Civil Code, not intervening in another party’s litigation as a “funder”.

So on PRC-connected matters we appear as assignee: we assert the claim in our own name after transfer, and carry the cost and the risk ourselves. Registration, tax treatment and enforcement all have settled rules along that path.

What we will not do

No criminal matters. No assignment of personal-injury claims. No arrangement that uses criminal process to pressure a civil settlement. No claims with defective title or contractual transfer restrictions.

Disclosure and conflicts

02 / 4

Arbitration in Hong Kong and Singapore, and several offshore courts, require disclosure that funding exists. We disclose in those forums without waiting to be asked.

Conflicts are searched both ways before underwriting — opposing parties, affiliates and instructed firms against the existing book. Where a conflict exists we decline rather than build an information barrier.

Privilege

Diligence material is exchanged under common-interest privilege or the local equivalent. Underwriting memoranda passed to capital partners carry conclusions and the basis for them, never the underlying privileged documents.

AML and sanctions screening

03 / 4

Beneficial-ownership identification, source-of-funds verification and screening against OFAC, EU, UK HMT and UN lists are completed before any assignment or commitment, then re-run quarterly.

Matters touching designated persons, restricted territories or unverifiable source of funds are declined regardless of the expected return.

Data and confidentiality

04 / 4

Case material is accessed on a need-to-know basis — the underwriting team, IC members and named external experts. Access is logged.

Cross-border case data is handled under the PIPL and the outbound data-transfer assessment rules; where transfer is genuinely required, it happens in redacted and minimised form.

Published case summaries require written consent and disclose only dispute type, forum and outcome type.

What is set out above is our operating policy, not legal advice, and it creates no duty to any reader. Where the rules of a court or institution require something different, those rules prevail, and we restructure the arrangement or decline it.