Great Wall Asset (长城资产) Accuses Taihe Group (泰禾集团) of False Disclosure Over 958 million yuan (9.58亿元) Debt

Allegations and immediate fallout

Asset manager Great Wall Asset (长城资产), together with Wuhu Changwei Investment Center (芜湖长维投资中心（有限合伙）) and Shenzhen Taihe Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (深圳泰禾房地产开发有限公司), issued a joint statement saying Taihe Group (泰禾集团) published false notices about a 9.58‑billion‑yuan? correction: 958 million yuan (9.58亿元) claim. It has been reported that the three parties said Fujian Zhongwei (福建中维) transferred the entire claim, including the 9.58亿元 piece, to Wuhu Changwei in December 2020 and therefore permanently lost any right to re‑dispose of the debt. Great Wall Asset called Taihe’s February announcements “malicious infringement” and demanded immediate retractions, a written apology and compensation; it has been reported that lawyers for Wuhu Changwei have already sent a demand letter and threatened litigation and regulatory complaints if demands are not met.

Reportedly, Taihe published two February notices suggesting Fujian Zhongwei would transfer the 9.58亿元 claim to Shengjing Bank (盛京银行) as repayment collateral. Who really owns the claim? That is now the crux. Great Wall Asset says the transfer to Wuhu Changwei completed all legal formalities in 2020; Taihe’s move, if true, would amount to a double disposition of the same asset. Great Wall Asset emphasized it will use “all lawful means” to pursue damages and enforcement if the notices are not withdrawn.

Background and wider implications

The dispute traces back to a 2017 financing package: Shenzhen Taihe was borrower on a large 120.03亿元 (12.003 billion yuan) loan agreement tied to the Shenzhen Yuyuan project, with Taihe Group providing guarantees. When the project stalled, Great Wall Asset and Taihe negotiated a debt restructuring and set up Wuhu Changwei as the restructuring vehicle; through a combination of debt and equity arrangements, Great Wall Asset’s platform effectively took project control while Taihe withdrew from day‑to‑day leadership. That history is why Wuhu Changwei now claims sole ownership of the disputed claim.

This episode is symptomatic of a broader problem in China’s battered property sector: complex multi‑layered transfers, overlapping guarantees and aggressive re‑pledging of assets have produced repeated “one asset, multiple owners” disputes. It has been reported that Shengjing Bank’s wider exposure — and pressure to recover nonperforming loans — helps explain why the bank was named in Taihe’s notices. Legal remedies are available, but courts typically take months or years; in the meantime, contested claims can disrupt project cashflows, delay recoveries and increase systemic strain on creditors and asset managers.