A will and estate plan covering assets Mainland

A family's wealth rarely sits in one place. For principals with property, business interests or financial holdings in Mainland China alongside assets elsewhere, the estate planning question is not simply "who inherits?" It is "which legal system governs each asset class, and can the succession instruments produced in one jurisdiction be recognised in the other?" That question has a definite answer – but it requires the right sequence of instruments and an adviser who understands where the two systems diverge.

A will and estate plan covering assets in Mainland China works through coordinated succession documents governed by the applicable law of each jurisdiction, structured so that Mainland assets pass under instruments a Mainland notary or people's court will accept, while offshore and Hong Kong-held assets are handled separately. The governing regime for Mainland real property and domestic assets is Mainland Chinese succession law; the Trustee Ordinance (Cap. 29) and Hong Kong common law govern Hong Kong-sited instruments. Coordination between the two is the operative planning challenge, and it must be resolved before any document is executed.

The sections below describe when this kind of plan becomes urgent, how the route runs in practice, which decisions the client must own, and what the cross-border interface actually looks like on the ground.

When does a foreign principal need this – and what triggers the instruction?

The trigger is rarely abstract. It arrives in one of three forms: a change in residence, an acquisition of significant Mainland property, or a life event in the family – a marriage, a divorce, the birth of a child, or the death of a parent whose estate is now in dispute. Each of these moves a theoretical succession question into an operational one.

Foreign nationals holding Mainland real property through direct ownership or through a domestic entity face a specific complication. Mainland succession law governs the transfer of China-situated assets at death, regardless of where the deceased was domiciled. A will executed in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, or the British Virgin Islands under foreign law may be effective for the assets it can reach – but it will not automatically extend to immovable property in Shanghai, Shenzhen or Chengdu. That is the gap the plan is designed to close.

In our cross-border practice, we regularly see the instruction arrive late – after a principal has already executed a global will through their home-country lawyer, who has not addressed the Mainland dimension. The result is a succession plan with a structural hole. The plan looks complete on paper. It is not.

The other category is the principal who is relocating from Hong Kong to Singapore, from Europe to the Greater Bay Area, or who is establishing a family office in a new jurisdiction. Pre-residence planning of this kind intersects directly with succession: the tax residence of the principal at death, the situs of assets at that date, and the forced-heirship rules of the family members' home jurisdictions all bear on what the estate plan can and cannot achieve. If this describes your position, our note on pre-immigration and pre-residence wealth planning addresses the overlapping considerations.

How does Mainland succession law interact with Hong Kong and offshore instruments?

Mainland Chinese succession law follows a situs-based approach for immovable property: the law of the place where real property is situated governs its succession. For movable assets – bank accounts, equity holdings, domestic corporate interests – the governing law question is more nuanced and depends on the nature of the asset and the relevant conflict-of-laws analysis.

This creates a genuinely different environment from the common-law world. Hong Kong has no forced-heirship regime; a principal may leave assets in Hong Kong to whoever they choose, subject to modest family-provision rules. Mainland succession law reserves shares for certain categories of heirs who cannot be fully excluded. Where a principal's family includes heirs from jurisdictions with their own forced-heirship positions – certain civil-law European countries, or the Mainland itself – the interaction of those regimes across the estate map must be traced asset by asset.

The Trustee Ordinance (Cap. 29), substantially reformed with effect from 1 December 2013, is a strong governing law for Hong Kong-sited trusts. The 2013 reform abolished the rule against perpetuities for Hong Kong trusts, strengthened protection of Hong Kong-law trusts against foreign forced-heirship claims, and provided statutory protection where a settlor reserves certain powers. These are real advantages – but they apply to Hong Kong-sited trust assets. They do not touch Mainland-situated property held in the principal's own name, and they cannot override Mainland succession rules for those assets.

What follows from this? A plan that holds Mainland assets inside an offshore holding structure may shift the situs analysis for the holding entity's shares. Whether that structure is effective, recognised, and durable is a factual and legal question that requires advice on both the Mainland and the offshore rules. This is not a step to skip.

What is the route – and where do locally licensed firms join the engagement?

The route runs in a defined sequence. Our desk manages the international and cross-border architecture; locally licensed Hong Kong firms and, where required, Mainland-qualified counsel handle the jurisdiction-specific steps that require local admission.

The first phase is the asset map. Before any document is drafted, we produce a cross-border asset and structure inventory: what is held, where it sits legally, under what name or entity, and what the governing law of each asset class appears to be. This is the analytical foundation. A will or trust executed without it is likely to misstate the scope of its own coverage.

The second phase is the instrument design. For most principals with significant Mainland exposure, the answer is not one global will but a coordinated suite: a Mainland-applicable will (executed and notarised in accordance with Mainland requirements, covering China-situated assets) and a separate instrument for Hong Kong and offshore assets. Whether those offshore assets sit in a trust, a family limited partnership, or a holding company above the operating structure depends on the family's profile, the quantum of assets, and the succession objectives. We work through those options with the client before any entity or trust instrument is engaged.

The third phase is execution. For the Mainland will, execution and notarisation in the Mainland must follow Mainland form requirements. Locally licensed Mainland-qualified counsel, working alongside our desk, handles that step. For the Hong Kong will and any trust instrument, locally licensed Hong Kong firms admitted to practise Hong Kong law handle execution and any required registration. Our role is to coordinate the sequence, confirm that the instruments do not conflict, and ensure that the combined suite covers the full asset map without gap or overlap.

The fourth phase – and one that clients often underestimate – is the maintenance cycle. A will and estate plan is not a one-time exercise. Assets move. Jurisdictions change their rules. Family composition changes. A plan designed for the family's position today should be reviewed whenever any of the following occurs: a material acquisition or disposal of Mainland assets; a change in the principal's tax or legal residence; a change in family structure; or a material regulatory development in either jurisdiction. We build a review cadence into every engagement of this kind.

The sequence above describes the standard route. Your matter turns on the documents, the jurisdictions actually engaged, and the order of steps – which is where the route is won or lost. To discuss how this applies to your specific position, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

What decisions does the client own – and what cannot be delegated?

Estate planning across two legal systems requires the principal to make a set of substantive decisions that no adviser can make for them. Understanding which decisions those are – and why they matter – is itself part of the planning exercise.

The first is the choice of governing law for the will or trust instrument. This is not purely technical. The choice of Hong Kong law for a trust, for instance, activates the protections of the Trustee Ordinance and the firewall provisions against foreign forced-heirship claims. The choice of an offshore jurisdiction's law brings different advantages and different constraints. The client must understand the practical consequence of each option before executing.

The second is the identification of beneficiaries and the allocation of interests. Where a family spans multiple jurisdictions – which is the common case in our cross-border practice – the question of who receives what, in what form, and at what age or condition is also a question of which jurisdiction's laws will govern that beneficiary's receipt. A Mainland-resident beneficiary receiving a Hong Kong trust distribution faces a different set of formalities and tax-reporting considerations from a beneficiary in a common-law jurisdiction. The plan should address all of them.

The third is the appointment of executors and trustees. Executors in the Mainland context must be able to act in the Mainland – which means, in practice, that they need to be persons or entities capable of engaging with the Mainland notarial and probate system. A Hong Kong professional executor who has never operated in the Mainland is not a substitute. The appointment must be realistic.

The fourth decision – often the most uncomfortable – is the contingency map. What happens if the first-named executor dies before the principal? What happens if the primary beneficiary predeceases? What happens if a holding entity is wound up before the principal dies? A plan that does not answer these questions has not been finished.

If an earlier filing, structure or enforcement attempt produced an adverse or stalled result, a second read can identify the strategic error and the routes still open. Write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

The cross-border interface: Hong Kong as hub, Mainland as situs

The structural logic of this engagement sits at the interface between two legal systems that share a constitutional relationship but operate differently in succession matters. Hong Kong is a common-law jurisdiction within the one country, two systems framework. The Mainland operates under a civil-law tradition in succession. The two systems do not automatically recognise each other's succession instruments – a will probated in Hong Kong does not automatically give the executor standing to deal with Mainland assets without a separate Mainland process.

This is the central design constraint. The answer to it, in most cases, is dual instruments: a Mainland-applicable will that a Mainland notary will certify and that a Mainland people's court or notarial authority will accept as the basis for succession, and a Hong Kong or offshore instrument for the rest of the estate. Dual instruments must be drafted with care to avoid any provision in one that conflicts with a provision in the other. Where they overlap – particularly where a Mainland holding company's equity interest sits above a Mainland operating asset – the question of which instrument governs the equity transfer is itself a planning decision.

Cross-border enforcement is the downstream test of any succession plan. A Hong Kong grant of probate must be formally recognised in the Mainland through an applicable Mainland legal process before the executor can deal with Mainland assets. The Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645), which came into force on 29 January 2024, expanded the scope of Mainland judgments capable of recognition in Hong Kong, including non-monetary judgments, but succession matters and certain other categories remain outside its scope. The practical route for Mainland succession is therefore through Mainland-specific notarial and judicial channels, which is why the plan must be designed for that process from the outset, not retrofitted after the fact.

We regularly act on matters of this kind. The cross-border succession interface is one of the defining features of our private wealth practice. For a matter that illustrates the structural approach across a different jurisdiction pair, our note on succession planning across Hong Kong and Cyprus sets out the comparable analytical process.

Common mistakes that foreign principals and their home-country advisers make

The most common mistake is the global will drafted by a home-country lawyer who does not address Mainland situs assets. A European will that states "I give all my property wherever situated" does not automatically transfer Mainland real property. The Mainland succession process requires a Mainland-compliant instrument or a recognition step that most global wills are not structured to support.

The second is the assumption that an offshore holding structure above a Mainland entity resolves the succession problem. It may. It may not. Whether the offshore holding company's shares can be transferred at death, and whether that transfer is effective for the underlying Mainland assets, depends on the structure of the holding, the terms of any joint-venture agreement, the restrictions in the company's constitutional documents, and the applicable approval requirements in the Mainland. These are not obstacles that disappear because the top-level entity is in the BVI or the Cayman Islands.

The third mistake – and one that sophisticated principals sometimes make – is treating the trust as a universal solution. A Hong Kong-law trust over Hong Kong assets is well-protected. The Trustee Ordinance's firewall provisions give real protection against foreign forced-heirship claims for Hong Kong-sited assets. But a trust does not hold Mainland immovable property in the principal's own name. If the Mainland real property stays outside the trust – which is the common position – it needs its own succession instrument and its own plan.

What foreign counsel often get wrong is the sequencing. They draft instruments in the order that is logical from their own jurisdiction's perspective. In a Hong Kong / Mainland cross-border plan, the Mainland instrument should be designed first – because its form requirements constrain what the coordinating offshore or Hong Kong instrument can say about the same assets. The logic runs from the most constrained system outward.

Self-assessment: is your current plan adequate?

The following questions give a rapid read on whether an existing plan has addressed the Mainland dimension adequately.

Does your current will or trust instrument explicitly identify Mainland-situated assets and state how they are to be dealt with?
Has a Mainland-compliant will been executed and notarised in the Mainland, covering China-situated immovable and movable assets?
If Mainland assets are held through an offshore or Hong Kong holding entity, has the succession of the holding company's shares been addressed in the constitutional documents and the succession plan?
Have Mainland-resident or Mainland-national beneficiaries been considered separately from other beneficiaries, including any applicable formalities on their side?
Are the executors or trustees named in the plan capable of acting in the Mainland succession process?
Has the plan been reviewed since any material change in assets, residence or family structure?
Have the forced-heirship positions of any civil-law family members been traced against the plan's distribution provisions?

If any of these questions returns a "no" or "uncertain" answer, the plan has a gap. Identifying and closing that gap is the first step of an engagement of this kind.

A practical illustration: two fact patterns

Consider a European technology founder who settled in Hong Kong in the mid-2020s and holds a Mainland property through direct personal ownership alongside equity in a BVI holding company above a Mainland operating entity. The founder had a UK will drafted before relocating. That will covers worldwide assets in the conventional formula – but neither the UK lawyer nor the BVI administrator had addressed the Mainland property directly. In autumn 2026, the founder instructed our desk. We mapped the asset structure, identified the gap, and coordinated the drafting of a separate Mainland-applicable will with Mainland-qualified counsel. We also reviewed the BVI holding company's articles to confirm that the succession of shares was not constrained by pre-emption provisions that would defeat the intended transfer. The result was a coordinated suite of instruments covering the full asset map without conflict.

A different fact pattern: a Mainland-national family with a Hong Kong permanent resident as the principal and significant residential and commercial property in two Mainland cities, alongside a Hong Kong family office holding investment assets. The family's concern was forced-heirship exposure from a prior marriage in a civil-law jurisdiction. We reviewed the succession position of each asset class separately, designed a Hong Kong-law trust over the Hong Kong-sited assets using the Trustee Ordinance's firewall provisions, and coordinated Mainland wills for the China-situated property through locally qualified counsel. The outcome – qualitatively – was that the forced-heirship exposure was addressed for the Hong Kong assets and the Mainland plan was structured to reflect the family's actual wishes within the constraints of Mainland succession law.

How we can assist

Our private wealth desk works with international groups, founders and family principals who need a succession and asset-protection structure that functions across the Hong Kong / Mainland interface. We do not offer a one-size solution. We map each client's asset and family position, identify the instruments that each jurisdiction will recognise, and coordinate the execution across locally licensed counsel in Hong Kong and the Mainland.

Specifically, for a will and estate plan covering assets in Mainland China, we can review the succession and asset-protection position, model the trust and residence options, and prepare the structuring plan – coordinating with locally licensed Hong Kong and Mainland-qualified counsel on the steps that require local admission.

Related practices

Private Wealth – succession, trust structuring, asset protection and family-office planning across jurisdictions
Holding Structures – offshore and Hong Kong holding-entity design for cross-border principals

Frequently asked questions

What does the route look like for a will and estate plan covering assets in Mainland China?

The route runs in four phases: an asset map across all jurisdictions, instrument design (typically a Mainland-applicable will plus a separate Hong Kong or offshore instrument), coordinated execution with locally licensed Mainland-qualified and Hong Kong counsel, and an ongoing review cycle. The Mainland instrument must satisfy Mainland form requirements, which means notarisation and, where relevant, judicial recognition in the Mainland. The international and cross-border architecture is managed from our Hong Kong desk. The locally licensed execution steps are handled by allied counsel admitted in the relevant jurisdiction. The two instruments must be drafted so they do not conflict – which means the Mainland instrument is generally designed first.

Do I need a Hong Kong adviser for a will and estate plan covering assets in Mainland China?

A Hong Kong adviser with a cross-border succession practice provides genuine value where the principal holds assets on both sides of the boundary, or where the succession plan needs to coordinate with an offshore holding structure. The Hong Kong common-law system, the Trustee Ordinance's firewall provisions, and Hong Kong's position as the standard hub for international private wealth structuring in Greater China all make Hong Kong the logical coordinating seat for the engagement. The Mainland-specific steps – notarisation, any judicial recognition process – require Mainland-qualified counsel working alongside the Hong Kong desk. A home-country adviser without cross-border succession experience in this corridor is unlikely to see the Mainland situs gap until it is too late.

How long does a will and estate plan covering assets in Mainland China usually take?

Timeline depends on the complexity of the asset map, the number of jurisdictions engaged, and the speed of the notarial and execution steps in the Mainland. For a straightforward principal with a defined set of Mainland assets and no complex holding structure, a coordinated suite of instruments can be prepared and executed within a matter of months. Where the plan involves a trust, a restructuring of the holding entity above Mainland assets, or the resolution of a prior forced-heirship question, the timeline extends. The asset map phase is typically the first deliverable; parties should verify the current position as to any Mainland notarial requirements before committing to a specific timetable.

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.