It looks like a case of take the money and run. Jinyuan Pan and Ke Zhang exploited their relationship with an intending immigrant, offering to buy an Auckland property on her behalf with $1.5 million she remitted from China before later borrowing against this property to buy other Auckland investment properties in their own names, later selling up and transferring funds off-shore.
When Xiaojie Ren demanded return of her $1.5 million after failing to get New Zealand residency, they stalled; claiming it was a loan not yet due for payment, whilst using fancy legal footwork to delay a court hearing.
Ordering repayment, Associate Judge Lester said their claims of a loan were a dishonest invention.
In 2020, Ms Ren was looking to emigrate from China. Her preferences were New Zealand or Australia.
In New Zealand, Jinyuan (William) Pan and Ke (Cecilia) Zhang offered to help. A series of WeChat messages from March 2020 saw them discussing potential house purchases in Auckland.
Pan and Zhang offered to go on the title of a purchase made on her behalf in Auckland suburb Albany, while aware that use of a trust arrangement to hide her ownership was in breach of Overseas Investment Act rules.
Initial attempts by Ms Ren to recover her money stalled when Pan and Zhang asked the High Court block any legal action until Ms Ren put up security for their costs should she lose. Their application was thrown out as simply a ruse to delay the day of reckoning.
Back in the High Court seven months later, Pan and Zhang then claimed they received the $1.5 million as a loan, not falling due for another twelve months.
There was no written contract.
Judge Lester said the series of WeChat messages plus a partial payment made it clear that there was never any loan. Supposed evidence of a loan was a dishonest invention to delay payment, he ruled.
Pan and Zhang were ordered to repay $1.47 million still outstanding.
In addition, they were ordered to make an increased contribution to Ms Ren’s legal costs.
The court was told the two have apparently sold the Albany property purchased with Ms Ren’s money, plus other properties purchased across Auckland with finance raised on security of Ms Ren’s Albany property, and then sent the net proceeds off-shore.
Ren v. Pan & Zhang – High Court (9.09.25)
25.202