Tian, a 63-year-old woman from Qinhuangdao, Hebei Province, originally just wanted to track down the shared assets with her ex-husband during their divorce process. However, she unexpectedly discovered a shocking secret: within the JiaSheng Jingyuan residential complex developed by her ex-husband, there were 19 properties confiscated by the government back in 2015 due to illegal construction. Surprisingly, more than a decade later, these properties had not been reclaimed by the government, and some were still being rented out for profit.
According to a report by Jixiang News, Tian, a 63-year-old woman this year, was a shareholder of JiaTai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. in Qinhuangdao, where her husband, Wu, was the legal representative of the company.
Last August, while conducting a property inventory for the divorce, Tian was shocked to discover that within the JiaSheng Jingyuan residential complex she was involved in developing, there were 19 properties deemed illegal and confiscated by the government over a decade ago, but these properties had not been turned over to the authorities to date.
“It wasn’t until I checked the company’s information that I found out about these 19 confiscated properties, and they have not been transferred for so many years,” said Tian.
The JiaSheng Jingyuan project was jointly developed by JiaTai Company and another company named Sheng Long Real Estate. During the construction process, the developers were found to have made unauthorized changes to the planning, adding approximately 2000 square meters of illegal buildings. In 2015, the Qinhuangdao City Urban and Rural Planning Department issued an administrative penalty decision, confiscating the 19 properties involved.
However, more than a decade later, these properties had yet to be effectively managed by the government.
The report stated that recently, journalists visited the JiaSheng Jingyuan residential complex in person. After visiting each of the 19 properties in question, it was found that while some units were vacant, several properties were still in use. Some were being used as commercial spaces, some were used by companies as offices, and some residential units were being rented out.
In the commercial area of the complex’s 43 buildings, out of the 4 confiscated properties, only one was vacant, while the rest were occupied by tenants.
Multiple confiscated properties on the 18th floor of a residential building remained closed. Some residents stated that the properties were rented through agencies, and they were unaware of the specific ownership status.
In another residential building, a tenant mentioned leasing the property from Sheng Long Real Estate for an annual rent of around ten thousand yuan. This indicates that properties that were supposed to belong to the government might still be generating rental income over a period of ten years.
In 2022, the Logistics Service Center of the Harbor District filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding the original shareholders of the two development companies to cease occupation, vacate, and return the 19 properties, as well as pay for the period of property use.
However, the court did not ultimately support their claims. The Second Instance of the Qinhuangdao Intermediate People’s Court upheld the original ruling, stating that administrative procedures, rather than civil procedures, should be enforced. However, conflicting statements from relevant parties resulted in these properties remaining unmanaged for an extended period.
On May 13th this year, the Logistics Service Center of the Harbor District once again issued a notice to the involved shareholders, requiring them to cease occupation, rental, and profit-generating activities, vacate and return the properties within 15 days, or face consequences.
However, as of now, the 19 properties have yet to be transferred.
Concerns arise over the loss of state-owned assets
Tian believes that this is no longer just a civil dispute but a matter concerning the long-term occupation of state-owned assets.
She stated that over a decade, these properties have neither been taken over by the government nor have actions been completed, with some properties continuing to generate rental income. The questions of who is using them, who is profiting, and who should be held responsible all need further investigation.
Regarding the 19 properties that were confiscated long ago but remained unreclaimed, the public is more concerned about when they will truly return to the state-owned asset management system and who should bear the losses incurred over the past decade.