"Shenzhen couple divorce dispute three suites and 8 million deposits, how to judge custody? Lawyers tell the truth with real cases"

At three in the afternoon, in a teahouse in Futian District, Shenzhen, Ms. Lin slid a stack of bank statements across the table to Director Shen Jinlong of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm. Her hands were trembling slightly: "Lawyer Shen, we've been married for 11 years, and he has three properties, company shares, and investment accounts under his name. Only now do I find out he's been secretly transferring money behind my back—nearly two million yuan. This marriage, I'm determined to end it."
Ms. Lin's experience is not uncommon. In Shenzhen, 70% of divorce cases involve property division, with the average disputed amount ranging from 3 million to 8 million yuan. What makes it even more challenging is that full-time housewives like Ms. Lin, who are completely in the dark about family finances, are often the most disadvantaged party in property disputes.

Ms. Lin and her husband Mr. Wang own a school-district property in Houhai, Nanshan, two investment properties in Hongshan, Longhua, and have approximately 8 million yuan in savings. Mr. Wang runs a technology company with a stable annual income of over 1.5 million yuan. The couple has one daughter and one son, with the daughter aged 8 and the son just 1 and a half years old.
After Ms. Lin proposed divorce, Mr. Wang took a hard stance: "I bought the house, I started the company, and I want both children. You don't even have a job—why should you get a share of the money?" What chilled Ms. Lin even more was that, upon checking bank records, she discovered that within the past six months, Mr. Wang had transferred money from the account to his mother and sister in more than 30 separate transactions, totaling 1.96 million yuan.
Many parties in Shenzhen hold a misconception, believing that "the money earned by one person belongs to that person." However, Article 1062 of the Civil Code is very clear: wages, bonuses, investment returns, intellectual property earnings, and other income obtained by the spouses during the subsistence of their marriage relationship constitute marital community property and belong jointly to both spouses. In other words, the money earned by Mr. Wang's company—even if it is all deposited in his personal name—Ms. Lin is entitled to half of it.
Regarding child custody, Article 1084 of the Civil Code stipulates: after divorce, children under two years of age shall be directly raised by the mother as a general principle. Ms. Lin's son is only one and a half years old, so her advantage at the legal level is very evident. As for the eight-year-old daughter, the court will consider the child's wishes, but in practice, the mother's side, who has provided long-term care and a stable life, is usually more competitive.
However, Mr. Wang's act of transferring property is the decisive factor in this case. Pursuant to Article 1092 of the Civil Code, where one spouse conceals, transfers, sells off, destroys, or squanders the marital community property, that spouse may receive a smaller share or no share of the community property upon its division in divorce proceedings.
Answer: Yes. As long as it can be proven that the money was transferred during the marriage and there is no reasonable justification (such as normal spousal support or medical expenses), the court may determine it to be malicious transfer of property. In recent case precedents from Shenzhen courts, funds exceeding 50,000 yuan per transaction or transferred intensively over a short period have generally been supported for recovery and re-division.
After Director Shen Jinlong took over the case, he took three actions. First, he immediately applied to the Futian District People's Court for property preservation, freezing the bank accounts and investment accounts still under Mr. Wang's name that had not yet been transferred, involving approximately 5 million yuan. Second, he obtained the bank transaction records and company accounts for the past two years and created a clear timeline chart of the 1.96 million yuan transfer path. Third, he simultaneously initiated the collection of evidence for child custody—records of Ms. Lin picking up and dropping off the child at school, screenshots of parent group chats, and payment receipts for the child's insurance and extracurricular classes.
Here is a critical detail: Director Shen did not rush to file a lawsuit. Instead, he first sent a lawyer's letter to Mr. Wang, attaching copies of the evidence of property transfer, and clearly stated: if Mr. Wang agreed to mediation, Ms. Lin could recover only 1.5 million yuan, and the remaining 460,000 yuan would not be pursued; if the case went to court, he would invoke Article 1092 of the Civil Code to argue that Mr. Wang should receive a share of the property reduced by at least 30%.
Mr. Wang was initially adamant, believing that Ms. Lin had no income and the court would not support her. However, one week before the hearing, after seeing the property preservation list and custody evidence catalog submitted by Director Shen, he proactively contacted the court to request mediation.
Eventually, both parties reached a mediation agreement at Nanshan Court: of the three properties, two (the school-district apartment in Nanshan and one property in Longhua) were awarded to Ms. Lin, and the remaining one to Mr. Wang; of the 1.96 million yuan that Mr. Wang had already transferred, 1.6 million was recovered, with Ms. Lin receiving 1 million and the remaining 600,000 serving as compensation to Mr. Wang; the son was to be raised by Ms. Lin, and the daughter, having lived with her mother for an extended period, was also placed in Ms. Lin's custody. Mr. Wang was ordered to pay monthly child support totaling 12,000 yuan and to bear all educational and medical expenses for both children.
More critically, the 3 million yuan in wealth management principal that Ms. Lin had transferred from her parents' accounts before marriage was explicitly excluded from marital property and awarded in full to Ms. Lin personally, thanks to a complete chain of evidence (transfer records plus prenuptial property notarization). Combined with her share from the division, the total assets Ms. Lin actually preserved exceeded 8 million yuan.
Answer: First, check whether they have handled cases of a similar amount in dispute. The family courts in Shenzhen's Futian and Nanshan districts have very high requirements for the chain of evidence; lawyers who have never handled divorce lawsuits involving over 3 million yuan will find it hard to keep pace. Second, check whether they understand property preservation and equity division, as this directly determines how much you can recover. Third, choose a local law firm — for example, Zhiming Law Firm has operated in Futian, Shenzhen for 26 years and is more familiar with the adjudication standards of courts across all districts in Shenzhen.
This case offers two lessons that Shenzhen residents should remember. First, premarital property must be notarized or supported by complete financial transaction records. Don't think "it's awkward to talk about money" — when divorce day actually comes, the court only recognizes evidence, not feelings. Second, even if you trust your spouse completely after marriage, you should regularly check the changes in your family accounts. In Shenzhen divorce cases, more than half of asset transfers occur within 3 to 6 months before the lawsuit is filed. By the time you discover it, it's often already too late.
If you are facing a similar dilemma and are unsure how to divide the property, savings, or equity under your name, or if you are worried that the other party may already be transferring assets, it is advisable to consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm is located at Room 1802, Block A, Xintian Century Business Center, Shixia North Second Street, Futian District, Shenzhen. Tel: 0755-25986969. Over the past 26 years, we have handled more than 10,000 cases, and our family law team has extensive practical experience in high-net-worth divorce property division and child custody disputes. Acting one day earlier may mean preserving hundreds of thousands or even millions more in assets.