A high‑profile crisis has engulfed Yingke, the world’s largest law firm by headcount, after reports that a vast financing guarantee scheme linked to its former global board chair, Mei Xiangrong, collapsed. The case has already left individual savers — many elderly and unaware of the full corporate structure — fearing they have lost lifetime savings after buying investment products marketed under the firm’s brand and guarantees.
Retiree Li Xiulan, 70, told reporters she invested 2.2 million yuan in 2024–25 in products described as “market partner” agreements issued with Yingke’s contract seal and bearing Mei’s signature, which promised annualised returns as high as 27.5 percent. Many similar contracts were sold as “legal service” purchases or partnership arrangements; buyers handed cash to local agents and were shown presentations stressing Yingke’s size and reputation and assuring them the firm would “never blow up.”
Trouble surfaced publicly in March after rumours that a financing guarantee collapse linked to Shanghai Yingke Enterprise Management Co., a company controlled by Mei’s family, had ruptured funding lines. Yingke the law firm has sought to distance its legal practice from the commercial ventures, saying the implicated vehicle is a family business; investigators in Shanghai’s Jing’an district have opened a criminal probe and Mei has reportedly turned himself in to the police.
The affair exposes how a major professional services brand was used to underwrite or market high‑yield financial arrangements run by related commercial entities. Documents seen by reporters show some refund promises were ultimately met by Shanghai Yingke rather than the law firm, and that investors’ funds were routed in ways that remain opaque. Lawyers handling complaints say many investors have yet to report losses officially, some deterred by sales agents who warn that police action would jeopardise their ability to recover money.
The shock has also hit Yingke internally. The firm has delayed some lawyer withdrawals and announced emergency cash‑management measures while Beijing and local bar associations are reported to be on site at the firm’s headquarters. Yingke’s board has reshuffled: Mei was removed from the firm’s public materials and replaced as chair of the global board, and the firm’s organisational status was recently changed, in a move that lawyers say alters liability regimes among partners.
Mei’s commercial reach helps explain how the controversy emerged. He built an extensive conglomerate under Yingke Global that branched into travel, education, tax services, and even hydrogen‑fuel vehicles through companies ultimately controlled by family members. Public filings show the family holds controlling stakes in these operating firms, some of which have become execution targets in separate court listings. Critics inside the legal community say Yingke’s cross‑industry ambitions made it vulnerable to risky capital operations and lax internal finance controls.
Beyond the immediate investor losses, the case raises regulatory and reputational questions about professional firms in China using their brands to facilitate unrelated commercial financing. China’s Lawyers Law bars law firms from engaging in non‑legal commercial enterprises, but experts say enforcement is uneven and that the sector’s financial oversight — especially for the firm’s commercial affiliates — is weak. The outcome of police investigations, potential civil claims and bankruptcy or restructuring processes will determine whether affected clients and lawyers can recover funds.
For ordinary investors, the incident is a warning about the limits of reputational guarantees. For regulators and the legal profession, it is a test of how quickly the authorities can untangle complex corporate linkages, police potential criminal breaches and restore confidence in an industry that markets itself as a pillar of the rule of law.