The visible costs
Chinese court fees are statutory and predictable — that is the good news. For a ¥1M property claim, the case acceptance fee is ¥13,800, scaled to the amount in dispute. An asset preservation application adds ¥5,000 (capped), and the court requires security for preservation, most economically an insurance bond at roughly 0.5–1.5% of the preserved value: another ¥5,000–15,000. If you later enforce, the enforcement application fee of about ¥12,400 is nominally borne by the debtor — assuming there is anything left to collect from.
A payment order (支付令) looks temptingly cheap — one third of the acceptance fee, about ¥4,600 — until you learn that any objection by the debtor terminates it and converts the matter into ordinary litigation. Against a debtor who already ignores invoices, the objection rate approaches certainty.
The professional costs
- PRC counsel: ¥60,000–150,000 across first instance, likely appeal, and enforcement stages — usually staged, always mounting.
- Notarisation and legalisation/apostille of your foreign evidence and power of attorney: ¥8,000–20,000, plus weeks of lead time per document chain.
- Certified translation of contracts, correspondence and evidence into Chinese: ¥5,000–15,000.
- Debtor investigation and asset tracing: ¥5,000–20,000 — without it, your preservation application freezes nothing.
- Travel and attendance: ¥10,000–30,000 if your team or witnesses must appear.
Add the visible lines and a fully-litigated ¥1M claim carries ¥125,000–240,000 in out-of-pocket cost — 12–24% of the claim — every yuan of it payable win or lose, before you know whether the debtor still has assets when the judgment arrives.
The time cost nobody itemises
Now price the calendar. First instance, a motivated debtor’s appeal and the enforcement queue run 12–24+ months, and your ¥1M is locked for the entire distance. At an 8% annual cost of capital that is ¥80,000–160,000 of financing value destroyed; add the management hours, the ageing evidence, and the revenue that capital could not earn elsewhere. Time cost routinely rivals the entire visible stack — and it appears on no quote, from any law firm, ever.
The comparison that matters
Our model is not cheaper on paper — it is cheaper in expected value. Tier 1 (remote operation): ¥5,000 fixed plus 15% of funds actually recovered, with the fixed fee credited against the percentage — a full ¥1M recovery costs ¥150,000 all-in, and if nothing arrives you have lost ¥5,000, not ¥240,000. Tier 2 (field operation, when letters stall): ¥5,000 plus a field fee of ¥15,000–45,000 covering travel, on-the-ground information gathering and deployment costs — quoted in writing per debtor location before you commit — plus 30% with all fixed fees credited, so a full recovery costs ¥300,000 all-in. That is deliberately above the visible cost of court, because what it buys is speed (weeks, not years) and the near-elimination of the zero-recovery tail risk. We are a contingency practice: the percentage is earned only out of money that actually reaches the account designated in your settlement agreement.
This is why we do not litigate. Not because courts never work — for an empty shell with provable assets and no negotiation partner, they are the only tool, and we will tell you so in the dossier stage and refer you on. But for a solvent, contactable debtor, litigation is usually the most expensive way to arrive at the settlement you could have signed in week eight.