Chinese actress Jing Tian has broken her silence after cryptocurrency entrepreneur Justin Sun filed a civil lawsuit involving more than 30 million yuan — roughly US$4.46 million — pulling one of China’s most talked-about celebrity controversies out of the rumour mill and into the legal system.
But while sensational allegations involving their alleged relationship and surrogacy have dominated social media, one crucial distinction is emerging: the most explosive claims circulating online are not what Sun’s lawyer says the lawsuit is actually about.
On Friday, August 28, Jing posted a short but pointed statement on Weibo without directly naming Sun.
She said she would never “sell my love for money” or sell her soul, adding that despite acknowledging her own poor judgment, she continues to believe in the law, kindness, justice and fairness.
Her final message was simple: “Time will prove everything.”
What Justin Sun’s lawsuit actually says
The controversy escalated on Thursday, August 27, when prominent lawyer Zhang Qihuai, acting for Sun, announced that the TRON founder had filed a civil lawsuit against “Jing” and her parents over what he described as a property dispute.
The amount at stake exceeds 30 million yuan.
According to Zhang, the lawsuit has been formally filed and Sun’s side has also sought property preservation measures. Jing’s side has challenged the court’s jurisdiction, and that objection is still being considered.
That procedural detail is significant because the dispute has not yet entered substantive trial proceedings, and no court has ruled on which side’s version of events is correct.
Chinese media later reported that Zhang identified the defendant as actress Jing Tian and said Sun is seeking the return of money he describes as a betrothal gift or “bride price”.
Zhang also claimed the two had previously been in a romantic relationship, had discussed marriage and separated sometime in the first half of 2026.
Those details remain assertions from Sun’s legal representative rather than findings made by a court.
The surrogacy allegation is a separate issue
That distinction matters because online discussion surrounding Jing and Sun has focused heavily on something much more sensational: alleged plans to have a child through surrogacy.
Rumours first surfaced in May claiming that Jing had entered an arrangement with an unidentified wealthy businessman involving payments connected to surrogacy.
At the time, Jing’s studio rejected the online accusations and said lawyers had been instructed to collect evidence for possible legal action. Internet users subsequently speculated that the unidentified businessman was Sun, although neither party had publicly confirmed that connection at the time.
Now, Sun’s lawyer has reportedly clarified that the current lawsuit does not raise a surrogacy claim in its complaint.
Zhang told Chinese media that the more than 30 million yuan being sought relates instead to money Sun claims was provided as a betrothal gift.
That means social-media allegations about surrogacy should not be presented as established facts in the lawsuit.
Jing Tian’s studio hits back
Minutes after Zhang publicly confirmed the lawsuit on August 27, Jing Tian’s studio issued its own strongly worded statement.
The agency accused the other side of attempting to exploit an artiste’s reputation for personal gain and said it would allow the judicial process to determine the dispute rather than fight the case through public opinion.
The studio said it would follow legal procedures and, apart from updates concerning its efforts to defend Jing’s rights, would not continue responding to other questions surrounding the controversy.
That was followed the next morning by Jing’s personal message about refusing to exchange love for money — giving the actress her first direct public voice in the rapidly escalating dispute.
Then Justin Sun published his own story
Hours after the lawsuit became public, Sun added another dramatic layer by publishing a lengthy piece titled “My Girlfriend, Jing Tian” on X.
The story included detailed claims about an alleged relationship, marriage discussions and an alleged US$50 million surrogacy-related request.
But there was an enormous caveat: Sun ended the piece by describing it as fictional and saying any resemblance to real events was coincidental.
The situation became even more complicated on August 28.
In an interview reported by Phoenix Technology, Sun said that most of the piece reflected what he considered his own genuine account, while explaining that he used the fictional disclaimer because he could not guarantee that every detail was completely accurate.
He also said he was no longer communicating with Jing and indicated that pursuing the return of the alleged betrothal money was partly based on legal advice.
That creates an unusual situation: Sun has publicly described significant portions of his narrative as reflecting his experience while simultaneously attaching a disclaimer saying the work is fictional.
For readers — and responsible publishers — those claims therefore need to remain clearly attributed to Sun rather than reported as independently established events.
What happens next?
For now, the most important part of the story is happening much more quietly than the viral posts.
The court must first deal with Jing’s jurisdictional objection before the case can move further toward examination of the underlying financial dispute.
There has been no judgment establishing that Jing or her parents owe Sun more than 30 million yuan, and the highly circulated surrogacy claims have not been established by the lawsuit described by Sun’s lawyer.
The battle is therefore unfolding on two very different fronts.
Online, an extraordinary mix of romance, money, celebrity and allegations has driven millions of clicks.
Inside the legal system, however, the question currently appears far narrower:
Was the more than RMB30 million transferred as a betrothal gift that should legally be returned after the relationship ended?
That is a question the internet cannot decide.
And despite everything already said publicly by both sides, the court has not answered it yet.
Leave a Reply