The money

China: what Hunter’s deals actually paid

BHR, CEFC, the $3 million wire and a Chinese tycoon who vanished

Hunter and Joe Biden meet Jonathan Li during the December 2013 China trip. The released photograph establishes a meeting, not an exchange of official favors.
David Lienemann / White House; National Archives release · Source & image context ↗

RECORD / AT A GLANCE

Documented

Hunter and James Biden were paid millions by Chinese-linked companies, mostly in 2017, when Joe was out of office. The $1.5 billion was a fund’s fundraising target, not a payment. No record shows that Joe was paid.

THE EVENTS / THE INVESTIGATION / THE STORY

The chronology.

READ THE FILE

Evidence & assessment.

Open an article for its evidence, labeled AI assessment and numbered sources. Read the complete static edition ↗

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

4 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

DOCUMENTED China, the “big guy” & the bank records

“Hunter flew to China on Air Force Two and introduced his partner to his father.”

He traveled with his father in December 2013 and introduced Jonathan Li.

Who says it: Hunter, Senate report.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

DOCUMENTED China, the “big guy” & the bank records

“CEFC paid the Bidens millions.”

Bank records show CEFC-linked money to Hunter, James and relatives, including $3 million to Walker’s firm and $5 million to Hudson West III, in 2017.

Who says it: House Oversight memos.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

DOCUMENTED China, the “big guy” & the bank records

“James Biden asked about a warrant for CEFC’s Patrick Ho.”

A DOJ inspector general report says James asked an FBI official about a warrant for Ho in 2017.

Who says it: DOJ inspector general.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

All 126 rated claims ↗

OPEN THE RECORD

Sources & limits.

Numbered citations in each article identify the relevant sources. These records have different purposes and evidentiary weight.

  1. ABC Australia: the China fund and $1.5 billion claim, October 9, 2019 ↗

    Contemporaneous explanatory reporting distinguishes a fund’s fundraising target from personal earnings and describes the 2017 investment. Figures are historical, not a present valuation.

  2. Bloomberg via Business Day: Hunter calls Burisma role poor judgment, October 15, 2019 ↗

    Bloomberg report distinguishes the BHR management-company stake from fundraising targets and reports Hunter’s own defense. Do not confuse a management-company percentage with ownership of all fund assets.

  3. Senate Republican staff report: Hunter Biden, Burisma and corruption, September 2020 ↗

    Republican majority report compiling documents and testimony; its characterizations are investigators’ conclusions, not criminal judgments. This guide uses its documented ethics warnings without adopting every allegation.

  4. House Oversight Committee majority, 16 March 2023: first bank-records memorandum ↗

    Traces the $3 million wire from State Energy HK to Robinson Walker LLC on 1 March 2017 and about $1.065 million then sent on to Biden family accounts.

  5. NBC News, 16 March 2023: House chairman questions $1.3 million in payments to Hunter Biden and relatives ↗

    News account of the first memo, with the Democrats’ response.

  6. House Oversight Republican bank-records memorandum, November 1, 2023 ↗

    Republican interpretation of fund flows and the $40,000 repayment. Tracing a payment’s upstream source does not by itself establish a knowing bribe by its eventual recipient.

  7. PolitiFact: examining the $40,000 claim, November 14, 2023 ↗

    Secondary reporting states it reviewed the two outgoing loan wires; useful independent check on competing committee descriptions. Not a court adjudication.

  8. Hunter Biden deposition, February 28, 2024 ↗

    Primary congressional transcript; Hunter’s explanations and denials are attributed testimony, not independent findings. Relevant pages include 21–34, 81–84, 104–106, 116–118 and 145–146. Questions can contain contested premises.

  9. DOJ: Patrick Ho sentenced for bribery and money laundering, March 25, 2019 ↗

    Official sentencing announcement concerning Ho’s schemes involving African officials. It does not announce a Biden conviction or a payment to Joe Biden.

  10. Reuters, 1 March 2018: China’s CEFC chairman investigated for suspected economic crimes ↗

    Reports Ye Jianming’s detention and the investigation.

  11. DOJ inspector general report 25-080: Charles McGonigal misconduct, September 2025 ↗

    Primary redacted inspector-general investigation. Printed pages 11–13 address James Biden’s request for a Patrick Ho warrant check. Its central misconduct findings concern McGonigal; it is not a criminal verdict against James or Joe Biden.

  12. James Biden interview, February 21, 2024 ↗

    Primary interview; pages 127–129 address loans and repayments. The introduction explicitly says the interview is not under oath, although knowingly false statements to Congress can still be criminal. Do not call this a perjury conviction.

← The Biden Family hub: the story, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesBiden shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings appear here when JavaScript is on.

On X

Posts from the daily snapshot appear here when JavaScript is on. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesBiden.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.