On December 18, the Hunan High Court issued a notice. Pan Jibiao and 19 others handed down a verdict in the second instance in the illegal fund-raising case, ruling to dismiss the appeal in accordance with the law and uphold the original verdict. This ruling is final. On June 25, 2025, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court handed down a public verdict in the first instance, sentencing defendant Pan Jibiao to life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property; the remaining 18 defendants were each sentenced to 5 to 20 years in prison and fines, including fund-raising fraud, illegal absorption of public deposits, money laundering, and falsification of identity documents. After the verdict was handed down, Pan Jibiao and 16 other defendants filed an appeal. The court of second instance found that the first instance verdict found that the facts were clear, the evidence was accurate and sufficient, the conviction was accurate, the sentence was appropriate, and the trial procedure was lawful, so it made the above ruling.

On December 18, the Hunan High Court issued a notice. Pan Jibiao and 19 others handed down a verdict in the second instance in the illegal fund-raising case, ruling to dismiss the appeal in accordance with the law and uphold the original verdict. This ruling is final. On June 25, 2025, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court handed down a public verdict in the first instance, sentencing defendant Pan Jibiao to life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property; the remaining 18 defendants were each sentenced to 5 to 20 years in prison and fines, including fund-raising fraud, illegal absorption of public deposits, money laundering, and falsification of identity documents. After the verdict was handed down, Pan Jibiao and 16 other defendants filed an appeal. The court of second instance found that the first instance verdict found that the facts were clear, the evidence was accurate and sufficient, the conviction was accurate, the sentence was appropriate, and the trial procedure was lawful, so it made the above ruling.