1. Case Summary

Plaintiff Aclaimed that he entrusted Defendant Bto transfer 395,000 yuan to the defendant's account and filed a lawsuit demanding that defendant Crepay the loan.

Mr. Cadmitted to receiving 395,000 yuan transferred from Mr. B, arguing that the funds were not loans with Mr. Aand requesting the court to dismiss Mr. A's claim.

This is actually a relatively common dispute in real life. So the question is, will the court support the loan relationship just because there is a transfer record?

2. Summary of the Judgment

This court holds that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether there is a lending relationship between plaintiff Li and defendant Sheng Moumou, and whether Sheng should repay the loan and interest to Li Moumou.

According to normal transaction customs, the plaintiff and defendant do not know each other. The plaintiff does not use his own bank account to transfer money directly to the defendant, but instead transfers money to Chen Moulong in the name of another third party, Liu Mouhua, who then transfers funds to the defendant in four installments, each with a huge amount. Moreover, the defendant has not issued an IOU to the plaintiff, and for two years, there has been no sufficient evidence to prove that he had urged the defendant to borrow, which clearly violates common sense. According to Article 16 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases," The plaintiff claims a loan relationship with the defendant and should bear the burden of proof of the loan agreement. Based on the existing evidence, it cannot be determined that the loan agreement was reached between the plaintiff and defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff requests the defendant to repay the principal of 395,000 yuan and pay interest from the date of filing the lawsuit until the loan is repaid. The evidence is insufficient and this court does not support it.

3. Lawyer's Comments

This is a case in which our lawyer has won the case.

In this case, the court did not support the plaintiff's claim for repayment of the loan. The reason is simple: neither the plaintiff nor the defendant agreed to the loan.

The so-called "agreement on the loan" simply means both parties agree that the money is a loan. This is actually a subjective matter; the judge has no way of knowing what the judge thinks when the money exchange occurs. So how do we judge this "loan agreement"? there must be objective evidence to prove it.

In litigation practice, to prove the "consent to the loan," attention should be paid to the following aspects:

  1. Do you have written proof such as IOUs, IOUs, or receipts?
  2. Does the form of the loan align with transaction habits?
  3. Has there been any collection request?
  4. What is the relationship, familiarity, and interactions between the parties?
  5. Details of fund transactions, the reasonableness of each statement, etc.....

In summary, a lending relationship cannot be established solely by financial transactions or transfer certificates; a complete chain of evidence must be formed to give the judge inner confidence. This process is quite complex and carries significant uncertainty.

In other words, solving the problem fundamentally is actually not difficult: when borrowing, you must write out IOUs, receipts, and other written vouchers.

4. Judgment Document

Jin'an District People's Court of Lu'an City, Anhui Province

Civil judgment document

(2021) Wan 1502 Minchu No. 1580

Plaintiff: Li, male, Han ethnicity.

Authorized litigation agent (special authorization): Li Donglu, lawyer at Shanghai Dehe Hantong Law Firm.

Defendant: Sheng, female, Han ethnicity.

Authorized litigation agent (specially authorized): Sunny Deng, lawyer at Horizon Law Firm.

In the private lending dispute case between plaintiff Li and defendant Sheng Moumou, after filing the case on March 9, 2021, this court applied the summary procedure in accordance with the law and held a public hearing. Plaintiff Li and his authorized litigation agent Li Donglu, and defendant Sheng Moumou's authorized litigation agent Sunny Deng attended the litigation. The trial of this case has now concluded.

Plaintiff Li XX submitted the following claims to this court: 1. Lawfully order the defendant to repay the plaintiff's principal of 395,000 yuan and pay interest from the date the plaintiff files the lawsuit until the loan is fully repaid; 2. The attorney fee of 20,000 yuan for the plaintiff to realize the claim's rights shall be borne by the defendant; 3. All other related expenses arising from this case shall be borne by the defendant. Facts and Reasons: In July and August 2018, defendant Sheng borrowed a total of 395,000 yuan from plaintiff Li. Both parties agreed that the defendant should repay all outstanding debts by early 2019, but the defendant had borrowed 395,000 yuan and has yet to repay. Despite repeated attempts by the plaintiff to recover the debt, no results were found. The plaintiff argued that a legitimate lending relationship should be protected by law, and the debt should be repaid. The defendant's evasion of the plaintiff and refusal to repay the loan not only violated integrity and constituted breach of contract but also infringed upon the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests. We hereby file a lawsuit with your court, requesting to protect the plaintiff's rights in accordance with the law.

Defendant Sheng argued that the respondent did not agree with the plaintiff Li's claims. 1. In this case, Li is not a qualified plaintiff, and there is no private lending relationship between the respondent and Li Moumou. The funds in this case were not transferred by Li to Sheng, but by Chen Moulong to Sheng. Sheng did not know Chen Moulong, nor did he have a lending relationship with him. Based on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, there was no bank transfer between Li and Chen Moulong. 2. Sheng's son, Zhang, is one of the shareholders of Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd., and Sheng's account was once used as the company's payment account. There were many transactions related to the company in this account, so the respondent could not confirm the nature of the funds transferred by Chen Moulong. After receiving these funds, Sheng Moumou successively returned them to company operations and did not use them for personal purposes. In summary, your court respectfully dismisses the plaintiff's claim according to law.

To support his claim, plaintiff Li submitted evidence to this court in accordance with the law: 1. Copies of the plaintiff and defendant's ID cards to prove their qualification as litigation subjects. Evidence 2: Bank statements, proving that from July 29, 2018 to August 22, 2018, the defendant borrowed a total of 395,000 yuan from the plaintiff, including 45,000 yuan on July 29, 2018; On August 8, 2018, borrowed 150,000 yuan; On August 15, 2018, borrowed 100,000 yuan; On August 22, 2018, borrowed 100,000 yuan. Evidence 3: SMS records proving that the plaintiff pressed the defendant for payment, but the defendant ignored it. Evidence 4: Witness testimony proves that although the transferder is Chen Moulong, the creditor is Li Moumou. Evidence 5: Power of attorney, proving that Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd. has a dedicated financial officer and has never entrusted Sheng to collect any funds on behalf of others. After the hearing, the plaintiff supplemented by submitting written testimony from witness Liu Mouhua and a detailed list of Liu Mouhua's bank card transactions, proving that the plaintiff and Liu Mouhua are relatives. The Agricultural Bank of China account number under Liu Mouhua's name is 6228482599182697671 bank account has always been lent to the plaintiff, and the funds in this account belong to the plaintiff.

To support his defense, defendant Sheng submitted evidence to this court: 1. The bank transaction details of Sheng's account to prove 1. Sheng's account received a remittance of 395,000 yuan from Chen Moulong; 2. Sheng's account was once used as a receiving account for Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd. This amount was related to Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd., not a loan from Sheng Moumou. Sheng Moumou also used it for operations by Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd.; 3. These funds are unrelated to the plaintiff. Evidence 2: Business registration information, articles of association, shareholders' meeting resolutions, equity transfer agreement, etc. of Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd.; It proved that Sheng's son, Zhang, was one of the shareholders of Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd. Due to irregular company operations, Zhang used his mother's account as the company's payment account. Evidence 3: Sheng's household registration book, proving the parent-child relationship between Sheng and Zhang.

This court organized the parties to cross-examine the evidence. The defendant Sheng had no objection to the authenticity of evidence provided by the plaintiff, arguing that there was no financial transaction between the plaintiff and defendant, and the plaintiff was not a qualified plaintiff; There is no dispute over the authenticity of Evidence 2, which indeed received four transfers totaling 395,000 yuan from Chen Moulong, but it is not considered a loan from the plaintiff because there is no proof of a loan relationship between the parties; There is no dispute about the authenticity of Evidence 3. The phone number is indeed the defendant's, but the timing of the SMS cannot be specified. The defendant does not know the plaintiff and receives the SMS as described by the defendant, treating it as a scam SMS and therefore ignoring it; There are doubts about the authenticity of witness four's testimony, which is unreasonable. Why the plaintiff sought out witnesses for money transfers and sent money multiple times, as well as the business exchanges between the plaintiff and the witnesses, these witnesses could not clearly explain; The transaction details show that between June 12, 2018 and October 27, 2018, there was no record of the plaintiff transferring money to the witness, and such operations are illogical. If the plaintiff wanted to lend money to the defendant, why did the plaintiff transfer money to the witness, and then have the witness transfer it to the defendant? Moreover, in terms of the witness's financial situation, he is currently renting in Lu'an. According to his household registration, the witness is a farmer from Henan and not particularly wealthy. In this case, the witness could not clearly explain the amount and time of the debt during their account. Therefore, it is considered that the witness's testimony is untrue and cannot be used as evidence in this case; There is no dispute over the authenticity of the authorization letter in Evidence 5, but there is a dispute over the purpose of proof. The authorization letter was signed on September 18, 2018, after the transfer. Objectively speaking, the company's operations are relatively chaotic. The company has now been listed as an abnormal business unit by the Administration for Industry and Commerce and is currently in a state of suspension. The opinions on Liu Mouhua's written testimony and the detailed list of Liu Mouhua's bank card transactions are: 1. According to Article 68 of the Supreme Court's "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation," witnesses must appear in court to testify. Testimonies from witnesses who fail to appear without valid reason cannot be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case. Therefore, the plaintiff only provides written witness testimony from Liu Mouhua and cannot be used as the basis for establishing the facts of the case. 2. The content of his testimony contradicts the statements made by plaintiff Li Moumou and another witness, Chen Moulong, during the trial, and is therefore unacceptable. If Li Moumou had really borrowed Liu Mouhua's account, such a large sum would not have been forgotten. However, during the trial, neither the plaintiff nor the witness Chen Moulong mentioned that the funds were transferred out of Liu Mouhua's account, which is clearly illogical. 3. From Liu Mouhua's bank transaction details, it cannot be proven that the related funds came from Li Moumou, nor can it prove that the account was actually used by Li Moumou. Moreover, according to witness Chen Moulong's account, Li Moumou transferred money to Chen Moulong two or three months before Chen Moulong transferred money to Sheng Moumou. According to Liu Mouhua's account transaction records, Liu Mouhua had transferred money to Chen Moulong in June, August, and September 2018, but there was no evidence proving that the money was under Li Moumou's direction, and the timing of the transfers did not match Chen's testimony in court. These obvious contradictions are enough to prove that Liu Mouhua's testimony is not true.

Plaintiff Li has no objection to the authenticity of Evidence 1 provided by defendant Sheng Moumou, but disputes the purpose of the proof. This evidence also proves that the plaintiff lent 395,000 yuan to the defendant through Chen Moulong. At the same time, the defendant used this transfer record to prove that the income and expenditure of Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd. were unreal. The legal representative of Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd. is the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could not have used the account of the shareholder's mother as the company's collection account. Moreover, the company has professional accountants, which is clearly unreasonable and does not reflect objective facts The defendant operates multiple companies in Shanghai and borrows money from the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff and Sheng's son are both shareholders in the same company, arranging for a third party to transfer the loan is very reasonable. The purpose is to clarify that the money was lent to the defendant, and that a third party also confirmed this fact. The witness testified in court and recorded the transfers to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. Chen Moulong himself was instructed by the plaintiff regarding the amount of the money to be paid, which also corroborates the above facts. There is no dispute over the authenticity of Evidence 2, but the purpose of the proof is disputed. This set of evidence shows that the plaintiff is a shareholder of Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd., and it is impossible to entrust the mother of a shareholder with only 30% of the shares to manage the company's accounts. No objection to the three sexes of Evidence 3.

After review by this court, the authenticity of evidence 1, 2, and 3 provided by the plaintiff was established. According to the bank statements of the third party Chen Moulong, the transfers were made by Chen Moulong to the defendant. Although the defendant acknowledged that his account received a total of 395,000 yuan from Chen Moulong, he denied any lending relationship with the plaintiff, claiming he did not know the plaintiff or Chen Moulong and that the account was his son Zhang Di's own account used as the company's collection account. From the testimony of the witness, the third party Chen Moulong, he stated, "Li Moumou previously transferred money to my account, and then asked me to transfer it to Sheng Moumou," but he could not clearly remember the amount or timing of the transfer by Li Moumou. Moreover, Chen Moulong's bank statements did not reflect any records of the plaintiff's transfers to Chen Moulong. Therefore, the plaintiff provided Liu Mouhua's written testimony and a detailed list of Liu Mouhua's bank card transactions, proving that the Agricultural Bank account under Liu Mouhua's name, numbered 6228482599182697671, had always been used by the plaintiff, the funds in this account belonged to him, and the funds transferred to Chen Moulong using Liu Mouhua's account were his own funds. This testimony does not match that of witness Chen Moulong. Chen Moulong did not mention that Li Moumou transferred funds in Liu Mouhua's name. From the court hearing, the plaintiff's evidence and statements did not mention transferring money to Chen Moulong in Liu Mouhua's name. Moreover, the plaintiff admitted to being unfamiliar with the defendant. Even if Liu Mouhua's bank account funds belonged to the plaintiff and were genuine, according to normal transaction practices, the plaintiff transferred funds to Chen Moulong through a third party named Liu Mouhua, who then transferred the funds to the defendant, lending 395,000 yuan to the defendant—a huge sum—without requiring the defendant to issue an IOU Moreover, for two years, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant had urged the defendant to borrow money, which clearly violated common sense. Therefore, the testimonies of Chen Moulong and Liu Mouhua are insufficient to prove that the plaintiff and defendant directly reached an agreement to lend the loan. Regarding the text messages, the defendant did not reply, which cannot prove that the defendant acknowledged the existence of a lending relationship with the plaintiff. Regarding the power of attorney, it was signed on September 18, 2018, which occurred after the transfer and failed to fulfill its purpose of proof. In summary, based on the existing evidence, it can only be proven that Chen Moulong delivered 395,000 yuan to the defendant, but cannot prove that both parties had a loan agreement for the 39,500 yuan.

Therefore, this court does not determine the purpose of proof in the evidence provided by the plaintiff. The authenticity of evidence 1, 2, and 3 provided by defendant Sheng can be confirmed to be mother-son with Zhang, and both Li and Zhang are shareholders of Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd. On September 19, 2018, the legal representative of the company changed from Li to Zhang.

Based on the parties' statements, this court has established the following facts: Plaintiff Li and defendant Sheng are strangers, and both the plaintiff and the defendant's son Zhang are shareholders of Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd. On September 19, 2018, the company's legal representative changed from Li to Zhang, and the plaintiff is friends with the third party, Chen Long. On July 29, August 8, August 15, and August 22, 2018, Chen Moulong transferred 45,000 yuan, 150,000 yuan, 100,000 yuan, and 100,000 yuan to the Industrial and Commercial Bank account 6222081001006145795 where defendant Sheng worked, using his account at Agricultural Bank of China (number 6228482591118678719), totaling 395,000 yuan. Two years later, on December 31, 2020, the plaintiff sent a text message to the defendant's phone stating, "Hello, Sheng, Iam Li. On July and 8, 2018, you borrowed a total of 395,000 yuan from me, promised to repay the full amount by early 2019, and more than a year has passed. When do you plan to repay me?" However, the defendant did not respond. The plaintiff now claims that there is a lending relationship with the defendant Sheng and demands the defendant repay the loan of 395,000 yuan plus interest. During the trial, Chen Moulong testified that all four transfers were transferred to the defendant Sheng at Li's direction. The funds belonged to Li and were loans from Li to the defendant. Although Sheng acknowledged that his account received a total of 395,000 yuan from these four transfers, he denied any lending relationship with the plaintiff, reasoning that his son Zhang used his own account as the receiving account for Shanghai Shijia Education Technology Co., Ltd.