[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a gift contract. The plaintiff, Deng * , claimed that the transfer of 5 million yuan from her husband, Liu * , to the defendant, Zhang * , constituted a gift and should be returned as it violated public order and good customs. Zhang * countered that the money was an investment payment made by a third party, Wang *. Beijing Henglu Law FirmLi YonghuiThe lawyer, acting on behalf of the defendant, Zhang * *, proved through evidence such as corporate information, bills, and WeChat chat screenshots that the funds were investment funds rather than gifts. The court determined that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient and ruled to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff shall bear all litigation costs. Core dispute: Whether the 5 million yuan was a gift or an investment. Applicable legal provisions: Provisions related to gift contracts and the rules on the burden of proof in civil litigation.

I. Review of the Case Facts

When it comes to large-scale transfers, the parties often search for phrases like "Can I recover the property given by my spouse to a third party?" "How to determine whether a large-scale transfer is a gift or an investment?" and "Can transfers made during an extramarital affair be recovered?" In this case, the plaintiff, Deng * and the third party, Liu * were married. After marriage, Liu * maintained an improper relationship with the defendant, Zhang * and transferred a total of 5 million yuan to Zhang *. The plaintiff argued that the transfer violated the law and public order and morality and should be deemed invalid and be returned. The plaintiff requested that the gift be confirmed as invalid, that Zhang * return the 5 million yuan, and that Zhang * bear the litigation costs. Facing the pressure from the plaintiff, her husband, and witnesses who claimed that the money was a gift, Zhang * entrusted a lawyer to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer defended the rights of the client, but in the end, the court rejected the plaintiff's claims.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is the 5 million yuan involved in the case a gift or an investment fund?The plaintiff claims that it is a gift, while the defendant claims that it is an investment payment made to the third party, Wang *. The determination of the nature of the payment directly determines whether the money should be returned.
  • Focus 2: Can the transfer records alone prove the gift relationship?The transferor is shown as Wang * rather than Liu *, and the stated purpose is for investment in a store. Can this support the plaintiff's claim?
  • Focus 3: Whether the evidence presented by the plaintiff meets the standard of proof.Under the circumstance that the defendant submits evidence of the opposite investment, is the plaintiff's evidence sufficient?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff alleged in the original lawsuit that:The plaintiff and Liu * are husband and wife. During their marriage, Liu * maintained an improper relationship with Zhang * and transferred 5 million yuan to her. This gift violates the law and public order and good customs and should be considered invalid. The plaintiff requests that the gift be declared invalid, and that Zhang * return the 5 million yuan and bear the litigation costs.

The defendant argued (in the attorney's opinion):Li YonghuiThe lawyer immediately expressed his disagreement with the plaintiff's claims, arguing that they lacked factual and legal basis and should be dismissed. The 5 million yuan received by Zhang was an investment payment from a third party, Wang, and had been used to operate the store. He did not acknowledge the existence of an improper relationship between Zhang and Liu, and he did not recognize the authenticity or evidentiary purpose of the plaintiff's text message records (which lacked original evidence and might have been doctored) and the explanatory statement. The transfer records clearly indicated that the funds were used for the initial investment in the direct-sale store, not as a gift.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:The lawyer submitted information and bills of enterprises such as Tianjin XX Technology Company, Beijing XX Food Business Department, and Sanhe City XX Food Store, as well as handwritten sales details, to prove that Zhang * had registered and operated a business since 2016 and had an investment and operation relationship with Wang *. In addition, the lawyer submitted screenshots of the plaintiff's WeChat chats with Wang Xiaona, proving that the plaintiff confirmed that the 5 million yuan in question was an investment payment transferred by Wang * to Zhang *. The lawyer pointed out that the transfer records submitted by the plaintiff showed that the transferor was Wang *, not Liu *, and that Wang *, as a witness for the plaintiff, had a vested interest and was not sufficient to refute the objective written evidence.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court accepted it.Li YonghuiThe lawyer's partial opinion is that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to prove that Liu * donated 5 million yuan to Zhang *, and his litigation request lacks factual and legal basis, so it should not be supported. The judgment is as follows: The plaintiff's litigation request is dismissed; and the case acceptance fee of 23,400 yuan shall be borne by the plaintiff.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Li YonghuiThe attorney (practice license number: 11101199611955812, subject to the documents issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Hengluo Law Firm reminds you: For large-amount transactions, it is necessary to keep written evidence such as contracts, transfer purposes, and investment agreements. When the nature of the gift or investment is in doubt, the probative force of objective written evidence is often higher than that of statements made by witnesses with vested interests.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Disputes over Gift Contracts

  1. Q:Can the money that a spouse secretly transferred to a third party be recovered?
    A:If it is a large-scale gift of joint marital property without the spouse's consent, the spouse may claim that the gift is invalid and demand its return, but they must provide evidence to prove the nature of the funds and the fact of the gift.
  2. Q:When a large sum of money is transferred, it's often labeled as a gift. How can we prove that it's actually an investment?
    A:Investment agreements, notes on the purpose of the transfer, operating accounts, corporate information, chat records, etc. should be provided to prove that there is an investment agreement between the two parties rather than a gratuitous gift.
  3. Q:Can the transfer record alone prove that it's a gift?
    A:No. The transfer record can only prove the delivery of funds, but the gift also requires proof of the gift agreement. The transferor, the purpose of the transfer, and other details all affect the determination of the nature of the transaction.
  4. Q:The witness said that the money was a gift. Will the court definitely believe it?
    A:Not necessarily. The testimonies of witnesses who have a vested interest in the case have weaker probative force, and the court will make a comprehensive judgment based on objective written evidence.
  5. Q:The lawsuit demands the return of the gift money. Who will bear the litigation costs?
    A:It is usually borne by the losing party. If the lawsuit is rejected, the case acceptance fee is generally borne by the plaintiff himself.