[Case Summary]This case involvesCivil lending disputesThe plaintiff, Li * and the defendant, Zhao *, met through a friend. The total amount of the three loans was 650,000 yuan, including transfers and cash payments. The borrower claimed that he had not received part of the funds and that the loans were gambling debts, thus refusing to repay the money. The plaintiff entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Chen Mei'aoAttorney representation. The lawyer submitted the call recording of February 8, 2022 and other evidence to prove the fact of cash delivery on November 28, 2019, which was accepted by the court. The court also recognized and partially adjusted the interest issue. After the trial, the court ruled that Zhao * should return the principal of the loan to Li * totaling 595,240.74 yuan and the respective interest. The parties recovered nearly 600,000 yuan in loans and related interest. Core disputes: determination of the fact of cash delivery, calculation of interest, and defense of gambling debts; applicable legal provisions: the provisions on evidence and interest in the Judicial Interpretation of Private Lending.

I. Review of the case

"What should borrowers do if they refuse to repay the debt?" and "How to prove cash loans?" are common problems in private lending. Although private lending has abundant resources and is convenient to operate, it is characterized by hidden transactions and difficult to monitor risks. Providing evidence in litigation is crucial, as "winning a lawsuit depends on presenting convincing evidence" often determines the outcome of the case. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Chen Mei'aoThe lawyer represented the lender as the plaintiff. The three loans involved in the case totaled 650,000 yuan, with delivery methods including cash and bank transfers. The borrower raised defenses such as not having received part of the loan and disagreeing with the calculation of interest. In the end, with the lawyer's extensive experience and solid legal skills, the court determined that the three loans existed, and the parties recovered nearly 600,000 yuan in loans and related interest.

The plaintiff, Li * and the defendant, Zhao *, met through a friend. On October 8, 2019, the defendant borrowed 300,000 yuan with an agreed monthly interest rate of 2.5%. On the same day, the plaintiff transferred 300,000 yuan to the defendant. On November 28, 2019, the plaintiff delivered 300,000 yuan in cash and verbally agreed to a monthly interest rate of 2.5%. The promissory note was signed later. For the third transaction, the plaintiff stated that 100,000 yuan was involved. Of this amount, 50,000 yuan was transferred to the defendant through a friend who had stomach cancer (the defendant has already repaid this amount), and the other 50,000 yuan was borrowed on March 24, 2020 with a monthly interest rate of 3% (after deducting a 1,500 yuan upfront fee, the actual transferred amount was 48,500 yuan). Despite multiple reminders and calls from the plaintiff, the defendant ignored them and refused to answer the phone, leaving the plaintiff with no choice but to file a lawsuit.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the 300,000 yuan loan delivered in cash actually occurred.The defendant denied receiving 350,000 yuan in cash. Whether the plaintiff can form a chain of evidence to prove the delivery through receipts, invoices, recordings, etc. is the core of determining the amount of the payment.
  • Focus 2: Interest calculation and handling of hidden fees.How does the court adjust the interest and principal when there are multiple loans with different interest rates and the upfront interest is deducted, and how does this affect the final repayment amount?
  • Focus Three: Whether the defenses such as gambling debts and guarantors' repayment are valid.The defendant claimed that the gambling debt was illegal, and that the 300,000 yuan was repaid by the guarantor. Whether the defendant can provide evidence to support this claim will determine the success or failure of his defense.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (Li *) alleged that:The plaintiff claims that the facts of the three loans are clear, and the defendant should repay the principal and interest.

The defendant (Zhao *) argued that:The defendant claimed that the actual borrowed amount was 348,500 yuan (300,000 yuan transferred and 48,500 yuan via WeChat), and that 195,250 yuan of interest had already been deducted in advance; the IOU dated May 15, 2020 was retroactively added to correspond to the transfer of 300,000 yuan and 48,500 yuan via WeChat; he denied borrowing 350,000 yuan in cash on November 28, 2019; and claimed that the plaintiff was a professional lender who knew the borrowed money was used for gambling, and that the 300,000 yuan was borrowed by the guarantor, Wu * and had already been repaid, so the plaintiff could not sue him.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Chen Mei'aoThe lawyer submitted the audio recording of the conversation between him and the defendant on February 8, 2022, to further prove the fact of cash delivery. Based on the promissory note, receipt, audio recording, etc., the court accepted our claim that the cash delivery took place on November 28, 2019. At the same time, the lawyer sorted out all the key evidence, and the court acknowledged and partially adjusted the issue of loan interest. Regarding the defendant's defense that the 300,000 yuan on October 8, 2019 was a cash settlement by the guarantor Wu * and that he had no evidence to support it; the defendant argued that gambling debts were illegal. Although he admitted to having gambling behavior, he failed to submit evidence to prove that the involved funds were borrowed for gambling or generated from gambling.

IV. Outcome of the case

After the trial, the court adopted some of the opinions and demands of Henglue Law Firm and, in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, ruled that the defendant, Zhao *, should return the principal loan of 595,240.74 yuan and the respective interest to the plaintiff, Li *, within seven days after the judgment takes effect. The lender's nearly 600,000 yuan loan and related interest were recovered in accordance with the law.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmChen Mei'aoAttorney (Practice License No.: 11101201911105336, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as an agent. Attorney's Tip: For private lending, it is recommended to transfer the funds and specify the purpose of the payment in advance. For cash payments, supporting evidence such as promissory notes, receipts, and audio recordings should be provided to prevent the borrower from refusing to repay the debt. If the borrower defends himself by claiming that the money has not been received or that the debt is a gambling debt, it is necessary to entrust a professional lawyer to systematically fix the evidence and reasonably allocate the burden of proof.

VI. Common Questions and Answers (FAQ) for Cases Involving Creditor-debtor Relationships and Loans

  1. Q: What should I do if the borrower refuses to admit the cash loan and refuses to pay it back?
    A:The borrower should provide promissory notes, receipts, audio recordings, withdrawal records, etc. to form a chain of evidence, and the court will comprehensively determine the fact of cash delivery based on these evidences.
  2. Q: How to deal with the prepayment penalty?
    A:The interest deducted in advance is not included in the principal. The borrower shall return the loan according to the actual amount borrowed and calculate the interest accordingly.
  3. Q: Is it valid if the other party says the loan is a gambling debt?
    A:If the lender can prove that the debt is not a gambling debt and the other party has no evidence to prove that the money is for gambling, the defense of the gambling debt will generally not be successful.
  4. Q: What are the key points for providing evidence in private lending disputes?
    A:The key is to prove the borrowing agreement and the delivery of funds. Transfer receipts are the most reliable, and cash delivery must be supported by other evidence.
  5. Q: How to calculate the interest for multiple loans with different interest rates?
    A:Each installment shall be interest-bearing in accordance with the agreement and within the statutory limit. The court will adjust the amount exceeding the limit.