[Case Summary]This case involves a civil loan dispute. During the relationship between the plaintiff, Liu Ya (a pseudonym), and the defendant, Wu Qiang (a pseudonym), Wu Qiang borrowed a total of more than 820,000 yuan from Liu Ya on the pretext of needing funds for his engineering company. After their breakup, Wu Qiang defaulted on a total of more than 590,000 yuan. Liu Ya initially accused Wu Qiang of fraud, which led to Wu Qiang being subject to compulsory measures. However, the criminal case was not withdrawn in time, creating potential obstacles to the civil litigation. Liu Ya subsequently entrusted the Beijing Hengluo Law Firm to handle the case on her behalf.Tian JiayanThe lawyer formulated a "criminal and civil parallel" strategy: on the one hand, he followed up on the criminal case, and on the other hand, he initiated civil litigation with promissory notes and large-sum transfer certificates. The core disputes were: whether the large-sum transfer was a loan or a gift, whether the unresolved criminal case would lead to a suspension of the civil case, and whether the transfer of the loan would render part of it invalid. The applicable legal provisions were Article 1064 of the Civil Code and Article 13 of the Judicial Interpretation of Private Lending. The court ruled that the loan was established and ordered Wu Qiang to repay 548,000 yuan.

I. Review of the case

The lover borrowed hundreds of thousands of yuan and refused to repay, claiming it was a "gift". What should I do? The victim often searches for terms like "Is a loan between lovers considered a gift?", "How to file a lawsuit for private lending?", "Can I win with a promissory note and large-amount transfers?", and "Beijing Henglu Law Firm for Creditor-debtor Litigation". Liu Ya and Wu Qiang met in 2015 and established a romantic relationship in 2022. Wu Qiang borrowed more than 820,000 yuan from Liu Ya multiple times, citing the need for working capital for his engineering company. In July 2023, Liu Ya discovered that Wu Qiang was already married and divorced, and despite making partial repayments, he still owed more than 590,000 yuan. Liu Ya first filed a criminal complaint for fraud, but the police opened a case but never withdrew it. Liu Ya decided to entrust the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Tian JiayanThe lawyer protects the client's rights and interests.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is the large-scale transfer of funds a loan or a gift?Wu Qiang argued that the transfer of money between them was a gift expressing love and that there was no loan agreement between them, so the debt note and the transfer receipt should be used to determine whether there was a loan agreement between them.
  • Focus II: If the criminal case has not been concluded, should the civil case be suspended?In this case, the lending relationship can be independently identified based on documentary evidence, without relying on a criminal judgment, and there is no need to suspend the trial according to the law.
  • Focus 3: Does the transfer of the loan render part of the contract invalid?The borrowed funds include loans from financial institutions. These loans are invalid, but the borrowers are still obligated to repay the principal amount.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (the lender) alleges that:Liu Ya claimed that the loan relationship was established, demanding that Wu Qiang repay the principal of 594,950 yuan, and asserting that his wife, Zhang Sufen, should bear joint and several liability.

The defendant (the borrower) argued that:Wu Qiang claimed that the daily transfers were gifts, the IOUs were signed under deception, and the mutual transfers between the two parties should be offset. Zhang Sufen claimed that she was unaware of the loan, that it was not a joint debt, and that the account was operated by Wu Qiang personally.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Tian JiayanThe lawyer keenly seized upon the "IOU + large-sum transfer forming a complete chain of evidence" and submitted three sets of key evidence: transfer receipts (transfers of 1,419,826 yuan from 2019 to 2023, including a transfer of 50,000 yuan to Zhang Sufen's account), the original IOU of 580,000 yuan dated January 15, 2023, and repayment records (after the IOU, a repayment of 32,000 yuan, leaving a remaining debt of 548,000 yuan). The lawyer pointed out that the large-sum transactions far exceeded the scope of ordinary gifts, and the IOU directly proved the lending agreement. Zhang Sufen's receipt and repayment were sufficient to prove that she was aware of and participated in the debt. Regarding the unresolved criminal case, the lawyer clarified that the lending relationship could be independently determined and did not require suspension.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that: the IOU and the transfer receipt form a complete chain of evidence, and Wu Qiang's claim of "gift" lacks substantiating evidence; Liu Ya's loaned funds included loans from financial institutions, which were invalid according to Article 13 of the Judicial Interpretation of Private Lending, but Wu Qiang still needed to repay the principal; the IOU of 580,000 yuan on January 15, 2023 was a confirmation of past debts, after deducting the repayment of 32,000 yuan, Wu Qiang needed to repay 548,000 yuan; the loan obviously exceeded the family's daily living needs, and according to Article 1064 of the Civil Code, it did not constitute a joint debt of the couple; the determination of the facts in this case did not depend on the outcome of the criminal case, so there was no need to suspend the trial. The court ruled that Wu Qiang should repay Liu Ya 548,000 yuan.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

Money transactions during a relationship are most likely to lead to disputes. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Tian JiayanAttorney (Practice License No.: 11101202111381309, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). Attorney's Reminder: When lending money, it is necessary to keep the IOU and the transfer receipt and specify the purpose of the loan; try to avoid lending the loan to others; when there is an intersection between criminal and civil cases, if the loan facts can be independently identified, it is not necessary to wait passively for the criminal results, and the rights and interests can be confirmed in time through the "concurrent criminal and civil proceedings".

VI. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Civil Loan Disputes

  1. Q: During a relationship, are transfers of money considered loans or gifts?
    A:The key is whether there is a loan agreement and evidence. If there is a promissory note, a note indicating the loan, or a large sum exceeding the scope of ordinary gifts, it is generally regarded as a loan; while small holiday red envelopes are usually considered as gifts.
  2. Q: Can I win the lawsuit if I have a promissory note and a large-amount transfer?
    A:Yes. The original promissory note and the bank/WeChat transfer records corroborate each other, forming a complete chain of evidence, which has strong probative force and is the key to winning the lawsuit.
  3. Q: Is it effective to lend money to others using a bank loan?
    A:For those who fraudulently obtain loans from financial institutions and then resell them, the loan contract is partially invalid, but the borrower is still obligated to repay the principal. However, they cannot claim the agreed upon interest.
  4. Q: Is the civil litigation suspended after a criminal case is filed?
    A:The case shall only be suspended when it must be based on the outcome of another case and the latter case has not been concluded yet; if the facts of the loan can be independently determined based on documentary evidence, there is no need to suspend the case.
  5. Q: Do spouses need to repay the debt together?
    A:If the borrowed money obviously exceeds the family's daily living needs and is not used for common life, it generally does not constitute a joint debt of the couple, and the spouse is not obligated to repay it jointly.