[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, to prevent false litigation in private lending, it is necessary to start with identifying common forms. There are four common forms: forging loan notes or backdating the time, fabricating the fact of borrowing; forging bank transaction records or transfer certificates to supplement the evidence of delivery; repeatedly claiming the same creditor's rights in different cases; and fabricating large-scale cash delivery to avoid leaving traces of the transfer. The core of prevention is to grasp the corresponding relationship of the flow of funds: every loan note should have corresponding transfer or delivery certificates, and the time, amount, and identities of both parties should be able to corroborate each other. Article 148 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021) stipulates that a civil legal act performed by fraudulent means and against the true intention of the other party is invalid. However, false litigation also involves criminal risks. Therefore, when finding any abnormalities, we should promptly report them to the court and the procuratorial organs. For reference only.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementThe service description in the column.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

Most people who consult this issue are parties who only discovered abnormalities after entering litigation. There are three common scenarios: First, the same loan is repeatedly sued by the other party, with the claimed amount constantly increasing; Second, the other party sues solely based on promissory notes without any transfer receipts; Third, they are involved in litigation involving malicious collusion between others and third parties, and need to prove that they are not related to the dispute. In practice, identifying false litigation is quite difficult, as the documents themselves may appear to be complete. However, there are usually obvious loopholes: the time of providing evidence does not match the time of the promissory note, large cash claims lack proof of presence or withdrawal receipts, the same promissory note appears in different cases, or there are inconsistencies in the parties' statements about the loan purpose. The key lies in carefully comparing the details.

II. Key points of contention

The first focus is whether the promissory notes and the fund flow records can be matched one by one. The second focus is the evaluation of the credibility of the claim of cash delivery. The third focus is the repeated claims of the same creditor's rights in different cases. The fourth focus is whether the borrower and the lender have any affiliation or interest relationship. The fifth focus is the integrity of the repayment records, especially large-amount repayments or interest payments. The sixth focus is whether there are inconsistencies in the statements of the litigation participants. The seventh focus is the identification and transfer procedures of false litigation. The eighth focus is the response strategies for the implicated third parties. The procedural response methods can be referred to for reference.Special services and other casesThe description of the column.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

Take a second-instance case handled by Attorney Chen Jie of our firm as an example: The lender has continuously lent money to the borrower since 2014, claiming a large amount of money, which includes multiple forms such as bank transfers, cash deposits, and transfers through third-party accounts. In the first-instance trial, the borrower argued that the two parties were in a cohabitation relationship and that the funds were deposits, denying the existence of a loan agreement. The first-instance court only recognized some of the transfers as valid and dismissed the remaining claims. After the client appealed, the attorney's argument focused on two points: First, the standard of proof for cash delivery, arguing that only cash withdrawal records cannot prove delivery to the other party and should not be recognized as loan delivery; Second, the allocation of the burden of proof for transfers through third-party accounts, and the authenticity and relevance of the corresponding fund flows need to be reviewed. The second-instance court adopted the main arguments, ruling that the borrower should return the loan principal and adding some amounts to the original determination; it did not support the claims for which there were only cash withdrawal records but no proof of delivery. This case shows that even if the overall case involves a loan agreement, individual claims may still not be supported due to insufficient evidence of delivery. Verifying the fund flows one by one is the common basis for debt collection and combating fraudulent litigation. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Tian JiayanThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101202111381309, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action suggestions: 1. Verify each IOU, transfer receipt, and repayment record to form a complete funding chain; 2. Pay attention to whether there is a connection or conflict of interest between the borrower and the lender; 3. Monitor the repeated appearance of the same creditor in different cases; 4. Retain complete original communication and delivery documents to avoid document isolation; 5. Actively cross-examine witnesses and request the court to obtain bank transaction records during litigation; 6. When discovering clues of fraudulent litigation, promptly submit written opinions to the court and report them to the procuratorial organs; 7. Third parties involved should actively defend themselves and submit independent evidence to prove their innocence. Legal basis: - Articles 148 and 149 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021) regarding rules on fraud and coercion; - The Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on October 26, 2018) regarding rules on fraudulent litigation; - The Civil Procedure Law regarding trial procedures and evidence review shall be based on the current effective version.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Firstly, the most effective way to identify false litigation is to verify the funding chain item by item. Secondly, the relationship between borrowers and lenders is often overlooked, and it is necessary to check whether there is joint operation or personnel overlap. Thirdly, claims for large amounts of cash are usually the weakest link. Fourthly, in litigation, it is necessary to actively apply for the retrieval of bank statements, as the probative force of screenshots submitted by the other party is limited. Fifthly, if false litigation is discovered, it should be promptly reported to the court and procuratorial organs, and if necessary, apply for the investigation of corresponding responsibilities. Sixthly, third parties involved should not passively evade their responsibilities and should submit independent evidence of their work and living conditions. Seventhly, it is necessary to preserve the original carriers and transaction records, and not just keep screenshots.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: How to identify a false lawsuit initiated by the other party?

The core method is to compare the IOUs, transfer receipts, receipt slips, and repayment records one by one to form a complete funding chain. If the other party only submits IOUs without any delivery receipts, or claims that a large amount of cash was delivered but only has a cash withdrawal record, this is worth being vigilant about. In addition, attention should also be paid to whether the borrower and the lender have a relationship of affiliation, whether the same creditor appears repeatedly in different cases, and whether the statements of the parties on the reasons for the loan are inconsistent with each other.

Q2: If there's only a promissory note but no transfer receipt, can I still win the case?

This is quite challenging. The claimant needs to prove that the loan has actually been delivered. A promissory note alone is usually not enough to prove the existence of a lending relationship. The court will make a comprehensive judgment based on the capital flow, the parties' statements, transaction habits, and subsequent repayment situations. If there are partial repayment records or interest payment records, they can be used as indirect evidence of the lending agreement. Therefore, when making a claim, it is necessary to provide as much evidence as possible regarding the delivery and repayment of the loan. In the litigation process, the claimant can also apply to the court to retrieve the bank transaction records.

Q3: What should I do if the same loan is sued multiple times?

It is necessary to verify whether there are duplicate claims. The same creditor's rights cannot be compensated repeatedly. If it is found that the other party sues repeatedly for the same IOU or the same transfer in different cases, it is necessary to raise objections to the court in time and submit relevant materials. If necessary, you can apply to the court to retrieve the flow of the funds and verify whether they have been paid off or handled in other cases. Duplicate claims may constitute false litigation, and rights should be claimed through legal means.

Q4: How should we deal with fraudulent litigation when it's discovered?

Firstly, you can cross-examine the evidence in the lawsuit and apply to the court to obtain relevant evidence, while submitting a written opinion to the court stating that there are suspicions of false litigation. If the circumstances are clear, you can report the case to the procuratorial organ and request that it be dealt with in accordance with the law. It should be noted that reporting false litigation should be supported by facts and evidence, and it is not appropriate to make subjective accusations. If you are implicated as a third party, you should actively defend yourself in court and submit independent evidence to clarify the true ownership of the funds and affairs.

Q5: What should I do if I'm involved in someone else's dispute?

You should actively defend the lawsuit and submit independent evidence to prove that the funds involved are used for their actual purposes and come from legitimate sources. At the same time, you should clarify the fact that the account was used or controlled by others. You can apply to the court to retrieve the account transaction details and login information to prove the actual user of the account. If necessary, you can consider initiating an independent lawsuit to assert your rights or require relevant personnel to return the funds. When responding to the lawsuit, avoid making emotional statements and focus on presenting objective facts and evidence. For related procedures, you can refer to the following guidelines:Special services and other casesThe instructions in the column.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in the Beijing area. There may be differences in the adjudication standards in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit.Legal services for creditor-debtor disputes·Attorney Tian Jiayan·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.