The online boyfriend borrowed 60 million and didn't pay back, the g.irl sued and the e.nding was bittersweet

Having met her boyfriend online, the gullible young g.irl lent him m.oney by transferring to the Wechat platform. The story makes many people ponder about the issue of dating in the virtual world.

The main character Liu was born and raised in China. She said she met Mr. Chu through WeChat. Right after officially meeting each other, this person borrowed m.oney from the g.irl many times citing financial difficulties.

Sympathizing with her boyfriend's feelings, Ms. Liu transferred a total of 18,000 yuan (equivalent to about 60 million VND) to Mr. Chu via bank transfer, WeChat red envelopes...

It is worth mentioning that after that, the g.irl did not see any intention of the other person wanting to return the m.oney to her. Regarding this issue, the young man said that the m.oney he received was not a loan but a gift. Feeling that this case was difficult, Liu decided to sue her online boyfriend in court.

After hearing the situation clearly, the court confirmed that Ms. Liu provided m.oney to Mr. Chu in two ways: red envelopes and bank transfer on WeChat. In particular, the WeChat red envelope itself inherently contains the meaning of "gift".

Based on the specific details of the case, Ms. Liu provided Mr. Chu with m.oney to support his life, the total amount sent via WeChat red envelopes was 15,000 yuan (about 50 million VND), which means this is The gift is for Mr. Chu and he does not need to repay this m.oney.

The remaining amount of 3,000 yuan (about 10 million VND) that the g.irl gave to her boyfriend via WeChat transfer, although Mr. Chu confirmed that it was a gift, there was no evidence to prove that his girlfriend expressed her intention to give a gift. .

Therefore, the People's Court of Hai Dien District in Beijing (China) ruled that the young man was forced to return this m.oney to its true owner.

In fact, WeChat transfer and WeChat red envelope are both implemented through the same payment gateway, but their nature is different, differentiated based on the functions and properties of the software.

To be more specific, unlike red envelopes, WeChat transfer does not have a "gift" meaning, it is just a payment function set up by this software and is one of the payment methods used. popular among users.

Through Ms. Liu's case, the Court advises people to be cautious of any online relationship that develops too quickly. When using social networking sites, do not accept friend requests from people you do not know.

At the same time, avoid revealing too much personal information in your dating profile or to someone you only chat with online. Most importantly, internet users should not be too hasty in lending m.oney to friends in the "virtual world" to avoid getting into trouble.

Previously, the Shandong High Court issued a scientific article, m.oney transfers or red envelopes often have postscripts such as messages and notes, although these postscripts are an expression of intention. unilateral decisions of one side but they have a certain subjectivity.

Depending on the content, postscripts can actually be divided simply into two types of evidence: the first type of postscript has greater probative power and can be used as direct evidence, e.g. like "Rest well"..., so the m.oney transferred with this postscript will be recognized as a "gift".

If the postscript is written such as "transfer m.oney to this person", "pay m.oney to that person"..., then the amount will be counted as an ordinary payment and not as a gift. Once the meaning of the postscript is unclear or ambiguous, other evidence will be needed to supplement it.

In addition, if the plaintiff believes that the postscript is false, he must have the burden of proving error in that postscript; On the contrary, if the defendant believes that the postscript is untrue, he must promptly object to it after receiving the postscript.

Qin Shi Huang and 4 unsolved mysteries, there is one thing that makes posterity controversial Quỳnh Quỳnh16:50:38 05/07/2024In ancient Chinese history, there were more than 400 kings, but there was only one king worthy of the title of the First Ancient Emperor, that was Qin Shi Huang. There are still many mysteries about the life of this king.