Recently, the news that Sun Yuchen has filed a lawsuit against Jing Tian seeking the return of more than RMB 30 million in “betrothal gifts” has attracted widespread public attention. Setting aside the online chatter, this dispute is essentially a typical case concerning the return of high-value property between former lovers. Drawing on the author’s practical experience in betrothal-gift return cases, conditional gift revocation cases and private lending disputes between lovers, this article examines below the common patterns of property transfers between lovers, the difficulties encountered in practice, and practical suggestions for both sides.

I. Common patterns of property transfers between lovers

1. Express gift

Where a payer writes in the transfer memo “a gift for you”, “for you to spend”, or otherwise clearly expresses an intention to make a gift in chat records, the payment is an express gift. If it is an unconditional ordinary gift, ownership passes upon delivery and the donor cannot demand return after the lovers break up. However, if the gift is made for the purpose of marriage (for example, “this money is given to you with marriage in mind”), it is a conditional gift; if the condition is not fulfilled, the donor may lawfully demand return.

2. Transfer with no expression of intent

This is the most common and most contentious situation. One party sues only with a transfer voucher, while the other argues that the payment was a gift. Because neither party specified the nature of the money when it was received, each side tells a different story after the breakup.

3. Payment explicitly made as a betrothal gift

The payer gives money to the woman or to her parents or family members, clearly for the purpose of marriage. If the parties ultimately do not register their marriage, the money should in principle be returned. If the parties have already lived together, the court will comprehensively consider the length of cohabitation, whether the couple has children, whether the amount of the betrothal gift is excessive, and other factors, and will determine the return proportion accordingly. The dispute between Sun Yuchen and Jing Tian falls into this pattern.

4. Loan between lovers

Where chat records contain words such as “borrow” and “repay”, or where the parties execute a debt instrument such as an IOU, a lending relationship may be found. The formation of a loan relationship requires both a mutual intention to lend and borrow and the actual delivery of funds.

5. Everyday affectionate red packets

Amounts with special meanings, such as 520, 1314, birthday red packets, and similar transfers, are treated under the judicial interpretation as gratuitous gifts made to express or enhance affection. After a breakup, the receiving party does not need to return them.

The above categories are not separated by bright lines. They form a continuous spectrum running from an “express gift” to a “clearly documented loan”, with a broad grey area in which the expression of intent is vague and difficult to classify. Affectionate red packets are the least controversial, while clearly documented loans are the most rigid. It is precisely the ambiguity of the middle ground that creates the real difficulty in practice.

II. Three major difficulties in practice

Where a party clearly said “gift”, clearly wrote “loan”, or clearly gave a “betrothal gift”, the classification is relatively clear and disputes are usually limited. The real difficulty is that when the transfer was made, neither party made its nature clear: neither side said gift, loan or betrothal gift, or one side used an ambiguous phrase and the two sides understood it differently. After the breakup, each side insists on its own version, and the court has to reconstruct the facts through evidence. The following three examples are real cases handled by the author.

Difficulty 1. One side pleads hardship, the other compassionately transfers money, and only “use it for now” is left behind

In the chat records, one party describes difficulties: rent is due, a credit card payment is approaching, or cash flow is tight in the short term. The other party, out of sympathy, transfers money and says “use it for now”. The recipient does not ask about the nature of the payment, and the payer does not explain further. There is no IOU and no clear word “loan”, only the ambiguous phrase “use it for now”.

After the breakup, the payer sues and demands return. How does the court characterize the payment?

Under the relevant judicial interpretation, when a plaintiff brings a private lending lawsuit based solely on a transfer voucher, the court presumes that a loan relationship has been formed. If the recipient claims that the payment was a gift, the recipient bears the burden of proof. If the recipient cannot prove the gift, the transfer shall be found to be a loan.

The normative logic of this rule is that when the nature of a payment is unclear, the law protects the party that supplied the funds. A recipient who asserts a gift must provide sufficient evidence; otherwise, he or she will bear the adverse litigation consequence.

Therefore, in the “pleading hardship → transfer → acceptance” pattern, it is usually difficult for the recipient to prove a gift. The context of the transfer was to relieve the other party’s financial difficulty rather than to make an unconditional gift. In trial, the court will consider whether the recipient indeed had a financial need and whether the payer provided financial support because of that need; this set of circumstances is more consistent with a finding of loan than of gift.

What this means for payers: a payer does not need to worry excessively merely because the transfer was not marked “loan”. As long as the payer holds complete transfer vouchers and the recipient cannot prove that the payment was a gift, the court is inclined to find a loan. The phrase “use it for now” is not legally sufficient to show an intention to give.

Warning for recipients: the recipient should not treat an ambiguous expression such as “use it for now” as a gift. In judicial practice, this expression does not constitute sufficient evidence of a gift. If the recipient cannot produce evidence that the payer clearly said “no need to repay” or “this is a gift for you”, the recipient faces the legal risk that the payment will be found to be a loan and must be repaid.

Difficulty 2. “I give this to you willingly” during courtship, then a lawsuit after breakup

During courtship, a man declares clearly: “I am giving this money to you willingly. Whether or not you accept me, I am willing to give, and you can accept it with peace of mind.” The woman accepts the money on that basis. Later, she either does not agree to enter a relationship or the relationship is short-lived and ends. The man then sues for return of all transfers, claiming that the money was a loan. In the lawsuit, the payer tries to disown his earlier statements by saying “I cannot remember it” or “I was only speaking casually”. The woman, however, has only a chat record saying “I am willing to spend it on you”, which is not linked to any particular payment, and no other evidence capable of proving an unconditional gift.

In this type of case, the recipient has no subjective fault; she merely accepted the money in reasonable reliance on the pursuer’s assurances. But civil litigation follows the basic principle that he who asserts must prove. The court accepts evidence, not subjective belief.

Two risk points are particularly important.

First, the amount. If a single transfer is obviously beyond the scope of ordinary daily gifts, the court may characterize it as a conditional gift made for marriage and support its return.

Second, the transfer memo. Some payers write “loan” in the transfer memo, while saying “this is a gift for you” in WeChat chats. In litigation, the transfer memo is preliminary evidence of a loan and has relatively strong probative force. On the other hand, the recipient’s evidence of a gift intention in WeChat chats is relatively weak. Therefore, a recipient cannot rely only on chat records. He or she should also check whether the payer pre-set a label favorable to the payer in the transfer memo.

Practical suggestion: if a woman receives frequent large transfers during a pursuit period, even if the payer’s words sound sincere, she may add a confirming sentence: “Are you confirming that this is a gift for me? I’m really going to accept it.” If the payer confirms again, that confirmation can serve as key evidence for the court to find a gift.

Difficulty 3. Short relationship, lawsuit more than one year after breakup, and key evidence already lost

The woman and the man had dated for only one to two months and then separated because they were unsuitable. The woman returned to her hometown. There was no large betrothal gift and no clear loan. During the relationship, the man had only given her some pocket money and paid for gifts. More than one year after the breakup, the woman suddenly received a court summons: the man had named her as defendant in a lawsuit and demanded return of all “loans” made during the relationship. By that time, she had already changed her phone and her historical chat data had been cleared. She tried to find witnesses who could prove the relationship, but because the relationship was so short, even common friends were hard to locate. She had no written record showing that the man paid voluntarily.

The man held complete transfer records, while the woman had no favorable evidence. In court, the man submitted bank records and the court, as provided by law, presumed that a loan relationship existed. Although the woman argued that the two had been dating and the man paid voluntarily, she could not explain the payment scenario and the nature of each amount and could not produce supporting evidence. The outcome of the case was rather unfavorable to the woman.

The author does not intend to judge who was right or wrong, but must point out that evidence does not automatically appear in court simply because objective facts existed. No matter how short the relationship is, once time passes and data are cleared, the fact exists only in one party’s statement, while the court only accepts facts that can be proved by evidence.

Practical suggestion: important chat records and transfer screenshots during the relationship should be backed up in three ways (mobile phone, computer and cloud storage), and retained for at least one year after the breakup before being cleared. Do not neglect them because “the amount is small” or “the other side will not sue”. Many of the cases handled by the author arose precisely because the parties thought it would not happen, and later deeply regretted it.

These three difficulties share a common pattern: the vaguer the expression of intent, the greater the litigation risk for the recipient; and the longer the time, the greater the risk of evidence loss. The law presumes that transfers with unclear intent are loans, and this rule is inherently unfavorable to the receiving party. Therefore, for the recipient, passive acceptance is not as good as active confirmation: one additional confirming sentence at the outset may avoid a lawsuit later. For the payer, holding transfer records brings a procedural advantage: the law presumes that the transferred money is a loan unless the recipient proves it was a gift.

III. Recommendations for recipients

1. Confirm before accepting a large transfer

When receiving a large transfer, promptly confirm with the payer: “This is a gift for me, right?” After the payer confirms, keep a screenshot. That confirmation is key evidence for distinguishing gift from loan in the future.

2. Carefully inspect the transfer memo

Before accepting the money, check the content of the transfer memo. If the memo says “loan” while the other person claims orally that it is “a gift for you”, the recipient should refuse the payment or ask the payer to change the memo and make the transfer again, so as to avoid future disputes.

3. Be careful with words during breakup

No matter how the other party tries to pressure you, do not say in chat records such things as “I will repay you”, “I owe you”, or “I will pay you in installments”. Such statements constitute an acknowledgment of debt and may turn money that could have been characterized as a gift into a loan.

4. Be cautious about signing any written document

Any document asked to be signed during a breakup should be reviewed word by word. If the document contains words such as “owe”, “borrow” or “repay”, it is advisable to refuse to sign, or to consult a professional lawyer before signing.

5. Back up evidence in time

Important chat records and transfer vouchers should be kept in three backups, and retained for at least one year after breakup before being cleared.

IV. Recommendations for payers

1. Clarify the nature of the payment before transferring

Before making a large transfer, first assess whether you can bear the loss if the money cannot be recovered. If not, specify its nature at the time of transfer: mark it as “loan”, or ask the recipient to confirm in chat: “This is a loan, and I promise to repay it on time.”

2. Keep a written trace when giving for the purpose of marriage

Where a large amount is given for the purpose of marriage, state clearly in chat at the time of giving: “This is a betrothal gift” or “This money is given with marriage in mind.” Without such words, the court may characterize the payment as an ordinary gift and the claim for return may not be sustained.

3. Use a precise litigation strategy and avoid indiscriminately claiming all transfers

If the payer sues after breakup for all transfers made during the relationship, regardless of amount, the court will review the transfers one by one. Daily consumption expenses, 520 red packets, small gifts and the like are usually excluded. What will ultimately be supported is usually the part that is corroborated by an IOU or chat records. Litigating precisely over several key transfers supported by IOUs or chat records has a far higher success rate than a blanket claim that all transfers were loans. The better approach is precision, not an inflated global claim.

4. Be cautious in seeking revocation on the ground of “fraud”

Some payers argue in litigation: “The money was given for the purpose of marriage. Now the other party refuses to marry, which constitutes fraud”, or claim that the recipient has collected money from every relationship in the same pattern and that the payer was the victim of a “pig-butchering scam”. On that basis, they seek revocation of the gift.

Courts apply a very strict standard to such claims. Fraud must satisfy all of the following elements: the fraudulent party has subjective intent, has fabricated facts or concealed the truth, and the defrauded party has acted on a mistaken understanding and made a declaration of intent contrary to its true will. In the context of romantic disputes, the payer must prove that the recipient never intended to marry from the outset and intended purely to obtain property by deception. Changes in feelings and a refusal to continue the relationship do not constitute fraud in law. Even if the recipient engaged in a similar pattern of receiving money in dealings with several persons, in the absence of sufficient evidence of subjective bad faith, the court will usually characterize the matter as an emotional or relationship dispute rather than criminal fraud.

In practice, some payers equate their own “later regret” with “the other party’s fraud”, or confuse “relationship breakdown” with “civil fraud”. Such claims have very little chance of being upheld in judicial decisions.

A further reminder is necessary: if the payer does have evidence that the recipient sought to obtain money with the purpose of illegal possession by fabricating facts, the matter is no longer merely a civil dispute and may constitute a criminal offence. The appropriate route is to report the case to the public security organ, rather than only pursuing revocation of the gift through civil litigation.

Conclusion

Lovers often find it easy to be together but hard to part gracefully. Most of the cases of this kind handled by the author are brought by men against women. It is difficult to probe all the reasons, but the reality reflected in those cases deserves thought.

In practice, some men enter the pursuit stage with the mindset that “at worst, I can ask for the money back after breaking up”. While saying “I give this to you willingly”, they also deliberately try to make their transfer records look like loans. There are also men who genuinely gave their feelings and property and, after discovering that the other side never took the relationship seriously, seek relief through litigation.

It is worth noting that some women who have suffered losses in such disputes now require men to state explicitly in chat records before each transfer: “voluntary gift, no need to return”. Whether this is rational risk prevention or an early dissolution of intimacy is hard to say. But it does reflect a notable change in modern intimate relationships: the boundary between emotion and money is becoming increasingly blurred, and individuals’ awareness of risk prevention is being pushed further and further forward.

What the law can do is to reconstruct a judgment relatively close to objective facts according to the rules of evidence when the two sides give conflicting accounts. The best outcome, however, is that both sides remain sober when they give emotion and property: clarify the nature of the payment when giving, and confirm the ownership when receiving. This is not calculation, but respect for each other and basic protection of one’s own rights.

(The author is a practising lawyer. This article is based on current laws, regulations and judicial practice, and is for general reference only; it does not constitute legal advice for any particular case.)