Fraud funds of 2.61 million transferred to girlfriend, victim's recovery claim rejected? Lawyer analyzes the boundary between unjust enrichment and bona fide acquisition
Recently, a civil case involving the flow of fraudulent proceeds has drawn widespread attention: during the commission of his crimes, a fraudster transferred a total of 2.61 million yuan to his girlfriend. After discovering this, the victim filed a lawsuit demanding the girlfriend return the money, but the court's first-instance judgment rejected the victim's claim. As soon as the news broke, public opinion was in an uproar, with many netizens questioning: does this mean the defrauded money can never be recovered? As a lawyer who has long handled criminal-civil cross cases, I believe the core disputes in this case lie in the scope of recovery of fraudulent proceeds, whether the recipient constitutes bona fide acquisition, and how victims can recover their losses through legal channels. Below, I will break down each of these issues one by one from a legal practice perspective.
Where the fraud proceeds went: Why can't the victim directly demand repayment from the girlfriend?
First, we need to clarify a basic legal concept: fraud is a crime against property, and the criminal proceeds should be recovered or restitution ordered in accordance with the law. According to Article 64 of the Criminal Law, all property illegally obtained by a criminal shall be recovered or restitution shall be ordered; the victim's lawful property shall be promptly returned. This means that, at the criminal level, the fraudulent man is the party obligated to make restitution, and the victim has the right to demand the return of the defrauded funds.
However, at the civil level, if the victim directly sues the fraudster's girlfriend to request the return of the gifted funds, a different set of rules applies. When the court dismisses the victim's claim, it is not determining that the girlfriend lawfully possesses the funds, but rather that, based on the existing evidence, the victim cannot prove that the girlfriend "knew" the funds were obtained through fraud, or that the girlfriend acted in bad faith when receiving the funds. From practical experience, the key to such cases often lies in: Did the girlfriend know the source of the boyfriend's funds? Was there a genuine romantic or financial relationship between the two parties? Were the transfers accompanied by a clear statement of purpose? If the girlfriend can reasonably explain the nature of the funds (such as gifts, living expenses, or loans) and was subjectively unaware of their illicit origin, she may be recognized as a bona fide third party, thereby defeating the victim's right to claim restitution.
Additionally, pursuant to Article 11 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Execution of Property-Related Portions of Criminal Judgments, where a third party acquires the property involved in the case in good faith, recovery shall not be pursued during execution proceedings. This provision equally applies to civil recovery scenarios, affording protection to bona fide third parties. Consequently, if the victim fails to prove the girlfriend's lack of good faith, their claim is unlikely to be upheld.
Unjust Enrichment and Bona Fide Acquisition: How Does the Law Balance the Interests of Victims and Third Parties?
In this case, the legal basis for the victim to sue the girlfriend is typically the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, namely Article 985 of the Civil Code: where a beneficiary obtains improper benefits without a legal basis, the person who suffered the loss may request the beneficiary to return the benefits obtained. On the surface, the girlfriend receiving 2.61 million yuan without cause appears to constitute unjust enrichment. However, the law is not so simple; this provision simultaneously stipulates exceptions, including the circumstance where "the beneficiary neither knew nor should have known that the benefits obtained lacked a legal basis."
In other words, if the girlfriend can prove that, based on the romantic relationship, she reasonably relied on the boyfriend's transfers as gifts or financial support, and there is no evidence showing she knew the funds were illegally obtained, then she qualifies as a "bona fide beneficiary." Under Article 986 of the Civil Code, she is only required to return the benefits still existing; if the benefits no longer exist (e.g., spent on joint consumption), she is not required to return them. To overcome this protection, the victim must prove that the girlfriend knew or should have known the funds were obtained through fraud—for example, if she was present during the transfers, participated in the fraudulent conduct, or the amounts were abnormally large with unclear purposes. In judicial practice, courts strictly scrutinize the determination of "good faith" but will not easily overturn it.
On the other hand, although the bona fide acquisition system is primarily applied in the realm of property rights, it is also frequently referenced and applied by analogy in disputes involving creditor's rights and fund disputes. Its core lies in protecting transaction security and reliance interests, preventing innocent third parties from suffering losses due to the criminal acts of others. In this case, if the girlfriend satisfies the constituent elements of bona fide acquisition, then the victim's losses can only be recovered by turning to the fraudulent man, and cannot "pierce through" to the girlfriend. This reflects the law's value balance between victim relief and third-party protection, and also explains why the court dismissed the lawsuit.
Criminal-Civil Overlap Practice: Pathways for Victim Asset Recovery and Challenges in Burden of Proof
From the perspective of the intersection of criminal and civil law, the handling sequence and path selection for such cases are crucial. My suggestion is that victims should prioritize recovering stolen assets through criminal proceedings rather than rushing to file civil lawsuits. There are three reasons: First, criminal recovery procedures are compulsory, and public security organs may freeze and seal the property involved in accordance with the law, which is more efficient than civil litigation. Second, the criminal facts and the whereabouts of stolen assets determined by criminal judgments can serve as direct evidence in civil cases, reducing the victims' burden of proof. Third, if the criminal proceedings determine that the girlfriend was the recipient of the stolen assets and was not acting in good faith, the chances of success in a civil lawsuit will increase significantly.
However, criminal recovery is not a panacea. In practice, fraudsters often transfer funds quickly or "launder" the money through others' accounts, making recovery difficult. In this case, if the criminal judgment did not explicitly determine that the girlfriend should make restitution, or if the girlfriend has been excluded as an accomplice, then the victim's independent civil lawsuit becomes a necessary supplement. At this point, the burden of proof should focus on: the correspondence between the timing of the transfers and the fraudulent conduct, the extent of the girlfriend's knowledge of the nature of the funds, and whether the money was used for shared living expenses or investments. For example, if the transfers occurred within a short period after the fraud was completed, and the amounts were substantial, clearly exceeding normal romantic spending levels, the court may presume that the girlfriend "should have known" that the source of the funds was abnormal. Conversely, if the transfers were dispersed over a long-term relationship and there are records of shared consumption, it would be difficult to establish bad faith.
Additionally, the victim may consider applying for property preservation to prevent the girlfriend from transferring funds, but security must be provided. Cases of this nature involve lengthy litigation cycles and high costs. It is advisable for the victim to consult a professional attorney before filing a lawsuit to assess the sufficiency of evidence and the likelihood of success, thereby avoiding the awkward situation of "winning the case but losing the money."
Lawyer's advice: How can ordinary people prevent legal risks arising from "being paid"?
This case also serves as a warning to ordinary people: when relatives, friends, or partners suddenly transfer a large sum of money, the recipient may face potential legal risks, and even with good intentions, they may be drawn into litigation. As a lawyer who has long handled such cases, I have a few specific suggestions:
First, for large transfers, be sure to keep communication records and explanations of the purpose of the funds. Whether it is a gift, a loan, or custodial management, the nature of the funds should be clearly defined through WeChat, text messages, or a written agreement, to avoid it being later determined as "unjust enrichment." Second, if you know that the source of the other party's funds is suspicious (such as frequent mentions of "investment returns," "gambling winnings," etc.), you should resolutely refuse to accept the funds or return them promptly; otherwise, you may be suspected of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds. Third, for fraud victims, you should report the case to the police immediately and apply for a freeze on the accounts involved, and do not delay. At the same time, actively provide the case-handling authorities with clues such as transfer vouchers and chat records to help lock down the flow of funds. If criminal recovery is obstructed, then consider civil litigation, but you need to assess the defendant's ability to pay.
Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long specialized in handling criminal-civil crossover cases and property disputes, having represented numerous complex litigations involving recovery of fraud proceeds and restitution of unjust enrichment, with an in-depth understanding of the judicial determination standards for "bona fide acquisition." If you encounter similar issues, you are welcome to consult us, and we will provide you with practical and feasible solutions to protect your rights.
The law never favors any party; it protects both the property rights of victims and the reliance interests of bona fide third parties. Only by understanding the rules can you stay composed when risks arise.
