Compiled from: Marriage Law Home
 
During courtship, young men and women inevitably have some financial exchanges to express affection, with red packet transfers being a common method. Many couples also end up in disputes over financial matters after breaking up, even taking each other to court. This article provides a legal analysis from the perspective of determining the legal nature of transfer behavior, examining whether requests for the return of transfers made during the relationship can be supported.

 
 

To exercise the right to claim a refund of a transfer, the nature of the transfer must first be clarified, which determines the cause of action in court. During a romantic relationship, the legal relationship of a transfer may be identified as a loan, a gift, a dispute over a betrothal gift, or unjust enrichment. Different legal relationships have varying conditions for establishment, applicable legal provisions, and allocation of the burden of proof, leading to different judgments.
 
 
I. Private Lending
For a private lending legal relationship to be established, in addition to the act of delivering the loan, such as a transfer, there must also be an agreement to borrow. Therefore, when suing under the legal relationship of private lending, the plaintiff must provide evidence of the borrowing agreement in addition to the transfer record, such as a message record where the other party explicitly expressed the intention to borrow or an IOU. Otherwise, the plaintiff may bear the adverse legal consequences of insufficient evidence.
 
 
II. Gift
A gift contract is a contract in which the donor gives their property to the donee free of charge, and the donee agrees to accept it. A gift contract can be written or oral. However, being free of charge does not mean it is unconditional. Gifts can be divided into unconditional gifts and conditional gifts based on whether conditions are attached.
 
According to Article 186 of the Contract Law, after a gift is established but before the gift property is delivered, the donor has the right to revoke the gift arbitrarily, except for public welfare purposes such as poverty alleviation and disaster relief. However, once the gift property is delivered, it cannot be revoked. For a conditional gift, if it is a gift with a resolutory condition, the donor may choose to revoke the gift when the condition is fulfilled.
 
Transfers between couples, if only supported by transfer records without evidence of a loan, may be characterized as gifts. However, whether it is an unconditional gift or a conditional gift varies among courts when adjudicating such cases, depending on the specific circumstances and local economic conditions, with judges having considerable discretion and differing conclusions. For example, some courts, based on local economic conditions, set a discretionary monetary threshold: amounts below this are considered unconditional gifts expressing affection during the relationship, while amounts above are deemed conditional gifts aimed at cohabitation or marriage, subject to a resolutory condition. Upon breakup, as the condition for revocation is fulfilled, the donor may revoke the gift, and property obtained through the gift must be returned. Other courts may order the return of a certain amount of transfers, while treating the rest as unconditional gifts.

 
 

Additionally, transfers with special meanings, such as "520" or "1314", are generally considered unconditional gifts expressing affection.
 
 
III. Unjust Enrichment
 
Unjust enrichment refers to obtaining benefits without a legal or contractual basis, causing loss to another party. Upon the occurrence of unjust enrichment, the entitled party has the right to demand the return of undue benefits, and the enriched party is obligated to return them. When unjust enrichment arises from a payment lacking a purpose (e.g., absence of purpose from the outset or failure to achieve the purpose), it is also known as payment-based unjust enrichment.
 
Transfers between couples are often numerous and varied in amount, with little other evidence to clarify whether the payment is a loan or a gift. In such cases, some courts consider the nature and purpose of monetary exchanges difficult to ascertain, and thus refrain from simply categorizing the funds as private loans or gifts. Since the purpose of cohabitation or marriage cannot be achieved after the breakup, the property obtained lacks a legal basis, and the recipient is deemed to have been unjustly enriched, requiring its return.
 
 
IV. Disputes over Betrothal Gifts
In traditional Chinese marriage customs, when a man and a woman discuss marriage, the man often needs to give money to the woman to express his sincerity in forming the marriage, commonly known as betrothal gifts. Although this legal relationship falls under the category of conditional gifts, it differs from ordinary gifts, and courts have a separate cause of action during trials, namely disputes over betrothal property. The payment of betrothal gifts is always for the purpose of marriage. When one party provides evidence that the transfer was indeed a betrothal gift, according to Article 10 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation II on the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China: "If a party requests the return of betrothal gifts given according to custom, and it is found to fall under the following circumstances, the people's court shall support it:
(1) The parties have not registered their marriage;
(2) The parties have registered their marriage but have not actually lived together;
(3) The gift was given before marriage and has caused the giver to live in hardship.
The application of items (2) and (3) of the preceding paragraph shall be conditional on the divorce of the parties.
 
 
5. Criminal fraud
If one party conceals or fabricates facts, with the intent of illegal possession, pretends to be in a romantic relationship to defraud the other party of money, and the amount reaches the statutory threshold, it may constitute fraud. To establish fraud, it is not enough to rely solely on transfer records; other evidence must be combined, and the standard of clear facts and sufficient evidence must be met for a comprehensive determination.