The short answer

  • You can sue, and the court will accept the case. A transfer record proves that the money was paid; it does not prove why it was paid. What these cases really require you to supply is the mutual intent to lend and borrow（借贷合意）— the other side’s acknowledgment that this was a loan.
  • Where a plaintiff sues for repayment on nothing but a bank or WeChat transfer receipt, and the defendant argues that the transfer was repayment of the plaintiff’s own earlier debt, payment for goods or an investment, the burden of proof（举证责任）lies on the defendant (Article 16 of the Private Lending Provisions); once the defendant produces evidence, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff.
  • The most practical way to fill the evidentiary gap is not a letter from a lawyer but getting the other side to say, on WeChat or on the phone, “I borrowed it, and I can’t repay it yet.” Once that sentence is preserved, the lending relationship is essentially secure.
  • If the other side disappears completely and does not even appear in court, you can switch to a claim in unjust enrichment（不当得利）, but it is not a sure win: the court will ask why you transferred money to someone for no reason, and as soon as the defendant offers a plausible explanation you are back to proving the lending relationship.
  • The limitation period（诉讼时效）is three years, running from the agreed repayment date or from the day you first demanded repayment; every demand, and every acknowledgment by the debtor, restarts the three years. If no interest was agreed, the court will not award any; if interest was agreed, it cannot exceed four times the one-year loan prime rate (LPR) at the time the contract was formed.

These cases are not about whether a debt must be repaid, but about the mutual intent to lend and borrow

Article 667 of the Civil Code of the PRC provides that a loan contract is a contract under which the borrower borrows from the lender and repays the loan with interest when due; Article 679 further provides that a loan contract between natural persons is formed when the lender provides the loan. Individuals lending to one another do not need a written contract or a thumbprint — the contract is formed when the money arrives, and an oral loan is equally valid (Article 469 of the Civil Code permits an oral form).

But “the contract is formed” and “you can prove the contract is formed” are two different things. A judgment recorded in the Supreme People’s Court Case Database under database entry no. 2023-08-2-103-004 puts it bluntly: in deciding whether a lending relationship exists, “the mutual intent to lend and borrow and the delivery of the funds are the two basic elements for determining whether a loan contract relationship between the parties has been established.”

A transfer record supplies only the second half: a bank statement can prove that you sent him RMB 80,000, but not whether that RMB 80,000 was a loan, a repayment, payment for goods, or a gift. If the other side says a single sentence in court — “that was him repaying my money” — the focus of the case shifts from “why haven’t you repaid” to “what makes you say this was a loan.” That is why many people lose while holding a stack of transfer receipts.

If all you have is a transfer receipt, will the court refuse to hear the case?

No. Article 2 of the Supreme People’s Court Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases (the Private Lending Provisions) provides that when a lender sues it should submit debt instruments such as an IOU, a receipt or a promissory note “as well as other evidence capable of proving the existence of the lending legal relationship.” A transfer receipt is exactly such other evidence.

The real hurdle is how the burden of proof is allocated at trial. Article 16 of the same Provisions states (quoted in part): “Where a plaintiff brings a private lending action relying only on a transfer receipt issued by a financial institution, and the defendant argues that the transfer was repayment of an earlier loan or other debt between the parties, the defendant shall provide evidence to prove that assertion. After the defendant has provided corresponding evidence to prove that assertion, the plaintiff shall still bear the burden of proving that the lending relationship was established.”

What this means in practice is that when you sue on a transfer record, the other side must first explain what the money was. If he cannot explain it, the court tends to side with you; if he produces a credible explanation (an earlier IOU, a contract, chat records), the ball is back at your feet and you must show that it really was a loan.

So these cases are not won by having a transfer — they are lost by whoever runs out of answers first.

How to reconstruct the mutual intent to lend and borrow

This evidence has to be built before you sue, and in a way the other side will not see coming. The four methods below are ranked from most to least effective:

  • Let him write it, or type it, himself. The safest is to add an IOU or a repayment plan stating the amount, the date and the repayment deadline, signed and thumbprinted. If relations have already broken down and nothing can be signed, fall back on a WeChat question: “You borrowed RMB 80,000 last March and said you would repay it this month — when can I have it?” If he answers “next month,” the lending relationship is fixed: the amount, the timing and the nature of the money are all captured in it.
  • Record the phone call. Say the date of the loan, the amount and how the money was handed over during the call, and get the other side to confirm it in the conversation. Record it on the phone you actually used, keep the file complete and unedited, and make sure both speakers can be identified. Under Article 66 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, audio-visual material（视听资料）and electronic data（电子数据）are both statutory categories of evidence; Article 15 of the Supreme People’s Court Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedure requires the original medium of audio-visual material to be produced, and Article 90(4) makes clear that “audio-visual material and electronic data of doubtful reliability” cannot by itself be the basis for finding facts — a judge will not credit a clipped recording that captures only half a sentence.
  • Transfer notes and witnesses. Writing “loan” in the payment reference when you transfer the money is far more useful than explaining it afterwards; a third person who was present when the money was lent can also testify, although an interest in the outcome affects the weight of that testimony.
  • Questions at the hearing. If the other side appears in court but has denied everything beforehand, you can ask directly during the questioning stage: “On such-and-such a date, did you receive the RMB 80,000 I transferred?” and “When do you intend to repay this money?” Lying in court carries the consequences of a false statement, and many people relent at this point.

Conversely, if you have been blocked on WeChat, your calls go unanswered and the person cannot be found, there is very little room to build evidence; at that stage it comes down to whether the transfer receipt plus other circumstantial evidence forms a single chain.

If the other side flatly denies everything, can you switch to a claim in unjust enrichment?

You can, but lower your expectations.

Article 985 of the Civil Code provides that where a person obtains a benefit without a legal basis, the person who suffered the loss may request its return. Applied to this kind of case it means: I transferred RMB 80,000 to you for no reason, you can point to no basis for receiving it, so you should give it back.

The problem is that “no legal basis” is a negative fact, and making the plaintiff prove that no cause exists at all is inherently difficult. In practice courts examine such claims rather strictly: as soon as the defendant names one concrete cause — payment for goods, repayment of a debt, a share of cooperation profits, a gift made during a relationship — and files a little supporting material, the pressure of proof returns to the plaintiff, and a plaintiff who can only repeat “I transferred it by mistake” is often dismissed. If instead the defendant admits in court that “it was a loan,” the court will hear the case on the underlying legal relationship of private lending.

So the more common approach is to sue in private lending and let Article 16 force the other side to explain first: if his explanation does not hold up, you win; if it does, then assess whether to amend the claim or bring a separate action in unjust enrichment. Note also that suing repeatedly over the same money and inventing lending facts can be treated as false litigation（虚假诉讼）— Article 18 of the Private Lending Provisions lists ten situations that require strict scrutiny, and Article 19 provides that once a claim is verified as false it must be dismissed, with fines and detention also available.

Three more things that are easier to overlook than evidence

  • The limitation period. Article 188 of the Civil Code provides that the limitation period for requesting protection of a civil right is three years, running from the day the right holder knew or ought to have known that the right had been harmed and who the obligor was. Article 195 provides that a demand for performance by the right holder, or the obligor’s agreement to perform, interrupts the period, which runs anew from the interruption. Every demand you make and document resets the three-year clock. If the money went out five or six years ago, nothing has happened and you never demanded repayment, deal with the limitation issue before you talk about evidence.
  • Interest. Article 680 of the Civil Code prohibits lending at usurious rates and provides that the interest rate may not violate the relevant state provisions; where the loan contract does not provide for interest, it is deemed to bear no interest. Where the interest agreement between natural persons is unclear, the court will not award interest either (Article 24 of the above Provisions). Even an express agreement cannot name any price it likes: Article 25 caps protection at “four times the one-year loan prime rate at the time the contract was formed,” and anything beyond that is unprotected.
  • Whether the money itself is lawful. If you knew when you lent it that the other side would use it for gambling, for lending at usurious rates or for other unlawful activity, the loan contract may be held invalid (Article 13(4) of the above Provisions); the court will not help you collect so-called loans that are gambling debts or payments for prostitution.

If you are about to lend money

  • Use a transfer, not cash; write “loan” in the payment reference.
  • Have the other side reply on WeChat “I borrowed ×× yuan, to be repaid on × month × day,” screenshot it and keep the original chat history.
  • For a larger amount, add an IOU: who borrows from whom, how much, when it is to be repaid, whether interest applies, a signature and the ID number.
  • If you lend to one spouse, try to have the other spouse know about it or sign as well.
  • If it is not repaid when due, document the very first demand — it is both evidence and the act that interrupts the limitation period.

A final note

This article describes general rules, and individual cases differ widely: whether the money went to the borrower himself, to his spouse or to his employee, how many transfers there were, whether there is matching chat history, and how the other side pleads in court will all change the way the burden of proof runs. The statutes and judicial interpretation cited here are quoted in their currently effective versions; the case is cited only by database entry number and by the gist of the holding, without identifying any party.

If you are worrying about money you lent that has not come back, you are welcome to contact Lawyer Wang: phone 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

Quick answers

Can I sue in China with only a transfer record and no IOU?
Yes. Article 2 of the Private Lending Provisions lists transfer receipts among the evidence that can prove a lending relationship, so the court will accept the case. But a transfer only proves that the money was paid, not why, so you still have to establish the mutual intent to lend and borrow.
If the defendant says the transfer was a repayment, who has to prove what?
Under Article 16 of the Private Lending Provisions the defendant must first produce evidence for that explanation. Once he does, the burden returns to the plaintiff, who must still prove that the lending relationship was established.
How long do I have to sue, and how much interest can I claim?
The limitation period is three years, running from the agreed repayment date or the first demand, and it restarts with each demand or acknowledgment by the debtor. If no interest was agreed, none is awarded; if it was, it cannot exceed four times the one-year loan prime rate at the time the contract was formed.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 只有转账记录、没有借条，借出去的钱还能要回来吗？. It explains the law of the People’s Republic of China in general terms and is not legal advice for any particular case; outcomes depend on the specific facts and on how local authorities apply the rules.