A Husband Transferred RMB 1.38 Million to “the Other Woman” — Why the Ex-Wife Lost Her Claim: Gift Versus Payment for Sex

The short answer

• When a husband secretly gives joint marital property to a third party during the marriage, the law supports the wife suing for its return: Article 1062 and Article 153(2) of the Civil Code, plus Article 7 of the Marriage and Family Interpretation (II) in force from 1 February 2025, provide a clear route.
• But that route works only if the money is legally a “gift”. If the court finds the relationship was a sexual transaction, the money is payment for sex and the wife’s claim is dismissed outright — in this Jilin case, the first instance ordered return of over RMB 1.118 million, and the appeal overturned it entirely.
• Whether it is a gift or payment for sex depends not on how the payer professes their feelings, but on the parties’ objective conduct: how they met, what they talked about, whether the amounts and frequency follow a pattern, whether payment was per visit, and whether the parties were on an equal footing.
• Not recovering the money doesn’t mean nobody acts. The appeal court referred the illegal conduct to the police; prostitution and soliciting can lead to detention and fines (Article 78 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law, in force from 1 January 2026).
• But administrative penalties have a limitation period, and payment for sex is treated as illegal gains rather than “belonging” to anyone — so a common outcome in practice is that the wife gets nothing back and the money may already be spent. That is worth noting even more than the loss itself.

The case: RMB 1.118 million ordered returned at first instance, all overturned on appeal

The case was disclosed in a public appellate judgment in Jilin City in August 2025. The facts are simple.

The husband and wife married in August 2012 and divorced in May 2024. During the marriage, the husband met a sex worker through solicitation; they kept in touch for over a year, and he transferred a total of more than RMB 1.384 million to her. Their chats included affectionate names and red packets of “520” and “1314” (numbers that sound like “I love you” and “forever” in Chinese). After the 2024 divorce, the ex-wife sued to have the gift declared void and for return of the RMB 1.384 million plus interest.

The first-instance court found that the transfers clearly exceeded any “service fee” and constituted a gift; the husband had disposed of joint property without his wife’s consent, violating the duty of fidelity and public order and good morals, so the gift was void, and it ordered return of over RMB 1.118 million (less than claimed, after deducting a second-hand car purchase and joint spending).

The recipient appealed and submitted 12 call recordings at the appeal to show that the relationship was a sexual transaction. The appeal court changed the result: the parties were not lovers but in a sexual-transaction relationship, and apart from the car and joint spending, the money was payment for sex. It set aside the first-instance judgment, dismissed the ex-wife’s claim, and referred the illegal conduct to the police.

The crux: the same money, two characterisations, opposite results

The two courts had much the same facts but reached opposite conclusions, differing only on one question: the nature of the money.

If it is a gift: the paying spouse had no right to dispose of joint property unilaterally, and such a gift violates public order and good morals. Under Article 153(2) of the Civil Code, “civil juristic acts that violate public order and good morals are void”; under Article 157 (excerpt), “after a civil juristic act is void, revoked or determined not to take effect, property obtained through it shall be returned” — so the money must be returned.

If it is payment for sex: the money is consideration for an illegal transaction, not a free gift, so the premise of a gift doesn’t exist; and as consideration for an illegal transaction it is not protected by civil law, so the ex-wife has no basis to claim its return.

The law: the route for the wife to recover money

Such cases used to be decided case by case; from 2025 there is a uniform rule. Article 7 of the Marriage and Family Interpretation (II) (excerpt): “Where one spouse, for purposes of bigamy, cohabiting with another person or otherwise violating the duty of marital fidelity, gives joint property to another or disposes of joint property at a clearly unreasonable price, and the other spouse claims that the act is void for violating public order and good morals, the people’s court shall support the claim and deal with it under Article 157 of the Civil Code.”

My summary: the interpretation clarifies three things — the premise is a “gift” or a “disposal at a clearly unreasonable low price”; the purpose must be bigamy, cohabitation or another violation of fidelity; and the effect is voidness and return. It does not, and cannot, resolve the factual question of whether the relationship was a sexual transaction — which was exactly what decided the Jilin case.

There is also Article 1043(2) of the Civil Code: “Spouses shall be faithful to, respect and care for each other.” This is the statutory basis of the duty of fidelity, but it doesn’t itself create a right to “get the money back”.

How the court distinguished a gift from payment for sex: four dimensions

The appeal court’s reasoning is worth going through, because this is what parties actually need to prove in such cases.

• How they met: through solicitation; the husband repeatedly mentioned in chats her other clients, being kept, and not delaying her earning — showing he knew what she did.
• Power dynamic: the husband usually started conversations and made demands, while she always responded passively, called him “husband” on request and didn’t fight back when scolded — clearly unequal, closer to a service relationship than a romantic one.
• Roles: the husband called himself her boyfriend and even proposed marriage, but she never described herself as his lover, insisted on payment before visits, and when his marriage ran into trouble repeatedly stressed that theirs was a “buying and selling relationship”.
• Payments: the transfers had no regular timing and lacked the features of periodic “keeping” payments; apart from a first payment of RMB 1,300 and a few under RMB 1,000, each payment or day’s total was mostly over RMB 5,000, matching the service prices she claimed; the husband had also confirmed debts to her by WeChat and IOUs.

The appeal court added a key observation: the nature of a relationship cannot depend solely on the subjective will of the person paying; it must be judged by both parties’ objective conduct and their shared understanding.

Limits and exceptions: not every extramarital transfer is unrecoverable, and claiming “payment for sex” doesn’t guarantee a win

The reverse also happens. In another publicly reported case, a husband transferred over RMB 510,000 to a woman outside the marriage; she argued in court that it was prostitution and the money was payment for sex, but the court found they had a long-term improper relationship with the features of being “kept”, not prostitution, treated it as a gift and ordered full return. So insisting “it was payment for sex” is not a winning card; the court looks at the objective state shown by the evidence.

Two more easily overlooked points:

• Not every affair falls within the interpretation. An ordinary affair differs from bigamy or cohabitation in burden of proof and consequences; the claimant must prove the purpose of “violating the duty of fidelity”, which is not a low bar.
• The amount returned may be reduced. Joint spending and money actually used for both parties are usually excluded — which is why the first instance ordered RMB 1.118 million rather than 1.384 million, after deducting the car and joint spending.

Action checklists for three groups

• The spouse who discovers the transfers: secure evidence first — keep bank statements, WeChat bills and chats in their original form (screenshots and summaries carry less weight) — then decide whether to sue separately for return or argue in the divorce that the other spouse should receive less or no share (Civil Code Art. 1092).
• The recipient being sued: if you argue “it wasn’t a gift”, you need objective evidence — per-visit payment records, payment reminders, recordings — not the pet names in chats; and understand that claiming payment for sex is admitting illegal conduct, and the court may refer it to police.
• The spouse who paid: don’t assume divorce ends it. Under Article 1066 of the Civil Code, joint property can in certain cases be divided during the marriage; and if, after divorce, the other spouse discovers concealment or transfer of property, they can seek a further division.

Reminders and limitations

The facts here come from public reports and what the judgment disclosed; I have not obtained the original judgment, and amounts follow the public reports. Three further points: first, the limitation for administrative penalties is that “where a violation of public security administration is not discovered by the police within six months, no penalty is imposed” (Art. 25(1) of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law), but where prostitution is continuous or ongoing, the period runs from when the conduct ends, so it is not automatically time-barred; second, payment for sex is legally illegal gains — once recovered, with no victim, it is registered and turned over to the state treasury, not automatically returned to the wife; third, civil and administrative cases have different standards of proof, so losing a civil case doesn’t necessarily mean the police won’t act, and vice versa.

If you are pursuing extramarital transfers, dividing joint property, or dealing with prostitution-related issues, contact Wang Xin: phone +86 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 丈夫转账138万给「外面的女人」，前妻起诉返还却败诉：赠与还是嫖资，差在哪？. 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.