IT Home On October 19, according to CCTV news, in a “unjust enrichment dispute” case concluded by the Yanta Court in Xi’an, Shaanxi, after the game company returned the refunds for minors’ top-ups, it overpaid more than 30,000 yuan due to a transfer error. Facing this “involuntary wealth,” the company not only refused to return it, but also used AI to forge call recordings during the trial to get away with it.
Xiao Han (pseudonym) topped up the gaming platform with approximately 50,000 yuan. His mother, Liu, sued the gaming company in a court in Guangzhou. After mediation by the court, both parties reached an agreement: the gaming company should refund 15,695.4 yuan at a ratio of 30%. However, due to an error by the gaming company’s staff during the refund process, only 49,323 yuan was actually returned, which is 33,627.6 yuan more than the agreed amount.
After discovering the mistake, the game company immediately contacted Liu Mou and demanded the return of the overpaid amount, but was refused. With no other choice, the game company brought Liu Mou before the Yan Ta District People's Court in Xi'an.
During the trial, the defendant Liu claimed that the game company had agreed via phone to waive his return obligation, and submitted a recording of a conversation with the game company’s attorney as evidence.
After multiple verifications and voice comparison, it was finally confirmed that the recording is not the real voice of the plaintiff’s attorney. The defendant ultimately admitted that the call recording was synthesized and fabricated using AI technology by himself.
The court determined after trial that the defendant’s overpayment of 33,627.6 yuan constitutes unjust enrichment, and ordered him to return all the money along with the corresponding interest.
According to Judge Tong Jingjing of the Yanta District Court in Xi’an, assuming that someone made a mistake in handling the money, it does not mean that the money should not be returned. This does not constitute a legally recognized contract relationship or civil legal relationship. Instead, this behavior constitutes a case of unjust enrichment. There is a direct causal relationship between your benefit and the other party’s loss; it is precisely a legal relationship of unjust enrichment.
IT Home notes that in this case, the defendant not only lost the lawsuit, but also received a warning from the judge in court for fabricating evidence.
Judge Tong Jingjing said that regarding the party that submitted the recording, she also admitted in court that the recording was forged. It did not cause very serious legal consequences to the trial outcome, and she also apologized in court. Based on her attitude and the actual harmful consequences, we did not impose any fines or detention on her. She received criticism and education, as well as a very stern verbal warning.