According to CCTV news reports, the Yanta District People’s Court in Xi’an recently concluded a “unjust enrichment dispute” case, which is even more bizarre than a novel. Minor Han (a pseudonym) topped up approximately 50,000 yuan on a gaming platform, and his mother, Liu, sued the gaming company in a court in Guangzhou. Through mediation, both parties agreed that the gaming company would refund 15,695.4 yuan at a 30% ratio. However, during the refund process, the staff member slipped, and actually 49,323 yuan was transferred out, which is 33,627.6 yuan more than the agreement.
The game company immediately contacted Liu Mou to claim compensation after discovering the mistake, but was flatly refused. With no resolution, the game company instead filed a lawsuit against Liu Mou in the Yanta District Court. During the trial, Liu Mou claimed that the game company had agreed over the phone to waive the repayment obligation, and submitted a recording of a conversation with the agent lawyer as evidence.
AI synthesized recording exposes the court, getting reprimands in return
The plot twists here. Through multiple confirmations and voice comparisons, the recording is definitely not the voice of the plaintiff’s attorney. Faced with solid evidence, Liu Mou finally admitted that the call record was a fake created by her using AI technology.
The court determined that the 33,627.6 yuan that Liu Mou took extra constituted unjust enrichment, and ordered him to return the entire amount along with interest. Judge Tong Jingjing explained the legal principle: assuming someone else made a mistake and you can simply take the money without paying, it does not form a new contract relationship—there is a direct cause-and-effect between your benefit and the other party’s loss, which falls under the category of unjust enrichment.
What is even more troublesome is that Liu was not only defeated in the lawsuit, but also received a strict reprimand in court for fabricating evidence. The judge said that considering her admission of error and apology in court, and the fake recording having no real impact on the judgment result, no fine or detention was imposed, only criticism and oral reprimands were given.
This case combines two signals: on one hand, “the money earned by returning is not free”, and unjust enrichment still needs to be repaid; on the other hand, AI voice generation tools have been used by ordinary people in court as “evidence”. They tried to get away with it, but instead, the forger was subjected to additional judicial penalties. When the barrier for one-click voice synthesis becomes so low that anyone can create it, even situations involving rights protection begin to suffer from “AI fraud” consequences—technology can fill gaps, but it can also create them too; it all depends on who controls it.