With the rapid development of Internet finance, the amount of users borrowing money through WeChat Pay Hong Kong – 香港微信支付and Alipay支付寶香港申請 has increased drastically. The application changes the entire business landscape, small from street performers, local stores, to different industries like e-commerce, banking, taxi-hailing, and travel booking and bike-sharing. Wechat and Alipaynow are an application that involves everyone’s life in China.
With all products and services are within your fingertips, facilitated by fast payment method, it lowers customers hesitation and creates a new business ecosystem. Even buying groceries these days, supermarkets like “Hema” create a blend of the online and offline shopping experience, the application can leverage data and smart logistics technology to seamlessly integrate online-offline systems, and deliver your groceries in 30 minutes.
When money is being easily spend driven by the easy payment gateway, Money lending through Wechat pay and Alipay has gained its popularity. Rising questions these days in China asking what if the borrower doesn’t repay the lender since the regulation remains lack behind in terms of digital currency, how the court uphold a case like this?
Let’s take a look at this case.
Chen and Qiu, from Changsha Kaifu district, were longtime classmates with a good relationship. On January 16, 2017, Qiu asked Chen to borrow money through WeChat.
“I need to sign a contract for a project, but I don’t have enough money. I need to borrow 20,000rmb from you. I’ll pay you back on January 22.” Qiu said to Chen.
Through various channels, WeChat, Alipay, and online bank accounts, Chen was able to transfer Qiu 20,000rmb. Qiu confirmed receipt via WeChat, “received, thanks! I will pay you back in a few days.”
As days went by after January 22, when Qiu had said he would payback Chen, Chen reached out to Qiu. Qiu came up with various excuses of why he could not pay him back.
Finally, Chen decided it was time to take legal action. Submitting an appeal to Kaifu District Court, Chen asked Qiu to repay capital and overdue interest. He submitted WeChat chat history and records of the various transfers to the courts as evidence.
The court held that this was protected by a law stating that the evidence of communication via WeChat constitutes a loan agreement. In addition to repayment of the original loan amount of 20,000rmb, the court upheld the plaintiff’s claim of 2,100rmb of interest. Chen was able to recover payment from Qiu through the court.
Have you ever been in a situation like this?
What can be used as evidence that’s upholding in court?
The judge said that for cases similar to this, a simple chat screenshot is not sufficient enough. A complete evidence chain is required to be legitimate, authentic, and relevant. Telephone records, transfer records, certificate of identity (to prove the other users WeChat is real), bank transfer records, proof of phone number, and a traditional IOU are all examples of legitimate evidence.
Next time you borrow or lend a friend money, make sure you take the right steps to ensure the contract protects both parties.