Wechat record, can a lawsuit be used as evidence?

With the rapid development of Internet technology, people's communication methods and platforms are constantly updated. As a real-time network communication method based on smart phones, WeChat has become a common way for people to communicate with each other because of its convenience and high efficiency. With the popularity of the use of WeChat, WeChat evidence has gradually entered the judicial field of vision. Wechat evidence has obstacles due to identification and technical problems, which affects its effectiveness as evidence. Even so, if WeChat evidence is directly related to some facts or key facts of the case, it is still expected to be used to prove some facts or key facts of the case on the premise of solving its authenticity and relevance. Such cases decided by Haicang District People's Court in Xiamen, Fujian Province are the embodiment of this new judicial practice.

Close friends borrow credit cards and don't return WeChat records to help collect debts.

Xiao Fang and Xiao Rong met because they lived in the same community, and later became good friends. 20 1410 In June, Xiaorong said that he needed money urgently to do business and proposed to borrow a credit card from Xiaofang. Xiaorong's whole family lives in the community, and the two families are very familiar. Xiaofang lent Xiaorong a Minsheng Bank credit card with a line of 654.38+10,000 yuan. The two agreed that Xiaorong would repay the loan in time according to the bank's deadline, and Xiaorong would pay Xiao Fang and 500 yuan fees every month as a reward.

On the same day, Xiao Fang lent his credit card to Xiao Rong. Because the two sides are very familiar with each other, they didn't write an iou. At first, Xiaorong's credit cards could be paid back on time. However, in February, 1965, Xiaorong failed to pay back 99,300 yuan by credit card. When Xiaofang received the notice from the bank, she found that Xiaorong could not be contacted, and Xiaorong's family moved away and disappeared.

Xiaofang had no choice but to sue in court. Since they didn't sign the loan, Xiaofang thought that their WeChat chat records could be used as evidence. The WeChat chat between the two parties recorded Xiao Rong's relevant information, and Xiao Rong asked the password of Xiao Fang's credit card during the chat.

Haicang Court held through trial that although Xiaorong didn't issue an IOU to Xiaofang, according to the WeChat record submitted by Xiao Fang, the photo of the party talking to Xiao Fang WeChat was Xiaorong's head, and the photo of Xiaorong's family was in the WeChat photo album of the chatting object. According to the content of WeChat, Xiaorong holds the credit card of Minsheng Bank in Xiao Fang, and Xiaorong borrowed money from Xiaofang with this credit card, which can confirm the statement with Xiao Fang. On this basis, the court found that Xiaorong borrowed money from Xiaofang through credit card overdraft consumption, and found that the two sides formed a private lending relationship. In the end, the court decided to support Xiao Fang's request for Xiaorong to pay back the money.

The judge's statement

Chen Jizhou, the official in charge, explained that this case was based on the head photo used by WeChat and the photo of Xiaorong's family in WeChat album, so that the object of chatting with Xiao Fang in WeChat record was Xiaorong, and combined with the content of WeChat chat, it was determined that the loan relationship was established and Xiaorong was responsible for repayment. However, Chen Jizhou also said that the identification of WeChat evidence, that is, whether WeChat evidence is a party to a case, often becomes a difficult point to find out the facts of the case, mainly because the use of WeChat has not been authenticated by the real-name registration system.

Proof of entrusted financial management or cooperative investment in WeChat chat.

Mr. Long used to work in a bank, and Ms. Liu met him when she was handling business. Under the introduction of Mr. Long, Ms. Liu transferred money to Mr. Long and verbally entrusted Mr. Long to purchase wealth management products. After earning some interest and recovering the money, Ms. Liu transferred 600,000 yuan to Mr. Long, but since then, Ms. Liu has repeatedly collected the money and related documents from Mr. Long. Mr. Long said that the customer failed to repay the interest on time, which made it impossible to repay the money. She has never been able to provide relevant documents. Later, Ms. Liu submitted the transfer voucher and WeChat chat record as evidence to the court.

During the trial, Mr. Long confirmed that the WeChat chat record was conducted by both parties, but there was no entrusted financial management relationship between the two parties, but an investment cooperation relationship. The money transferred by Ms. Liu is the fund for the joint investment of the two sides in the bridge crossing business. Bridge-crossing business refers to the behavior that an enterprise repays the due loan to the bank, and assists the enterprise to repay the advance principal and pay the corresponding expenses after obtaining the bank loan again. On the day when Mr. Long received the transfer money, he transferred 500,000 yuan plus 6,543,800 yuan of his own funds to outsiders to invest in the bridge crossing business. However, due to the inability of the investor to repay, it is impossible to recover the money in time.

In addition to the transfer voucher, Ms. Liu also submitted the WeChat chat record communicated by both parties.

Haicang Court held through trial that since the two parties have not signed any written agreement, the judgment of the contractual relationship between the two parties should be based on the facts ascertained in this case. The operation mode of both parties is that Ms. Liu is only responsible for providing funds, and Mr. Long controls and uses the funds, and returns the funds and pays fixed income at the expiration of the agreed period. In the WeChat record, Mr. Long only told Ms. Liu the amount of funds, income and payment period, and did not involve investment projects and business risks at all. The facts ascertained are in line with the entrusted financial management relationship advocated by Ms. Liu, but they do not meet the requirements of cooperative investment relationship. Therefore, it is legally recognized that both parties constitute a contractual relationship of entrusted financial management.

The judge's statement

Zheng, the official in charge, said that the WeChat evidence in this case did not need to be reviewed because it was recognized by the other party. However, the content of WeChat record is closely related to the determination of the nature of the contract, which is the focus of the case dispute. Wechat records show that Mr. Long only told Ms. Liu about the amount of funds, income and payment term, and did not involve investment projects and operational risks at all, which proved that the contractual relationship between the two parties should be entrusted financial management relationship, not cooperative investment relationship.

After the couple broke up, they went to court for debt collection and obtained evidence from WeChat to resolve the dispute.

Xiaohong and Xiaoming used to be lovers. During their love, Xiao Ming often changed jobs and his income was unstable. Every three to five, he sent Xiaohong a WeChat asking for money. After breaking up, Xiao Ming suddenly disappeared, but Xiaohong found that Xiao Ming spent nearly 40 thousand yuan on her, almost all her savings after work. Xiaohong decided to take Xiaoming to court, but there was no IOU. Only the WeChat that Xiao Ming sent to her when she asked for money was used as evidence.

After the patient persuasion of the judge, Xiao Ming made a special trip back from other places to deal with the arrears dispute with Xiaohong. Xiaoming admitted to asking Xiaohong for money through WeChat, but Xiaohong also spent Xiaoming's money during her love, and Xiaohong didn't take so much money for herself.

The statement that "WeChat can also be used as evidence" may have an effect on Xiao Ming's psychology. Xiaoming agreed to repay Xiaohong's loan of 2 1 1,000 yuan. Finally, the two sides reached a mediation agreement.

The judge's statement

Liu Yafan, the official in charge, explained that the WeChat evidence in this case has been recognized by the other party and the relevance of the WeChat evidence can be determined. Although the two sides did not sign the loan, Xiao Ming confirmed that the WeChat asking for more than 20,000 yuan came from his own hands, which became the key to determining whether there was a loan relationship between the two sides. The judge used this evidence as a breakthrough to facilitate the two sides to reach a mediation agreement.

"Extramarital affairs" ended in a piece of paper. Wechat evidence determines right or wrong

Ms Chen and Mr Gao are both married. Through the WeChat search for "people nearby" function, the two met. After chatting on WeChat for a while, I found it very congenial, so I started an "extramarital affair". After living for a while, with the passion retreating, the two quickly broke up. When breaking up, the two settled up, counting the 30,000 yuan lent by Ms. Chen to Mr. Gao, plus the "breakup fee" that the breakup man should give to the woman, and Mr. Gao agreed to write a debit note of 80,000 yuan to Ms. Chen. After the breakup, Mr. Gao regretted the breakup fee for economic reasons and failed to repay 80,000 yuan according to the agreed time. Ms. Chen decided to take Mr. Gao to court, and the evidence was an iou.

During the trial, Mr. Gao argued that the two sides were just friends and there was no actual loan relationship.

Ms. Chen took out the WeChat record in her mobile phone in court to supplement the evidence. The two sides lived together outside marriage and actually borrowed money. However, according to WeChat records, the actual loan is 30,000 yuan, not 80,000 yuan, and the other part is the breakup fee negotiated by both parties.

In the face of Ms. Chen's WeChat record, Mr. Wang no longer denied the fact that she borrowed money. Ms. Chen also confirmed that the loan amount includes a breakup fee of 50,000 yuan.

With the help of the real loan situation reflected in the WeChat record, the judge organized the two parties to mediate in court, and finally the two parties reached a mediation agreement according to the actual loan amount. Mr. Gao agreed to repay Ms. Chen's loan of 30,000 yuan.

The judge's statement

Judge Lu Xu explained that the loan amount recorded in this case was inconsistent with the actual loan amount, but the WeChat record actually recorded the fact of "extramarital love" between the two parties, as well as the source and amount of the loan amount. The loan amount includes a loan of 30,000 yuan and a breakup fee of 50,000 yuan, and the actual loan should be repaid.

Sell the property to others and go back on our word. Wechat records distinguish between breach of contract

Under the intermediary of real estate agency, Ms. Lin signed a house sales contract with Mr. Lin in August 20 14, stipulating that Mr. Lin would sell the house to Ms. Lin. The transaction price and payment method agreed in the contract. At the same time, the two parties also signed an intermediary service contract with the intermediary, confirming the existence of the intermediary fact, and Ms. Lin paid the intermediary service fee at 2.5% of the transaction price. Later, Ms. Lin paid a deposit of 50,000 yuan, a mortgage of 200,000 yuan, and a room fee. After the transfer, Ms. Lin contacted Mr. Lin's WeChat, but Mr. Lin said that "(the transaction price) was too low, and people paid 1.45 million" and "the family disagreed", refused to handle the transfer, and unilaterally returned the purchase price of 250,000 yuan. Later, Mr. Lin really sold the property to others. Ms. Lin sued him to the court.

During the trial, Mr. Lin said that the house could not be sold to Ms. Lin as agreed. There are multiple reasons, including Ms. Lin's suggestion that the formal house sales contract will be signed by a third party online, which belongs to the change of the original contract subject, and also has her own concerns, because after signing the contract, Mr. Lin found that his household registration had no other place to move. At the same time, it is stipulated in the contract to go through the formalities of commercial mortgage loan at the relevant bank within one working day after the registration of house ownership transfer, but the registration time of house ownership transfer and the time limit for handling mortgage loan are not stipulated, which may cause Mr. Lin to be unable to obtain a house payment of 900,000 yuan and suffer serious losses. Non-performance of the house sales contract is also agreed by both parties, and there is no breach of contract. Even if it breaks the contract, Ms. Lin will break the contract first.

Haicang Court held through trial that in the WeChat record, Mr. Lin made a statement that "the family disagreed, saying that the account was not easy to release, and it was too low to be pitted. It doesn't matter if people paid 1.45 million, it was empty", and then refused to transfer the ownership to Ms. Lin, so it can be considered that the defaulting party of the real estate sales contract is Mr. Lin. Accordingly, the court finally ruled that Mr. Lin should bear the loss of Ms. Lin.

The judge's statement

Huang Jianhe, the presiding judge, explained that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the seller breached the contract. The seller confirmed the contents stated by both parties in the WeChat record, but pointed out that there were other reasons for the "abortion" of real estate sales, and the buyer breached the contract first. However, the WeChat chat records of both parties only reflect the seller's regret about the price, and the seller cannot prove the fact that the buyer breached the contract, thus confirming that the breaching party is the seller rather than the buyer.

■ Connecting judges

"WeChat": It is not easy to give evidence.

On the legal issue of using WeChat records as evidence, the reporter interviewed Chen Jizhou, president of the Second People's Court of Haicang Court.

Chen Jizhou explained that the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), which was implemented on 20 12, made it clear that electronic data is the legal type of evidence. The judicial interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law further clarifies that audio-visual materials include audio-visual materials and video materials, and electronic data refers to information formed or stored in electronic media by means of e-mail, electronic data exchange, online chat records, blogs, Weibo, mobile phone short messages, electronic signatures and domain names.

As a new online media tool, WeChat integrates email, online chat, blog, QQ chat tool, online shopping and online payment platform. Because of convenience, the number of domestic users has reached more than 500 million, ranking first in the new information exchange platform. The information on WeChat platform exists in the form of electronic data, which obviously belongs to the category of evidence stipulated by the Civil Procedure Law. Due to the popularity of use, the frequency of appearing as evidence in litigation is also increasing.

However, it is not easy for WeChat evidence to be the basis for determining the facts of the case. Regardless of the relevance between the content of WeChat evidence and the facts of the case for the time being, WeChat evidence must meet two preconditions before it can be accepted:

First, the users of WeChat are both parties. Because WeChat is not a real-name registration system, if the user of WeChat cannot be proved to be a party, the evidence of WeChat cannot be legally related to the case. At present, there are four main ways to confirm the identity of WeChat users: the other party admits; Identification of WeChat avatar or WeChat photo album; The real name of the network, the authentication materials of the sender of electronic data or the identity authentication of the owner; A third party organization, namely Tencent, a software provider, assisted in the investigation.

The first two methods are obviously accidental and cannot be used as normal confirmation methods. The latter two methods involve the third-party technical assistance of software suppliers, but they have not yet formed a benign operation process, and naturally it is impossible to submit a WeChat record yourself as you imagined.

The second is the integrity of WeChat evidence. This condition is related to the authenticity and relevance of WeChat evidence, because WeChat evidence is a living fragmented record. If it is incomplete, it may be taken out of context and cannot reflect the complete true meaning of the parties.

Due to the lack of clear authentication rules and specialized electronic evidence authentication institutions, some notarization authentication is flawed, which makes it more difficult for the court to authenticate electronic evidence. Therefore, it is an inevitable demand for the development of WeChat evidence to establish a special electronic data evidence appraisal institution and clarify its certification rules.

■ Reporter observation

Electronic evidence should not be just the last straw.

Our reporter An Haitao

At present, the Internet is not only a platform for people to communicate, but also has entered all aspects of social activities, including various commodity transactions, financial investment, marriage and job hunting, study and training, etc ... The development of the Internet has changed the lifestyle of contemporary people and has a tendency to replace traditional ways. However, scientific and technological products are a "double-edged sword", which not only brings convenience to people's lives, but also brings new moral and legal risks. How to enjoy the convenient and efficient "gluttonous feast" brought by the Internet while avoiding being hurt by various security risks hidden under the Internet is the key issue at present. The direction to solve this problem should be to strengthen the secure links of various transactions and services. This link needs the joint efforts of many parties, and the government, individuals and technology are indispensable.

First of all, the government should strengthen industry guidance, system standardization and classified supervision. Guide the establishment of various trade associations on the Internet, which will formulate detailed standards, supervise the qualifications and identities of providers of various trading platforms on the Internet, and provide information publicity platforms.

Secondly, individuals should improve their awareness of norms and evidence. In business, when individuals enjoy the convenience brought by the network or electronic data, they should pay attention to the traditional written materials as a supplement, such as signing a written contract as a backup when conditions permit, or making a written agreement to clarify the electronic identity of the contact methods of email, fax and WeChat adopted by both parties. In daily life, when economic exchanges occur between relatives and friends, we should also pay attention to the gentleman's agreement, which is also the saying "brothers, clear accounts."

Thirdly, the third-party platform intervention technology is introduced. By introducing the participation of third-party platforms in different links, the transaction security problem is solved. Alipay and taxi service are both successful examples.

In this way, when disputes occur, electronic evidence will no longer be a precarious "life-saving straw", but a magic weapon to win from the perspective of legal norms.