In daily economic transactions, private lending has become a choice for many people for capital turnover due to its simple procedures and flexible methods. However, holding a promissory note does not necessarily guarantee legal support - if the loan originates from illegal activities such as gambling, even if it is written in black and white, the court will not protect it. Recently, the People's Court of Jiangzhou District, Chongzuo City, heard such a case of private lending dispute.  

On December 24, 2024, Li Moumou issued an IOU to Ma Mou, stating that he had borrowed 38,000 yuan and agreed to repay it by October 1, 2025. After the loan matured, Ma Mou repeatedly attempted to collect the debt but failed, and subsequently filed a lawsuit. Ma Mou claimed that on the day of the loan, he brought 38,000 yuan in cash to Li Moumou's home for delivery, and Li Moumou issued the IOU on the spot. Now that Li Moumou has failed to repay the loan upon maturity, Ma Mou demands that Li Moumou repay the principal loan amount and the overdue interest.  

During the trial, Li XX argued that although the promissory note was written by himself, it did not represent a genuine loan but rather a debt incurred from losing money playing mahjong with Ma XX, and he had not actually received any cash. After the trial, Ma XX submitted a written statement to the court, stating that the promissory note was a retroactive document, and the actual loan principal was 28,350 yuan. The 38,000 yuan stated on the promissory note included interest and other expenses arising from the mortgaged vehicle. The payment method was also corrected from "cash" to "WeChat transfer". At the same time, it was confirmed that Li XX had transferred 400 yuan for repayment on February 23, 2026, and the claim was ultimately changed to 27,950 yuan. The court also found that there were numerous discussions about gambling in the usual chat records between Ma XX and Li XX. The two had discussed installing cheating devices in a mahjong parlor together, and there were multiple financial transactions between them. On February 23, 2026, when Ma XX urged Li XX to repay the loan, Li XX replied on WeChat, "I won 400 yuan, send it to Alipay, I'll transfer it all to you.".  

After trial, the court held that the focus of the dispute in this case lies in whether the loan transaction actually occurred. Mr. Ma's statements regarding the loan amount and delivery method were inconsistent - he claimed in the lawsuit and court trial that the cash payment was 38,000 yuan, but later claimed in court that it was a WeChat transfer of 28,350 yuan, and that the 38,000 yuan included interest and other expenses. The WeChat transfer records between the two parties showed multiple transactions, and the transfer record of 28,350 yuan submitted by Mr. Ma could not be identified as the loan stated in the promissory note of this case.  

More crucially, there were numerous gambling-related discussions in the chat records between the two parties, including discussions about installing cheating devices. When Li Moumou made repayments, he mentioned expressions such as "winning 400 yuan," which is sufficient to determine that the two frequently participated in gambling activities.  

The court held that, according to Paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases", where the defendant defends that the lending behavior has not actually occurred and can provide reasonable explanations, a comprehensive judgment should be made based on factors such as the loan amount, payment delivery, economic ability of the parties, transaction methods, and habits. Taking into account all the evidence in the case, Mr. Ma's statements are inconsistent, and the evidence in the case fails to form a complete chain of evidence to prove the existence of a legal and valid private lending relationship between the two parties. The facts do not meet the standard of high probability. Therefore, the court determined that the evidence in the case is insufficient to prove the authenticity and legality of the loan contract, and ruled in accordance with the law to reject all of Mr. Ma's claims.  

"IOU is the most common evidence in disputes over private lending, but it does not mean everything is settled just because there is an IOU," the judge said. According to the law, the lender not only needs to provide creditor's rights vouchers such as promissory notes, but also bears the burden of proof for facts such as the agreement on lending and the delivery of funds. If the defendant defends that the lending behavior has not actually occurred and can provide reasonable explanations, the court will make a judgment based on various factors.  

In this case, the plaintiff's statements regarding the loan amount and delivery method are inconsistent. Furthermore, the chat records between the two parties reveal long-term involvement in gambling activities, and the defendant's repayment mention of "winning 400 yuan" and other expressions further corroborates the high correlation between the involved funds and gambling. Gambling behavior violates mandatory legal provisions and goes against public order and good customs. Therefore, the debts incurred from such behavior are not protected by law, and the corresponding lending activities are legally invalid.  

Everyone must pay attention: Private lending should be based on genuine and legal lending relationships, and lenders should retain standardized promissory notes and complete delivery vouchers. At the same time, we must be highly vigilant against behaviors that conceal gambling debts and "launder" illegal debts in the form of "IOU" - the law does not protect illegal debts. Attempting to recover gambling debts through litigation not only fails to achieve creditor's rights, but also may face the risks of inability to provide evidence and bearing litigation costs. Legal lending relationships are protected by law, and illegal debts are ultimately worthless pieces of paper.

This article is translated from the WeChat official account "Shandong Higher People's Court", and we would like to express our gratitude here!