This year, I acted as an agent for a very interesting private lending case. The client was a woman in her 50s who wanted to sue her brother. After finding me, we learned that the client and the defendant (younger brother) are related to each other. Around 2016, the younger brother proposed to borrow 330000 yuan from his sister because of the need of family life. The client and younger brother went to the bank counter to handle the withdrawal and deposit business. The elder sister handled the withdrawal business and directly transferred 330000 yuan of cash into the younger brother's current bank card through the inside of the bank counter, Because of the relationship between brother and sister, the two parties did not issue a debit note, because there was no transfer record for cash business. All the client could provide was a bank withdrawal slip, but in fact, the client did not actually withdraw the money.
This is really a special case, that is, the voucher is also paid without a debit note. However, the trustor has recorded a call with his younger brother to prove that both parties have an intention to borrow money. Although this evidence is not documentary evidence, it can also prove that both parties agree to borrow money. But it is mainly about how to prove the loan paid in cash. I went to the bank to retrieve relevant evidence. According to the bank's daily records, the elder sister withdrew money first and the younger brother deposited money later, and the order numbers of the business flow of both parties were continuous. I personally think that the money was paid to the younger brother through the internal bank. I hope the bank can provide us with evidence to prove that this is actually a deal, but the bank does not want to bear any responsibility, It can only be inferred from the existing evidence, which may be No written explanation can be provided for the speculation. In this way, if the younger brother denies that the 330000 yuan is the 330000 yuan of the elder sister, it is not impossible for the younger brother to claim that he brought the cash to the bank by himself, and because of the long time, the bank did not save the monitoring recording at that time, the case is likely to lose.
Sure enough, as expected, the younger brother completely denied the fact of the loan when he was in court. After many inquiries with the bank staff, the client found an important problem. According to the time of withdrawal printed by the bank, the sister's withdrawal time was only more than 4 minutes different from the younger brother's deposit time. After verification with the bank staff, if the younger brother brought in 330000 cash, According to the bank's system, it is necessary to verify the money one by one. It will take at least 7 or 8 minutes for 330000 cash to get a card and verify the money. It is impossible to complete it in just 4 minutes. This discovery, combined with the recording, can prove the whole process of sister's borrowing. Of course, the younger brother could not explain the source of the 330000 yuan he brought himself in court. He should bear the adverse consequences of losing the case when he denied without providing any evidence.
