If there is no IOU, only the transfer record, can it be used as evidence of borrowing? What if he do

There is a debit note but no record of the transfer, which may be due to the following reasons: the money is not a loan, but a gambling debt or other debt; If the loan is a gambling debt, it is an illegal debt and is not protected by law. If the loan here is another debt, it is recommended not to sue for the loan relationship, but to choose the appropriate legal relationship according to the specific nature of the debt, so as to have a greater chance of winning the lawsuit.

This amount belongs to the loan, but instead of being paid by transfer, cash is withdrawn from the bank and then given to the borrower.

In a microloan, if the lender has only one debit note, the debit note is not only an agreement for the loan, but also a proof of loan delivery, because in a small loan, according to common sense, the lender does not need to provide another transfer voucher as a fact of delivery. For example, if the borrower's request is supported by several pieces of evidence (e.g., the borrower's request for cash is supported by several pieces of evidence), then it can be supported not only by the borrower's request, but also by other evidence submitted by the judge.

For example, if the borrower's request for cash is supported by several pieces of evidence submitted by the judge, it may be more important to submit these records, and if it cannot be proved that the borrower did provide the loan, the court will not support it even if the borrower admits it. Why? Because it could be a bogus lawsuit.

In private lending, it is difficult to win a lawsuit only by IOUs: first, the loan amount is huge and cannot be reasonably explained.

In private lending disputes, especially if the lender claims the delivery of a large amount of cash, whether the fact of the loan has occurred is an important content that the lender needs to prove, in the absence of this fact, if only receipts, IOUs and other proof of creditor's rights are provided, it cannot be regarded as having completed the burden of proof, and the parties need to provide further evidence to prove that the loan has not been actually delivered, and the lender does not dare to face the borrower in court. The loan contract between natural persons shall take effect when the lender provides the loan.

No, you only have a transfer record, and you can't be sure whether the other party borrowed it from you or you want to transfer it. If he doesn't admit it, you can only consider yourself unlucky, and you have to keep your eyes open when you make friends in the future.

It can be used as evidence of borrowing, if he does not admit it, you can use the police to solve this problem, because this behavior is very bad, if you don't call the police, you will definitely make yourself suffer.

Of course, if the other party does not admit it, you can go to the court to appeal, the law must be fair and just, and the matter will also be investigated.

OK. Be sure to produce relevant evidence, preferably a call log, so that you can dominate.

In fact, this question is both simple and complex. If the other party does not admit it, you can only sue the other party so that the court can ascertain the facts of the case and bear the responsibility for repayment on this basis.

If the amount of money is small, it is in line with the daily rule of thumb, and the court can generally not investigate whether there is a remittance record. If the amount of money is large and it is paid in cash, a record of the cash withdrawal must be provided. In the case of remittance, you must provide proof from your bank.

If you do lend money because you don't have proof, you can re-fix the evidence by making a recording of the repayment or writing a repayment plan.

First of all, the situation you described belongs to the financing of natural persons, which is commonly referred to as private lending.

According to your description, you can provide an IOU, and the IOU itself can basically prove that the legal relationship between you has been formed. If your relative denies that he has ever borrowed money from you, then he must give a reasonable explanation for the IOU and provide evidence to support his explanation. If he only denies it verbally, or if the evidence he provides does not prove his claim, then according to the rules of evidence, the court will uphold your claim and order your relative to repay the money borrowed from you.

If your relative denies borrowing money from you and provides evidence that the two of you have only written an IOU and have not actually borrowed money, i.e. you have not actually delivered the loan to him, then the contract between the two of you has not yet entered into force because the loan contract between the natural person is a practical contract. At this time, the court shall comprehensively judge and verify whether the fact of borrowing has occurred based on facts and factors such as the amount of the loan, the payment of the money, the economic capacity of the parties, the local or inter-party transaction methods, transaction habits, changes in the parties' assets, and witness testimony.

In short, the court hears the case based on facts and evidence, and if you have an IOU, it will not assume that he has not borrowed money from you because he does not admit it. Therefore, according to your description, there is a high probability that the court will support you and order your relatives to pay back the money.

If you don't admit it, I think you can take these relevant evidences and file a lawsuit directly with the court, asking the court to protect your legitimate rights and interests, and as long as you provide evidence of the other party's loan, including other transfer records and other evidence, the court will accept it.

You can choose to give the IOU directly to the court, as long as the IOU has the specified time and place and the ID number of both people.

You can directly hire a lawyer to fight the lawsuit and take the borrower to court without hesitation, as long as his name is on the IOU.

In life, many people will borrow money, but because the relationship between two people is relatively familiar, there will be IOUs. But when it comes time to repay the money, the borrower refuses to admit it, and there is no transfer record at this time, so he can directly take the IOU to the court to sue the other party, so that the chance of winning the lawsuit will be particularly high. <>

When it comes to borrowing money, many people must be familiar with it, whether they borrow money from others or others borrow money from themselves, they need to sign an IOU at this time, or have a corresponding transfer record. Many people think that if you don't have a record or evidence, you can't do anything about yourself, but it's not. Because borrowing money and not repaying it is an illegal act in law, and it is a civil law that is touched at this time, so as long as the evidence in your possession is submitted to the court, then the court will naturally sue the borrower to demand that he repay the money.

If the other party indicates that he has no money, then the court will also investigate the property in the name of the borrower, auction the goods, and return the money to everyone. <>

However, you must understand that it is necessary to prepare some documents when prosecuting, and only in this way can the prosecution be successful. In addition, it is also necessary to pay a certain amount of litigation fees when filing a lawsuit, and if the defendant fails, he must bear all the litigation costs, and if both parties have a victory or defeat, then the litigation costs are shared by both parties. However, when it comes to litigation, it is also necessary to present substantive evidence, and if there is no evidence, there is no way.

Therefore, you can print out all the transfer records or chat records between the other party and yourself, so that you can speed up the speed of others to repay their own money. <>

Through this incident, everyone must have a corresponding understanding of the matter of borrowing money. Therefore, when lending money to others, you must have a snack, and don't ignore the IOU or repayment date because the other party is familiar with your relationship, which will affect your difficulty in asking for money in the future. You can try to write the date of repayment as clearly as possible, if the date is reached, and the money is not repaid, the other party will not be reasonable at this time, so the probability of losing the lawsuit is particularly high.

You can take the initiative to communicate with the other party, if the other party is still like this, then you can only deal with the police through the police, and you can only deal with the evidence through the court, and the court will recognize it.

Then it is necessary to produce evidence, as long as there is an autographed signature and handprint on the IOU, then it cannot be denied.

You can go directly to the screenshot, so that you can get a good solution, you can go to the court to sue and appeal, and the other party will also compensate.

If you do not have an IOU but have a record of the transfer, you can also sue the court for the amount owed.

Private lending is a common situation in social life, and borrowing will be more casual, and it is possible that IOUs will not be paid due to the situation. If there is no other evidence that can prove the loan relationship, and the other party can prove that the transfer record is because there are other economic exchanges between the two parties and not a loan, then the risk of losing the lawsuit is greater.

[Legal basis].Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases provides that if a plaintiff initiates a private lending lawsuit solely on the basis of the transfer voucher of a financial institution, and the defendant argues that the transfer is to repay the previous loans or other debts of both parties, the defendant shall provide evidence to prove his claim. After the defendant provides relevant evidence to prove its claim, the plaintiff shall still bear the burden of proof for the establishment of the loan relationship.

Legal Analysis: Transfer records can sue the other party. Transfer records are legally recognized as formal legal evidence.

But as evidence, it must have "legitimacy, authenticity, and relevance". Evidence of transfer is generally obtained lawfully and has a certain connection to the case.

Legal basis: Article 119 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China Article 119 A lawsuit must meet the following conditions:

1) The plaintiff is a citizen, legal person, or other organization that has a direct interest in the case;

2) There is a clear defendant;

3) There are specific litigation claims, facts, and reasons;

4) It is within the scope of civil litigation accepted by the people's court and the jurisdiction of the people's court receiving the lawsuit.

If only the IOU does not have a transfer certificate, if the IOU is true and valid, the court will determine that the fact of borrowing exists.

The court will comprehensively determine whether the loan has actually occurred based on the size of the cash payment, the lender's ability to pay, the transaction method between the parties, the transaction habits, and the relationship between the borrower and the borrower.

Legal basis] 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 provides that the plaintiff only files a private lending lawsuit based on IOUs, receipts, IOUs and other creditor's rights certificates;

Where the defendant argues that the loan has already been repaid, the defendant shall provide evidence to prove his claim. After the defendant provides relevant evidence to prove its claim, the plaintiff should still bear the burden of proof for the existence of the loan relationship.

Where the defendant argues that the lending has not actually occurred and can make a reasonable explanation, the people's court shall consider the amount of the loan, the payment of the money, the economic capacity of the parties, and the local area;

or the manner of the transaction between the parties, the transaction.

Facts and factors such as habits, changes in the parties' assets, and witness testimony are to be comprehensively judged to verify whether the fact of the loan has occurred.

There are no IOUs, only transfer records that can be sued. However, if the defendant does not admit the loan, the plaintiff needs to provide other corresponding evidence, and there is only one record that it is difficult for you to win the case, and you need other proof to provide supporting evidence to be sure of winning the case. Whether the transfer record can be used as evidence depends on the circumstances and the evidence varies from case to case.

1. It can be seen that the lending relationship between the two parties is more probative when there is clear information about the transfer. 2. Without favorable information, the fact of borrowing cannot be determined.

[Legal basis].

Article 679 of the Civil Code stipulates that a loan contract between natural persons shall be formed when the lender provides the loan.

There are IOUs but no payment vouchers, or there are payment vouchers without IOUs, and these situations often arise in private loans. In particular, when it comes to borrowing money between relatives, friends or relatives, sometimes because of one or another, the existence of direct evidence is incomplete. However, whether the borrower can be established or not is based on a comprehensive assessment of the size of the loan amount, the defendant's economic capacity, the habits of the transaction, and the defendant's mutual relationship.

This is required in Article 16 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases.

The Appellant only referred to the folk lending lawsuit on the basis of debt vouchers such as IOUs, receipts, and IOUs, and the Appellee had already repaid the loan on the Appellee's statute of limitations, and the Appellee should have given direct evidence to substantiate its opinion. After the Appellee provides the corresponding direct evidence to substantiate its submission, the Appellant shall still bear the burden of cross-examination and proof for the establishment of the borrower. If the other party fails to repay the loan on time at the end of the term, you can sue the court to stipulate that the loan be repaid.

If the other party does not admit it, the IOU will be issued.

You can give synchronous audio and video recordings, WeChat chat records, etc., to confirm the existence of creditor's rights and debts. However, once the statute of limitations has expired, the right to prevail is missing. In addition, after the appeal is successful, if the other party fails to enforce the court judgment within the performance period, the debtor can apply to the court for enforcement, and the people's court will inspect the real estate, car, securities and savings under the borrower's household in accordance with the regulations after hearing the compulsory enforcement.

The IOU is evidence, as long as the series is the original and there is also the handwritten signature of the lender, the legal recognition is strong. Even if there is a lack of proof of receipt as direct evidence to assist, relying only on the direct evidence of the IOU itself, even if the borrower does not admit it, Fenghe can win the lawsuit. Naturally, the borrower will not win if he presents direct evidence contrary to the IOU.

For example, if you take an IOU to sue a debtor, the borrower suddenly pulls out a receipt with your handwritten signature confirming that the loan has been repaid.