The mediation agreement said 15,695.4 yuan. On the day the money came through, 49,323 yuan landed in her account.
No one returned the extra 33,627.6 yuan.
To understand what happened, we have to start at the other end. Her child had spent nearly 50,000 yuan on in-game purchases. The mother sued the company in a Guangzhou court, and they reached a mediation agreement for a 30% refund. The refund amount was written down on paper. Someone at the company entered the figure in the back-end system—and slipped up. They entered the full amount instead of 30%.
She was supposed to be the one getting her money back. Instead, after 30,000 yuan landed in her account, she became the defendant. Ironic.
A lot of people think: if they entered the wrong amount themselves, how can I be blamed? The Xi’an Yanta District Court’s answer was that who made the mistake and whether there was a valid basis for keeping the money are two completely separate questions. You received more; they paid out more. There was no agreement and no law entitling you to the difference. That makes it unjust enrichment. Under the Civil Code, there’s only one way out: pay it back.
She probably knew that, too, so she found a witness. It was a recording of a phone call between her and the company’s lawyer. In it, the lawyer said she didn’t have to return the money. The court asked her to call that number in the courtroom. No one picked up. A voice comparison showed that it wasn’t the lawyer’s voice. She admitted it: the recording had been AI-generated.
She lost the case and was reprimanded in court for fabricating evidence. All for 30,000 yuan. The nerve.
The judge later explained how they decide on a penalty: if there are no serious consequences, the conduct isn’t egregious, and the other party is willing to forgive, it generally means a warning and a verbal reprimand. A fine or detention is reserved for cases where the conduct actually obstructs the trial. In her case, it went no further than a reprimand—a relatively light outcome.
But what I can’t stop thinking about is something else. What if the recording had actually fooled the court?
These days, generating a call recording that’s a few dozen seconds long costs next to nothing. How convincing it sounds depends on how much voice material you have from the other person. In court, there are only three human checks that can catch it: call the number on the spot, have the person appear in court, and compare the voices. All three were done, and that’s how the recording was exposed. But what if the other party doesn’t show up in court? Could the recording just end up sitting in the case file?
There’s something else I want to say, though.
The 30,000 yuan can be recovered because of two things. The transfer can be traced back to its source, and the bank has a record. The other party has a name and an address, so the court knows where to send the summons.
What about on-chain? You have neither. Not one of the two.
Get an address wrong by one character, and the coins go into someone else’s wallet. You paid the gas. The block height is set in stone. There’s no customer service, no mediation agreement, no summons. All you can do is open a block explorer and watch that string of numbers sitting there. That’s all there is to it. The irony is, stablecoin issuers do have a list, and they can freeze funds. Bitcoin has no such list; nobody can freeze it.
What really holds this whole order together—the idea that if you get something by mistake, you have to give it back—is that the person can be found. That little voice of conscience comes second.
Has money ever left your wallet and never come back? Most people would say no, because one mistaken transfer is enough to teach you a lesson. But if it did happen, could you fill in the defendant’s name right now? You couldn’t.
The report doesn’t say when the extra 30,000-plus yuan was paid back, or whether the company separately pursued her for fabricating evidence. No clear answer.
$BTC $USDC $ETH
#游戏退款 #AI伪造证据 #UnjustEnrichment
No one returned the extra 33,627.6 yuan.
To understand what happened, we have to start at the other end. Her child had spent nearly 50,000 yuan on in-game purchases. The mother sued the company in a Guangzhou court, and they reached a mediation agreement for a 30% refund. The refund amount was written down on paper. Someone at the company entered the figure in the back-end system—and slipped up. They entered the full amount instead of 30%.
She was supposed to be the one getting her money back. Instead, after 30,000 yuan landed in her account, she became the defendant. Ironic.
A lot of people think: if they entered the wrong amount themselves, how can I be blamed? The Xi’an Yanta District Court’s answer was that who made the mistake and whether there was a valid basis for keeping the money are two completely separate questions. You received more; they paid out more. There was no agreement and no law entitling you to the difference. That makes it unjust enrichment. Under the Civil Code, there’s only one way out: pay it back.
She probably knew that, too, so she found a witness. It was a recording of a phone call between her and the company’s lawyer. In it, the lawyer said she didn’t have to return the money. The court asked her to call that number in the courtroom. No one picked up. A voice comparison showed that it wasn’t the lawyer’s voice. She admitted it: the recording had been AI-generated.
She lost the case and was reprimanded in court for fabricating evidence. All for 30,000 yuan. The nerve.
The judge later explained how they decide on a penalty: if there are no serious consequences, the conduct isn’t egregious, and the other party is willing to forgive, it generally means a warning and a verbal reprimand. A fine or detention is reserved for cases where the conduct actually obstructs the trial. In her case, it went no further than a reprimand—a relatively light outcome.
But what I can’t stop thinking about is something else. What if the recording had actually fooled the court?
These days, generating a call recording that’s a few dozen seconds long costs next to nothing. How convincing it sounds depends on how much voice material you have from the other person. In court, there are only three human checks that can catch it: call the number on the spot, have the person appear in court, and compare the voices. All three were done, and that’s how the recording was exposed. But what if the other party doesn’t show up in court? Could the recording just end up sitting in the case file?
There’s something else I want to say, though.
The 30,000 yuan can be recovered because of two things. The transfer can be traced back to its source, and the bank has a record. The other party has a name and an address, so the court knows where to send the summons.
What about on-chain? You have neither. Not one of the two.
Get an address wrong by one character, and the coins go into someone else’s wallet. You paid the gas. The block height is set in stone. There’s no customer service, no mediation agreement, no summons. All you can do is open a block explorer and watch that string of numbers sitting there. That’s all there is to it. The irony is, stablecoin issuers do have a list, and they can freeze funds. Bitcoin has no such list; nobody can freeze it.
What really holds this whole order together—the idea that if you get something by mistake, you have to give it back—is that the person can be found. That little voice of conscience comes second.
Has money ever left your wallet and never come back? Most people would say no, because one mistaken transfer is enough to teach you a lesson. But if it did happen, could you fill in the defendant’s name right now? You couldn’t.
The report doesn’t say when the extra 30,000-plus yuan was paid back, or whether the company separately pursued her for fabricating evidence. No clear answer.
$BTC $USDC $ETH
#游戏退款 #AI伪造证据 #UnjustEnrichment