In Chinese traditional cultural customs, lucky money symbolizes beautiful blessings and represents the love and care of elders for their descendants. During the Spring Festival, when family and friends gather together, elders often express their love for their children by "distributing red envelopes." Additionally, romantic couples also give each other red envelopes during special occasions like Spring Festival. Moreover, due to the convenience of electronic payments, traditional paper money red envelopes are gradually being replaced by online transfers and other electronic payment methods. While these practices may seem convenient, they can give rise to certain legal issues, such as "Under what circumstances does giving red envelopes constitute a gift?", "Do electronic transfers between couples constitute a gift or a loan?", and "Do red envelopes given between couples need to be returned after breakup?" To answer these questions, one must first understand what constitutes a gift under legal definition.

I. Does Giving Lucky Money to Children Constitute a Gift to the Children

For children, the most wonderful memory of Spring Festival is receiving heavy red envelopes from their elders. These red envelopes are not only beautiful blessings from the elders but also one of the few "properties" that children possess. However, most children have probably experienced their lucky money being "kept" by their parents as soon as they received it. So, who legally owns the lucky money given to children?

According to Article 657 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: A donation contract is a contract whereby the donor gratuitously gives his property to the donee and the donee accepts the donation. Therefore, lucky money legally belongs to a donation contract. If the donation contract established between the elders and the child is legally valid, then the lucky money should belong to the child's legal property.

In practice, many parents take away their children's lucky money on the grounds that the children are too young to manage money. According to the Civil Code, minors who have reached the age of eight are persons with limited capacity for civil conduct, and may independently engage in civil juristic acts that purely generate benefits or civil juristic acts that are commensurate with their age and intelligence. Therefore, children over the age of eight have the ability to independently receive red envelopes from elders and use the lucky money to engage in civil juristic acts commensurate with their age and intelligence, such as purchasing daily necessities and stationery. Minors under the age of eight need their parents' consent to receive red envelopes and have their parents manage the money.

Legal Interpretation Case:

"Zhou Mouxiang, Zhou Moufei v. Zhou Mou Civil Dispute"

Zhou Mou (male) and Wu Mou (female) had a son Zhou Mouxiang (13 years old) and a daughter Zhou Moufei (13 years old) after marriage. Later, the two divorced, and both children were raised by Ms. Wu. On January 26, 2020, Zhou Mou took away 16,800 yuan of lucky money from his two children in the name of "holding it for safekeeping." Zhou Mouxiang and Zhou Moufei demanded their father Zhou Mou to return their lucky money multiple times thereafter, but Zhou Mou refused to return it on various grounds. Therefore, Zhou Mouxiang and Zhou Moufei sued their father Zhou Mou in court, demanding that he return their lucky money.

The court held that the lucky money in this case should belong to the legitimate property of Zhou Mouxiang and Zhou Moufei. As the father of the two plaintiffs, Zhou Mou and mother Wu Mou are the legal guardians of the two plaintiffs, both having the duty to protect the two plaintiffs' personal rights, property rights, and other legitimate rights and interests. After the mother Wu Mou divorced the defendant, the two plaintiffs were directly raised by mother Wu Mou. Now, the two plaintiffs, with the consent of their mother, demanded that the defendant return their personal property, namely the lucky money. The defendant should return it promptly, to be supervised by the mother of the two plaintiffs. Accordingly, the People's Court ruled that the defendant Zhou Mou return 16,800 yuan of lucky money to the plaintiffs Zhou Mouxiang and Zhou Moufei.

Lawyer's Legal Interpretation:

According to the judgment of this case, if the red envelopes given by elders to minors during the Spring Festival meet the requirements of a donation contract, the donation is legally valid, and the lucky money should belong to the minor's legal property. The guardian of a minor shall manage and dispose of the minor's property for the benefit of the minor. In special circumstances, such as when the parents are divorced, the parent who does not live with the child shall return the lucky money held in trust to the child.

II. Distinguishing and Determining the Nature of Payment in Transfers or Red Envelopes

According to Article 657 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: A donation contract is a contract whereby the donor gratuitously gives his property to the donee and the donee accepts the donation.

In practice, whether red envelope payments between relatives and couples constitute gifts or joint consumption expenditures should be determined by applying logical reasoning and daily life experience to examine whether special circumstances exist, such as whether the amount is a special number or whether payment was made at a special time. If any of the above circumstances exist, it should generally be deemed a gift or joint consumption expenditure.

1. Determination of Special Time

When determining whether a red envelope payment constitutes a gift, the time of payment is an important reference standard. Special times include traditional festivals of various ethnic groups and regions: such as China's Spring Festival, Qixi Festival, foreign Valentine's Day, Christmas, etc. Additionally, it also includes important time nodes between the donor and the donee: such as the donee's birthday, important anniversary between both parties, etc.

Red envelope payments or transfers made during the above important time nodes, in the absence of other evidence proving that there is a loan relationship between the two parties, have a greater likelihood of being deemed as gift behavior.

2. Determination of Special Amount

Under normal circumstances, special amounts are associated with special dates, as the donor's transfer or red envelope amount is linked to the date. For example, between couples, amounts representing "I love you" such as "520," "for life" such as "1314," or amounts matching the donee's birthday date or important anniversary date. Additionally, there are amounts that carry folk wishes, such as "888" representing "fortune fortune fortune," "666" representing "smooth sailing," etc.

Furthermore, the particularity of the payment amount should be examined, especially judging the size of the amount. If the payment amount is huge and there are no other circumstances, it tends to be deemed as a loan; if the payment amount is small, it tends to be deemed as a gift, etc.

Legal Interpretation Case:

"Liu Mou v. Li Mou Loan Contract Dispute"

At the end of 2018, Liu Mou and Li Mou met. The two established a romantic relationship and started cohabiting at the beginning of 2019, and broke up in October 2020.

On January 24, 2020, Liu Mou transferred 1,000 yuan with the transfer note stating: lucky money; on May 2, 2020, transferred 3,000 yuan with the transfer note stating: happy birthday wife. Now Liu Mou has sued Li Mou in court, claiming that the above transfers were loans and requesting Li Mou to repay the loan, while Li Mou claims that the above funds were gifts and reciprocation during the romantic relationship.

The court determined that the focus of this dispute is whether the appellant Liu Mou and the appellee Li Mou have a civil lending legal relationship. In this case, Liu Mou did not provide evidence of a creditor's rights document proving a lending legal relationship. Although he submitted transfer records to Li Mou, given that Liu Mou's transfers to Li Mou occurred during their romantic relationship and even cohabitation, and Liu Mou's transfers or red envelopes were made to Li Mou during special festivals such as Spring Festival and on May 2, which implies "I love you," based on this, Li Mou's defense that the funds in question were gifts and reciprocation is reasonably justified.

After trial, the court of first instance ruled to dismiss Liu Mou's claim, and the appellate court upheld the original judgment.

Lawyer's Legal Interpretation:

From this case, we can see the judicial opinion on whether red envelope payments or transfers made during special festivals constitute gift behavior:

In this case, although Liu Mou's transfer amount was relatively large, based on their romantic relationship, and the payments made by red envelope or transfer during the above important time nodes, in the absence of other evidence proving that there is a loan relationship between the two parties, it should be deemed as a gift.

III. Whether Red Envelopes Given Between Couples Constitute Gifts Aimed at Entering into Marriage

According to Article 661 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: A donation may be subject to obligations. Where a donation is subject to obligations, the donee shall perform the obligations in accordance with the agreement.

According to Article 5 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (Book I: Marriage and Family): Where a party requests return of the betrothal gift paid according to customs, if any of the following circumstances is found, the People's Court shall support the request:

(1) Both parties have not gone through the marriage registration procedures;

(2) Both parties have gone through the marriage registration procedures but have not actually lived together;

(3) The pre-marital payment has caused difficulty for the payer's livelihood.

The provisions of items 2 and 3 of the preceding paragraph shall apply on the condition that both parties divorce.

In practice, besides the traditional Chinese marriage customs of "three gold" items and wedding dress payments, romantic couples frequently experience situations where one or both parties, or their parents, pay money to their partner or their child's partner by red envelope or transfer during traditional festivals like Spring Festival. Such conditional or purposeful transfers should consider whether the fund exchange is aimed at entering into marriage. After the termination of the romantic relationship, if it conforms to the circumstances for returning betrothal gifts as stipulated in the relevant judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court, the party who received the betrothal gift has the obligation to return it.

Legal Interpretation Case:

"Chen Mou, Wang Mou 1 et al. Matrimonial Property Dispute Case"

Chen Mou and Wang Mou 1 met through a matchmaker and got engaged on February 4, 2022. According to custom, Chen Mou spent 15,000 yuan on gifts for Wang Mou 1 and paid Wang Mou 1 a total of 100,000 yuan as betrothal gift. On that day, Wang Mou 1 went to Chen Mou's family to pay a New Year visit, and Chen Mou's parents gave Wang Mou 1 10,000 yuan on the spot. Thereafter, Chen Mou visited Wang Mou 1's family multiple times to discuss wedding arrangements and paid Wang Mou 1 red envelopes totaling 8,000 yuan. Later, the two parties could not reach an agreement on purchasing a house for marriage, so they terminated the engagement. Now Chen Mou has filed a lawsuit in court regarding the return of the betrothal gift and daily red envelope transfer funds.

After trial, the court held that the betrothal gift is a type of marriage-related donation, a donation aimed at entering into marriage. If marriage with the other party does not occur or the marriage ultimately ends in divorce, the conditions attached to the donation no longer exist or have disappeared, and the paying party may request return, and the receiving party shall return it appropriately. In this case, the two parties did not go through marriage registration procedures, and the marriage did not materialize due to minor disputes. The plaintiff's request to return the betrothal gift paid according to customs shall be supported. In this case, the plaintiff paid the defendant a betrothal gift of 100,000 yuan, which is a clear fact, which this court confirms. Regarding the lucky money given by the plaintiff's parents to the defendant, it is a voluntary donation made by the plaintiff's family during the romantic relationship to maintain feelings with the defendant, and should not be deemed as a betrothal gift. The plaintiff's request for its return shall not be supported; regarding the cost of purchasing gifts, the plaintiff requested a折价返还 (return at depreciated value). This court believes that gifts are consumer goods, and are mutual or unilateral donations made by both parties to establish an engagement relationship, constituting normal general donations, and shall not be requested for return.

Lawyer's Legal Interpretation:

From this case, we can see that whether payments such as red envelopes or transfers made for the purpose of marriage constitute donations aimed at entering into marriage needs to be analyzed based on actual circumstances:

1. Regarding Betrothal Gifts

Betrothal gifts paid for an engagement are property and money given by the male and female parties with the purpose of entering into marriage. When the marriage purpose of the male and female parties cannot be achieved, and the party who paid the betrothal gift requests the party who received the betrothal gift to return it, the People's Court shall support it. In a broad sense, "betrothal gift" should include money and valuable items given by the male's family to achieve the purpose of marrying the female.

2. Red Envelopes or Transfers Given by Parents or Elders

During the engagement process, voluntary donations made by both parties' parents or relatives and elders to maintain the engagement relationship between their children and the other party, as well as to foster familial connections, should not be deemed as betrothal gifts. If the plaintiff requests their return, the court generally does not support it.