She Used an AI-Faked Call Recording in Court — and Lost Anyway

October 19 — According to CCTV News, in an “unjust enrichment” case concluded by the Yanta District Court in Xi’an, Shaanxi, a game company refunded a minor’s in-game purchases but, because of an operational error during the transfer, returned more than 30,000 yuan too much. Faced with this “windfall,” the recipient not only refused to return it but also tried to bluff her way through the trial with an AI-fabricated phone recording.

Xiaohan (not her real name) spent about 50,000 yuan on a game platform, and her mother, Liu, sued the game company in a Guangzhou court. Through court mediation the two sides agreed that the company would refund 30% — 15,695.4 yuan. But when staff processed the refund, they erred and actually transferred 49,323 yuan, 33,627.6 yuan more than agreed.

On discovering the mistake, the company contacted Liu at once and asked for the excess back, but she refused. The company then sued her in the Yanta District People’s Court in Xi’an.

At trial, the defendant, Liu, argued that the company had agreed by phone to waive her obligation to repay, and submitted a recording of a call with the company’s lawyer as evidence.

After cross-checking from several angles and comparing voices, it was confirmed that the recording was not the voice of the plaintiff’s lawyer. The defendant eventually admitted that she had used AI to synthesise and forge the call recording herself.

The court found that the 33,627.6 yuan the defendant had received in excess constituted unjust enrichment, and ordered her to return the full amount plus the corresponding interest.

Tong Jingjing, a judge at the Yanta District People’s Court in Xi’an, explained: believing that someone else made a mistake and that the money therefore need not be returned does not create any contract or civil legal relationship recognised by law. That behaviour is precisely a form of unjust enrichment: there is a direct causal link between your gain and the other party’s loss, which is exactly the legal relationship of unjust enrichment.

In this case the defendant not only lost the lawsuit but was also reprimanded in court by the judge for forging evidence.

Judge Tong Jingjing said that the party who submitted the recording admitted in court that it was forged, that it had not caused very serious legal consequences for the outcome of the trial, and that she apologised in court. Given her attitude and the actual harm caused, the court did not impose a fine or detention, but gave her criticism and education along with a very stern oral reprimand.