Issuing Body: Guozun Cathay Associates German Office
Date of Conclusion: 6 January 2026
Key Outcome: Full recovery of €15,000 in unjustly enriched funds through a combination of non-litigation negotiation and pre-litigation judicial procedures
This case was jointly handled by the German Office of Guozun Cathay Associates and the cross-border commercial dispute resolution team of the Beijing Headquarters. Strictly complying with the laws of China and Germany and the conflict-of-law rules of private international law, and relying on Guozun Cathay Associates’ in-depth cross-border legal service network in Europe and dual-jurisdiction professional expertise, we provided a Chinese enterprise with a full-process, short-cycle cross-border property rights recovery solution.
This case has been selected into Guozun Cathay Associates’ 2026 Typical Case Library for Cross-Border Commercial Dispute Resolution. Its case-handling model of “dual-jurisdiction evidence closure + local direct service + parallel non-litigation pressure and pre-litigation judicial procedures” has been widely applied to the efficient resolution of China–Europe cross-border monetary debt disputes.
I. Case Background and Entrustment Process
A Chinese commercial enterprise entered into a cross-border promotion cooperation with a German social media influencer, with an agreed total service remuneration of €15,000. In March 2025, due to an operational error by the enterprise’s finance staff, an equal sum was transferred again after the first full payment had been completed, resulting in a total payment of €30,000 to the other party’s account.
On the day the enterprise discovered the duplicate payment, it immediately contacted the influencer to explain the situation and requested the return of the overpaid €15,000. However, the other party was out of contact for three months thereafter. After resuming contact, the influencer explicitly stated that he only agreed to refund €7,500 and refused to return the full amount of the unjustly enriched funds. After multiple rounds of unsuccessful independent negotiations, the enterprise formally entrusted Guozun Cathay Associates to initiate the cross-border debt recovery procedure on 20 May 2025.
Given the three core difficulties of the case — application of dual-jurisdiction laws of China and Germany, verification of cross-border payment evidence chains, and service of documents on an out-of-contact subject overseas — Guozun Cathay Associates activated the Sino-German Emergency Coordination Case-Handling Mechanism on the same day. The German Office was responsible for liaising with local legal resources, while the Beijing Headquarters coordinated evidence collation and right-basis demonstration. A special case-handling team was jointly established (including 2 locally licenced lawyers in Germany and 3 members from the Beijing Lawyers Association’s Foreign-Related Lawyers Talent Pool) to act as the exclusive agent for this unjust enrichment recovery.
II. Full Process of Sino-German Joint Case Handling
This case adopted the standardised collaboration model: “Beijing Headquarters responsible for Chinese-jurisdiction right demonstration and full-chain evidence construction; German Office responsible for local judicial implementation and legal pressure on the debtor”. Written work outputs and verifiable progress were formed at each stage:
1.20 May 2025 – 25 May 2025: Dual-Jurisdiction Case Risk Assessment
Beijing Headquarters: Completed preliminary collation of the cooperation agreement, two payment vouchers, foreign exchange settlement documents and communication records between the parties. Issued the Assessment Report on the Legitimacy of Unjust Enrichment Claims under Chinese Law, confirming that the fact of duplicate payment is clear, the basis of the unjust enrichment claim is established, and the amount of the claim is accurate.
German Office: Relying on the German local resident information inquiry system and bank account verification channels, verified the influencer’s permanent address, identity information and receiving account status within 3 working days. Confirmed that he has stable business activities and capacity to perform obligations in Germany, eliminating the risk of subject extinction or absence of executable property.
2.26 May 2025 – 15 June 2025: Full-Chain Evidence Chain Construction and Dual-Jurisdiction Validity Consolidation
Beijing Headquarters: In accordance with the evidence rules of Chinese civil procedure, integrated domestic payment receipts, correspondent bank transfer messages, cooperation agreements and demand communication records to form a closed evidence chain of “two payments under the same contract with no corresponding consideration obligation from the payee”. Completed timestamp consolidation of electronic evidence and original document verification.
German Office: Conducted legal argumentation on the local admissibility of cross-border payment flows in accordance with the evidence recognition rules of the German Code of Civil Procedure. Obtained the credit entry details of the German receiving bank as supplementary evidence to ensure that the evidence materials have full legal effect in German court proceedings.
3.16 June 2025 – Mid-December 2025: Service of Legal Documents and Pre-Litigation Preparation
Sino-German lawyers jointly drafted a bilingual (Chinese–German) Letter of Demand for Return of Unjust Enrichment, explicitly citing Section 812 of the German Civil Code, Article 47 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relations and other norms. The letter detailed the other party’s obligation of full return, as well as the legal consequences of refusal, including “local litigation in Germany + property preservation + credit sanction”.
The German Office completed three rounds of formal legal document service through the German court postal service system and electronic service channels. Simultaneously, it initiated pre-litigation preparation for filing in local German courts, completed the draft statement of claim, translation and collation of evidence lists, and made preparations to initiate litigation proceedings at any time, continuously exerting legal pressure on the other party.
4.Late December 2025 – 5 January 2026: Multiple Rounds of Negotiation and Full Payment Recovery
Under sustained legal pressure and clear litigation expectations, the other party took the initiative to contact the joint case-handling team to negotiate repayment, but still insisted on returning only 50% of the funds. Sino-German lawyers jointly participated in two rounds of online negotiations. Combined with typical judgments of the German Federal Court on payment-type unjust enrichment, they effectively refuted the other party’s defence of unilaterally determining the return ratio, and clearly informed him of his statutory obligation to return the full principal and accrued interest. Eventually, the other party abandoned his unreasonable claim and agreed to return the full amount. On 5 January 2026, he paid the full €15,000 of unjustly enriched funds in a lump sum.
5.6 January 2026: Case Conclusion and Risk Prevention Delivery
After the client confirmed that the full amount had been received, the joint case-handling team delivered the Case Conclusion Report and the Manual for Compliance Risk Prevention of Sino-German Cross-Border Payments to the client. Three specific optimisation suggestions were put forward for the enterprise’s subsequent cross-border business: “dual-person review mechanism for payments, emergency procedures for abnormal payments, and clear agreement on governing law in contracts”.
III. Core Case-Handling Difficulties and Authoritative Solutions
The difficulties in handling this case are common issues in China–Europe cross-border unjust enrichment disputes. Relying on dual-jurisdiction professional expertise and local resource advantages, the Guozun joint team has developed a replicable standardised solution:
1.Determination of Governing Law for Cross-Border Unjust Enrichment
Professional Basis: Article 47 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relations; Section 812 of the German Civil Code
Solution: Where the contract does not stipulate the governing law for disputes, in accordance with the conflict-of-law rules of private international law, the local law of the place where the unjust enrichment occurred — i.e., German law — shall apply as the substantive governing law. Meanwhile, the legitimacy demonstration of rights under Chinese law is completed simultaneously to ensure that the claim has a legal basis in both jurisdictions.
2.Fact Proof and Evidence Validity of Cross-Border Duplicate Payment
Professional Basis: Foreign-related evidence rules of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China; evidence recognition norms of the German Code of Civil Procedure
Solution: Connect the full payment chain of “domestic payment – correspondent bank settlement – overseas credit entry”, integrate vouchers from each link to form a complete evidence chain, and complete dual-jurisdiction validity verification of evidence at the same time. This not only meets the fact-proof requirements of non-litigation negotiation, but also can be directly adapted to the evidence requirements of local litigation in Germany, avoiding the cost of evidence supplementation in subsequent procedures.
3.Efficient Recovery Path for Out-of-Contact Subjects Overseas
Professional Basis: Service rules of the German Code of Civil Procedure; Hague Service Convention
Solution: Abandon the single cross-border negotiation model and adopt a two-track strategy of “non-litigation pressure + pre-litigation judicial procedures”. Rely on local German service channels to break the deadlock of lost contact, and simultaneously advance preparation for litigation filing. Use clear and implementable litigation expectations to compel the other party to negotiate voluntarily. Compared with the traditional model of diplomatic service + cross-border litigation, the rights-protection cycle is shortened by more than 60%.
4.Legitimacy Defence of Unilateral Partial Return Claim
Professional Basis: Section 818 of the German Civil Code (rules on the scope of unjust enrichment return)
Solution: Clearly point out that the statutory scope of return for unjust enrichment covers all benefits obtained and corresponding accrued interest. The beneficiary has no legal basis to possess another person’s property and has no right to unilaterally determine the return ratio. Combined with similar judgment rules in German judicial practice, effectively refute the other party’s unreasonable claims and uphold the bottom line of full payment recovery.
IV. Authoritative Legal Bases Applicable to This Case
(A) Chinese Law
1.Article 47 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relations: For unjust enrichment and negotiorum gestio, the law chosen by the parties shall apply. Where the parties have not made a choice, the law of the parties’ common habitual residence shall apply; where there is no common habitual residence, the law of the place where the unjust enrichment or negotiorum gestio occurred shall apply.
2.Relevant provisions of the foreign-related part of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China: In foreign-related civil proceedings conducted within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, the special provisions on foreign-related civil procedure shall apply. Parties may entrust Chinese lawyers to coordinate the handling of overseas legal affairs and advance overseas rights protection through judicial assistance or local cooperation channels.
(B) German Law
1.Section 812(1) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB): A person who obtains a benefit at the expense of another person by performance or in any other way without a legal ground is obliged to return the benefit to that person. The same applies if the legal ground subsequently ceases to exist or if the result intended by the performance is not achieved according to the content of the juristic act.
2.Section 818 of the German Civil Code: The obligation to return extends to the benefit obtained and to other benefits acquired by the beneficiary by reason of the benefit obtained.
(C) International Judicial Assistance Rules
Both China and Germany are contracting states to the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention). Cross-border document service, recognition and enforcement of judgments can be completed through convention channels, providing procedural support for overseas claims. At the same time, the EU cross-border small claims procedure can be applied to further improve the recovery efficiency of cross-border monetary debt disputes.
V. Authoritative Practical Recommendations Based on Case Experience
Combined with years of experience in Sino-German cross-border legal services of Guozun Cathay Associates German Office, the following three practical recommendations are put forward for Chinese market entities conducting economic and trade cooperation with Germany:
1.Standardisation of transaction clauses: When signing written cross-border contracts, clearly stipulate payment procedures, review mechanisms and rules for the return of wrongfully paid funds. At the same time, agree on the governing law and competent authority for dispute resolution to reduce the legal application cost of cross-border disputes at source.
2.Standardisation of payment procedures: Set up dual-person review and secondary verification links for large euro-denominated cross-border payments, and retain complete payment vouchers, communication records and contract documents. In the event of wrong payment or duplicate payment, preserve evidence immediately and initiate a stop-loss demand simultaneously.
3.Early intervention in rights protection: When the other party is out of contact or refuses to return funds, a lawyer team with local service capacity in Germany should be engaged within 2 months. Rely on local resources to complete subject verification and effective service, so as to avoid the debtor’s transfer of property or increased rights-protection costs due to delay.