Man Sentenced for Receiving "Third Party" Compensation Fee, Acquitted on Appeal, but Claim for Refund Rejected

What legal gaps are reflected when a civil lawsuit is dismissed by AI?

Can you seek compensation or reimbursement from your lover if caught?

In March 2021, after catching his wife’s lover Liu Moumou in the act and receiving a “compensation fee” of 25,000 yuan, Zibo man Lu Moumou was sentenced by the court for extortion, with a prison term of 6 months and a fine of 5,000 yuan. In October 2024, after continuous appeals, Lu Moumou was reclassified as not guilty.

Previously, in an effort to seek understanding, Lu Moumou’s father, Mr. Lu, paid Liu Moumou 25,000 yuan. After the court’s re-judgment, Mr. Lu sued Liu Moumou for the return of the money, claiming unjust enrichment.

On July 2, 2025, this case was heard at the Zhangdian District People’s Court in Zibo. Recently, China News Weekly learned from Mr. Lu that the court had dismissed his lawsuit.

The first-instance civil ruling shows that Liu Moumou did not appear in court to respond and only submitted a written defense.

In his defense, Liu Moumou stated that the 25,000 yuan was returned to him by Lu Moumou’s side as “extortion,” and he provided a forgiveness letter. “The 25,000 yuan was borrowed money, not illegal income.”

The ruling mentions that, based on the nature of the funds, the 25,000 yuan involved was money that Lu Moumou demanded from Liu Moumou due to his wife Zhang’s infidelity, which in essence raises the issue of whether Liu Moumou should be compensated for infringing on Lu Moumou’s spousal rights.

“Regarding third-party infringement in extramarital affairs, whether cases of adultery or third-party infringement constitute an infringement of spousal rights, the law does not explicitly regulate third-party infringement on spousal rights. Currently, Chinese judicial practice does not recognize third-party infringement in extramarital affairs as an infringement. Therefore, Liu Moumou’s payment is considered a payment based on unlawful reasons and is not within the scope of legal evaluation,” the court stated.

The court believes that the nature of the funds was not evaluated in the criminal case. Without legal provisions, civil litigation should not interfere or evaluate excessively. The court neither protects nor opposes this. Therefore, the plaintiff, Mr. Lu’s, lawsuit falls outside the scope of civil jurisdiction, and the case was dismissed.

Previously, the criminal judgment in this case focused more on how the funds were obtained.

The facts established by the court show that at the time of the incident, Lu Moumou’s wife Zhang (who is now divorced from him) was in a relationship with Liu Moumou, which had lasted nearly three years.

On the day of the incident, because Zhang took a long time dressing at home before taking the children to tutoring, Lu became suspicious. After Zhang dropped off the children, she entered a hotel room in the same building. Lu lied to the cleaning staff, claiming he forgot his room card and needed to enter the room with it.

The criminal first-instance judgment stated that Lu Moumou then forcibly demanded money from Liu Moumou through nude videos, verbal threats, and violence, constituting extortion.

However, the Zibo Intermediate Court, upon re-judgment, changed the wording: Liu Moumou’s behavior violated public order, morals, and socialist core values, and was significantly at fault for the incident.

The Zibo Intermediate Court stated that Liu Moumou, to make amends, voluntarily offered compensation to Lu Moumou. Although Lu exerted verbal pressure during negotiations, after multiple discussions, he ultimately accepted the amount involved. His behavior was not for illegal possession of Liu Moumou’s property, and thus does not constitute extortion.

Regarding the civil lawsuit being dismissed, Lu’s lawyer told China News Weekly that Lu would appeal.

The lawyer said that Lu paid Liu Moumou 25,000 yuan to free his son, who was falsely accused and facing arrest. The retrial’s ruling that the son was not guilty was based on the absence of a crime, not on reconciliation. Therefore, as the plaintiff, Lu’s request for Liu Moumou to return the money is reasonable, lawful, and aligns with societal values.

China News Weekly repeatedly tried to call Liu Moumou, but all calls indicated he was on the line.

Reporter: Chen Weijing

Editor: Liu Mi