According to China's "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings"
Article 68 stipulates that "evidence obtained by infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of others or violating the prohibitive provisions of the law cannot be used as the basis for determining the facts of a case." According to the current law, a recording without the consent of the other party can be used as evidence as long as it meets two conditions.
First: it was not obtained by infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of others;
Second: it was not obtained in violation of the prohibitive provisions of the law.
As long as the above conditions are met, the telephone recording can be used as evidence in court.
Extended data:
Related cases:
On October 20 15 1 month, Ma Qiang suddenly received a summons from Urumqi Water District Court. Fan Jun, a good friend, took him to court and asked him to pay 60,000 yuan.
Fan Jun said in the complaint: "2065438+20041October 2, 65438+ Ma Qiang lent me 60,000 yuan in cash and wrote me an IOU. I asked Ma Qiang for it many times, and he repeatedly shirked it. "
At the beginning of March, the court heard the case, and Fan Jun issued a debit note from Ma Qiang, which read: "I borrowed 60,000 yuan in cash from Fan Jun today." The signature is Ma Qiang, and the loan date is 20 14 1.2.
Ma Qiang recognized that the IOUs were written by him, but did not recognize the fact that Fan Jun advocated borrowing. "I didn't borrow money from Fan Jun. I borrowed money because Fan Jun and Tao Tang gambled together. Tao Tang lost his money. Fan Jun wouldn't let him go. I want to save Tang Tao. Fan Jun asked me to borrow money and I borrowed it. "
Ma Qiang submitted witness testimony, and Fan Jun asked the witness to appear in court in person for interrogation.
10 in March, during the second court session of this case, three witnesses appeared in court to confirm that they played mahjong and gambling with Fan Jun, Ma Qiang, outsider Tao Tang and others in a hotel in Shuimogou District from February 30th, 20 13 to June 30th, 20 14.
Ma Qiang took out his mobile phone in court and played a telephone recording before the trial. The contents are as follows (abstract):
Ma Qiang: "To tell the truth, I didn't take the money. Old Tang owes you 60 thousand for gambling, but you sue me. "
Fan Jun: "I told you at that time, don't make IOUs, so I asked Lao Tang for money. You have to type out the loan. "
Ma Qiang: "I said I would give you an iou. I took Don out to look for money. If I can't find the money, I'll bring him back and return the loan. What did you say?/Sorry? As a result, you didn't give me an iou. "
Fan Jun: "If you don't make an IOU, Lao Tang will try to raise money. If you don't take a person away, he will collapse in two hours. He will bring some money back to me from others, and I can get at least 40 thousand. "
During the trial, both parties had no objection to the facts reflected in the recording, and both agreed that the old Tang mentioned in the recording was an outsider Tao Tang.
The court held that Article 11 of "Several Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on People's Courts Handling Lending Cases" stipulated: "Lenders know that borrowers borrow money for illegal activities, and their lending relationship is not protected.
"In this case, the fact that Ma Qiang issued an iou to Fan Jun is objective, but the money can be confirmed by the recording materials issued by Ma Qiang at the trial, which shows that it is not Ma Qiang's own loan, and there is no borrowing fact between the plaintiff and the defendant.
It can be confirmed by the evidence chain formed by the narration of facts, witness testimony and recorded materials by both parties in the trial. Prove that this IOU was issued by Ma Qiang for Tao Tang, because Tao Tang and others gambled with outsiders and lost with Fan Jun and Tao Tang. Therefore, it is not a legal loan relationship and should not be protected by law.
At the end of March, the court ruled in the first instance that Fan Jun's claim was rejected, and Fan Jun did not appeal.
"In the above cases, both the defendant and the defendant recognized the fact of telephone recording, and there was no objection as evidence." Mo Wenjing, a judge of the Shuimogou District People's Court in Urumqi, said that telephone recordings can be used as evidence, but not all telephone recordings can be used as evidence in court, and some requirements must be met.
First of all, the object of telephone recording must be the parties to the case, and the recording content must fully reflect the content of the case. In the case of arrears, the record should allow the debtor to fully inform the specific amount and background of the arrears.
The more specific and accurate the amount, the better. The recorded evidence should not be edited or forged, but should be closely linked, objective, true and coherent. If you edit the recording technically and get a favorable evidence, even if the situation is true, it is invalid.
Secondly, "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation" stipulates that evidence obtained by infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of others or violating the prohibitive provisions of the law cannot be used as the basis for determining the facts of a case. Installing eavesdropping devices in other people's homes without permission will generally lead to invalid eavesdropping recordings because they are found to have violated citizens' right to live.
The content of the recording must reflect the true meaning of the recorded person, and it was not recorded under coercion or coercion. Any evidence obtained by illegal restriction of personal freedom, kidnapping, threats and other means is invalid.
People's Daily Online-Telephone recording becomes important evidence in the trial? The defendant "dumped" the gambling debt.
Baidu Encyclopedia-Some Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation