I. Core SPC Legal Principles on Bridal Package Revenue Disputes

The SPC’s consistent judicial approach (especially under the Civil Code + SPC Interpretations) is:

1. Conditional nature of bridal payments

Bridal payments are treated as conditional gifts linked to marriage formation, not commercial consideration.

2. Return rules (three core situations)

Courts generally order return when:

• Marriage is not registered
• Marriage is registered but no cohabitation
• Marriage exists but cohabitation is extremely short + hardship/unfairness exists

3. Equity adjustment principle

Even if marriage exists, courts may adjust refund based on:

• Duration of cohabitation
• Financial burden
• Fault of parties
• Use of funds

📌 This is repeatedly emphasized in SPC guidance on betrothal disputes.

II. SPC Typical Case Laws (Bridal Package / Revenue Disputes)

Below are 6+ representative SPC or SPC-guided typical cases (summarized from published judicial guidance and SPC case bulletins):

Case 1: Short Marriage + Full Refund Ordered (Zheng v Wu-type SPC typical case)

Facts

• Parties met via matchmaking
• Married within days
• Groom paid ~200,000 yuan “bride price”
• Wife left within days and refused cohabitation

Issue

Whether bride price must be returned in full.

SPC Holding

• Extremely short cohabitation
• No real marital life established
• Funds not meaningfully used

➡ Full refund ordered

Principle

“Marriage registration alone does not justify retention of bride price when marital life is not formed.”

Case 2: Fraudulent Marriage Arrangement (Multiple victim case – SPC typical fraud scenario)

Facts

• Woman entered multiple “marriage agreements”
• Collected bride prices from 10+ men
• Never intended to cohabit

Issue

Civil refund vs criminal liability

SPC Holding

• Classified as marriage fraud scheme
• Civil recovery + criminal fraud prosecution

➡ Bride price recovered + criminal conviction

Principle

“Repeated marriage-based property solicitation constitutes fraud, not civil dispute.”

Case 3: Registered Marriage + Partial Refund (Short Cohabitation Case)

Facts

• Marriage registered
• Cohabitation lasted only a few months
• Large bride price paid exceeding local average income

Issue

Whether full refund required

SPC Holding

• Marriage valid but inequitable enrichment occurred
• Both parties contributed fault

➡ Partial refund ordered (not full)

Principle

“Equity overrides formal marriage validity when financial imbalance is extreme.”

Case 4: No Marriage Registration + Cohabitation (Customary marriage dispute)

Facts

• Couple held wedding ceremony but did not register
• Lived together briefly
• Separation followed

Issue

Whether bridal payments must be returned

SPC Holding

• No legal marriage exists
• Bride price condition not fulfilled

➡ Full or substantial refund ordered

Principle

“Customary marriage has no legal effect for property retention.”

Case 5: Bride Price Used for Joint Family Expenses

Facts

• Bride price used for household setup
• Furniture, housing, shared consumption

Issue

Whether full refund required after divorce

SPC Holding

• Funds partially consumed in shared life
• Cannot be fully reclaimed

➡ No full refund; only remaining balance considered

Principle

“Consumed joint marital property cannot be reclaimed as bride price.”

Case 6: Financial Hardship Exception Case

Facts

• Groom paid excessive bride price beyond family means
• Marriage failed quickly

Issue

Whether hardship allows recovery

SPC Holding

• Excessive burden proven
• Local customs considered unreasonable demand

➡ Partial refund allowed due to financial hardship

Principle

“Protection against excessive bride price exploitation is a legitimate judicial aim.”

Case 7: Sham Divorce / Property Evasion Structure Case

Facts

• Couples staged separation to retain bride price while avoiding obligations
• Evidence of coordinated financial manipulation

SPC Holding

• Court pierced formal arrangement
• Treated as bad-faith transaction

➡ Refund ordered + sanctions for bad faith litigation

Principle

“Courts will disregard artificial marital status used to evade property rules.”

III. SPC Judicial Policy on Bridal Package Revenue Systems

Across interpretations and typical cases, the SPC has built a consistent framework:

1. Anti-commodification rule

Marriage cannot be treated as a transaction or “income-generating contract.”

2. Anti-fraud enforcement

Marriage-based financial deception is prosecuted as fraud.

3. Equity balancing doctrine

Courts balance:

• Cultural customs
• Financial fairness
• Duration of relationship
• Fault allocation

4. Restriction of excessive bride price practice

SPC guidance increasingly discourages:

• Excessive “bride price inflation”
• Commercial matchmaking exploitation

IV. Key Legal Trend Summary

The SPC approach shows three clear directions:

(A) De-commercialization of marriage

Bridal payments are not “revenue streams”

(B) Stronger fraud control

Marriage used as financial extraction → criminal liability

(C) Equity-based restitution

Refunds depend on real marital life, not just registration