Article 116 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2022 Amendment) stipulates that, as defined by storage media, audio recording materials have two evidential attributes, namely, audio recording materials stored in electronic media belong to electronic data, and in addition, they belong to audio-visual materials.

In order to make audio recordings appear in court trials as effective evidence, the way and method of obtaining them must comply with relevant legal provisions, and the audio recordings themselves need to be flawless and complete.

▶ In the process of obtaining the recording, it must be conducted in a reasonable place. It is not allowed to use eavesdropping to pry into the privacy of others and infringe upon their privacy rights. The recording materials obtained therefrom will be excluded because of illegal means.

▶ The other party's speech must be the expression of its true meaning at that time, without any coercion or threat.

▶ The content of the recorded materials shall be authentic and consistent, and shall not be edited. They shall be presented in the original state. The voice quality of the conversation shall be clear, and the case to be verified shall be accurately and completely described.

I. The Supreme People's Court (2015) MTZ No. 212

First of all, although the recorded evidence submitted by Zhang Wenwu was formed before the end of the original trial, Zhang Wenwu won both the first and second trials of the case and the case of another 15 million yuan. This evidence is not necessary for Zhang Wenwu to submit in the first and second trials of the case and the case of another 15 million yuan, that is, Zhang Wenwu has no intention to submit evidence beyond the time limit subjectively.

Secondly, the recorded evidence is a true record of the communication and conversation between Zhang Wenwu and Chen Zhixiong after they had a dispute over the payment of the relevant funds of the Cooperation Agreement. The acquisition did not infringe the legitimate rights and interests of Chen Zhixiong or others, nor did it violate the prohibitive provisions of the law or violate public order and good customs. According to Article 68 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, "Evidence obtained by infringing upon the lawful rights and interests of others or violating the prohibitive provisions of the law cannot be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case", the recorded evidence submitted by Zhang Wenwu was not obtained by infringing upon the lawful rights and interests of others or violating the prohibitive provisions of the law, Therefore, the recorded evidence can be used as the basis for identifying the relevant facts of the case.

Thirdly, the recorded evidence is the negotiation process between Zhang Wenwu and Chen Zhixiong after the dispute over the Cooperation Agreement, which can objectively reflect the relevant matters of the cooperation between the two parties and is closely related to the basic facts of the case, and should be adopted. When reviewing the retrial, Guangdong Higher People's Court held that the recorded evidence was recorded unilaterally without the consent of Chen Zhixiong. According to the Reply of the Supreme People's Court on whether the information obtained by recording without the consent of the other party can be used as evidence (Fa Fu [1995] No. 2), "evidence must be obtained legally first, and only evidence obtained through legal means can be used as the basis for deciding a case. It is illegal to record a conversation without the consent of the other party, and the audio recordings obtained by this means cannot be used as evidence. ".

The Court held that, according to Article 68 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, which came into effect on April 1, 2002, which stipulates that "evidence obtained by means of 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 the case", the reply to Fa Fu [1995] No. 2 refers to "recording his conversation without the consent of the other party, It is an illegal act "should be understood as the act of secretly recording the privacy places involving the other party and infringing the legitimate rights and interests of the other party or other people. Article 106 of the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that "evidence formed or obtained in a way that seriously infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of others, violates the prohibitive provisions of the law, or seriously violates public order and good customs shall not be used as the basis for ascertaining the facts of the case". In this case, the conversation between Zhang Wenwu and Chen Zhixiong was held in the public place of the hotel lobby, and the recording was recorded in the public place. No one except Zhang Wenwu's daughter was present, which did not infringe on anyone's legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, the recording evidence should be adopted as the basis for identifying the relevant facts of this case. The Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province did not identify the evidence, which was a mistake in the application of law, and the Court corrected it.

With regard to the witness testimony of Liang Li, the former director of Xiangzhou District Agriculture and Fisheries Bureau of Zhuhai City, Guangdong Province, and Xia Kejun, the former director of Zhuhai Land and Resources Bureau of Zhuhai City, Guangdong Province, since the witness testimony of the two witnesses had been submitted when Zhang Wenwu applied to Guangdong Higher People's Court for retrial, because Liang Li and Xia Kejun did not testify in court at that time, the Guangdong Higher People's Court determined that the witness testimony of the two people was not conclusive, and this court confirmed this.

II. The Supreme People's Court (2014) MS Zi No. 551

As for the second trial verdict on the acquisition of the recorded materials, Zhao Weiguo held that the private recording was formed during his conversation with Zhang Lihua. The recording process did not infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others, nor violate the social public interests and social ethics. The way of obtaining evidence did not violate the prohibitive provisions of the law. Therefore, the evidence should be considered as legal evidence. The conversation in the recording Zhang Lihua did not deny the fact that Zhao Weiguo was forced to press his hand print on the guarantee by violence on December 1, 2012. The content reflected in the recording evidence can be mutually corroborated with the above-mentioned public security organ inquiry record. Zhang Lihua raised an objection to the recording evidence, but there is no evidence to the contrary that is sufficient to refute it. The warranty on which Zhang Lihua claims rights only has finger print, without the signature or seal of the guarantor, which is not in line with the usual trading habits, and guarantees that there are major defects in the book, which is questionable. Several evidences provided by Zhao Weiguo support each other, which can form a chain of evidence and achieve high probability of proof.

Accordingly, the judgment of the second instance found that the fact that Zhao Weiguo's handprint on the guarantee held by Zhang Lihua on July 17, 2012 was pressed under the force of violence by others was fully based. Zhang Lihua applied for retrial and found that the reason why the fact that Zhao Weiguo was forced to stamp on the guarantee by violence could not be justified was inconsistent with the fact, which was not supported by the Court.

Whether the judgment procedure of second instance is illegal. Zhao Weiguo provided recording evidence in both the first and second trials. He did not provide the original recording carrier, but provided a copied CD. In the first instance, Zhang Lihua believed that the recording was made without her knowledge and could not be used as evidence. She did not deny the existence of the recording. After cross examination and confirmation of the content of the recorded evidence, the judgment of the second instance held that, from the perspective of the recording effect, the basic content could be heard clearly, and there was no obvious doubt. Although it was a private recording, the recording process did not infringe the legitimate rights and interests of others, nor did it violate the social public interests and social ethics, and the way of obtaining evidence did not violate the prohibitive provisions of the law. Zhang Lihua believes that the reason for retrial of the application for illegal judgment procedure in the second instance cannot be established.

III. The Supreme People's Court (2015) MS Zi No. 3541

Since the parties did not sign a written contract to specifically stipulate the rights and obligations of the partnership, the key to determining the facts of the dispute is whether to adopt the audio recording materials and written materials provided by Chen Huihui. From the content of the audio recording materials provided by Chen Huihui, both parties referred to each other as "in laws" and repeatedly referred to the "seven bid, ten bid and fifteen bid" projects, which coincided with the name of the partnership project in this case. The specific content was that both parties discussed how to settle the partnership project. It should be determined that the audio recording materials were the talks between Chen Huihui and Lin Chuanxiong.

Chen Huihui has provided evidence for the basic facts he claims. Lin Chuanxiong should provide evidence to prove his refutation of the fact, but he did not provide evidence to refute it. He also refused to identify the recorded evidence, and he should bear the adverse consequences. It is not improper to adopt the evidence in the judgment of second instance. Therefore, Lin Chuanxiong's reason for holding that the evidence should not be accepted in the retrial cannot be established.

IV. Supreme People's Court (2016) SFMS No. 3600

The question of whether the recorded evidence should be accepted. It was found that Li Hui did not state or approve the nature, formation process and formation time of the 5 million yuan loan in this case in the audio recording materials arranged by Tsinghua Company, and there was no other content related to the disputed facts in this case in the audio recording evidence, so the original court did not adopt the audio recording evidence, which was not improper.

V. The Supreme People's Court (2014) MS Zi No. 641

In the application for retrial, Wang Xiangqun once again used the recorded evidence he provided in the first and second trials as evidence to support his claim for retrial. According to the provisions of Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the people's court shall distinguish the authenticity of audio-visual materials and, in combination with other evidence in the case, examine whether they can be used as a basis for ascertaining facts.

Therefore, when Wang Xiangqun only provided audio evidence and could not provide other evidence for mutual verification, and the audio evidence failed to directly prove the facts Wang Xiangqun wanted to prove, and Guangyu denied, the evidentiary force of the evidence was not enough to overturn the evidentiary force of the written evidence provided by Guangyu.

VI. The Supreme People's Court (2015) MS Zi No. 1825

On the legality of recorded evidence. The recorded evidence involved in the case confirms the fact that Dongfang Magnesium Co., Ltd. invested in Keman Company with the assets of Yulong Company. There is no evidence to prove that the recorded content is false or that the evidence was obtained in a serious illegal way. At the same time, the evidence was cross examined in the trial of the first instance, and Keman Company issued cross examination opinions in court. Keman claimed that the reason why the recorded evidence was not cross examined was inconsistent with the facts on record, and the evidence should be adopted according to law.

Ⅶ. Supreme People's Court (2017) SFMS No. 437

Although the recorded evidence presented by China Railway Logistics Company in the first instance was submitted beyond the time limit for adducing evidence, it had a significant impact on the handling of the case. The court of first instance adopted the evidence in accordance with the above provisions. Jiyu Warehousing Company did not recognize the authenticity of the recorded evidence, but did not apply for identification, and did not present evidence to the contrary to overturn it. The court of first instance found that the fact and time that China Railway Logistics Company had claimed to take delivery of the goods were not improper in combination with the evidence such as the itinerary.

Ⅷ. The Supreme People's Court (2013) MTZ No. 23

During the litigation of this case, Li Shengtang submitted a recording of the conversation between him and Bai Zhengxiang. The recording was clear and coherent, without obvious signs of alteration or technical processing. Although Bai Zhengxiang claimed that the content of the recording evidence was questionable and could not be used as a basis for judging the actual content of the conversation between the two people, he recognized that the recording was his own voice during the first instance cross examination, During the original trial, he did not deny the fact that there was a call and the authenticity of the recording, and did not apply for judicial expertise, so the court confirmed the authenticity of the recording. The court of first instance applied Article 69 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Civil Procedure Evidence not to accept the recorded evidence improperly, and the court corrected it.

IX. Supreme People's Court (2017) SFMZ No. 313

As for evidence 2, the evidence is recorded evidence and collated materials. Since Zhang Bing, Zheng Xianzhen and Lin Chuan, who are among the recorded evidence claimed by Zou Dongyang and Zou Jijun, did not testify in court, it is impossible to verify the identity of the recorded person, According to Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, "The people's court shall distinguish the authenticity of audio-visual materials and, in combination with other evidence in the case, examine and determine whether they can be used as the basis for ascertaining facts", this court will not accept them without other evidence to support them.

X. Supreme People's Court (2017) SFMS No. 2958

For the audio recording materials submitted by China Export & Credit Insurance Corporation to Yang Jun, the legal representative of Shanmei Lianyungang Company, although Tianjin Property Company disagreed with its authenticity, it did not apply to the court for authentication, and there was no evidence to prove that the acquisition of the audio recording materials infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of others or violated the legal prohibitions. Therefore, it is not improper for the original judgment to identify the recorded evidence.