Are sugar-dating contracts enforceable?
Calling an arrangement a gift agreement, a living allowance or a breakup settlement does not settle the legal question. Courts look at the relationship, the money and what was promised.
The label does not decide the case
A sugar-dating agreement is not a recognised contract type in the Civil Code. It may be written as a gift, a loan, a service agreement or a settlement. A court will look at what the parties actually agreed to do, not only at the title.
If the core bargain is continuing money in exchange for companionship, sex or maintaining an extramarital relationship, the agreement may be held invalid as contrary to public order and good morals under Articles 8 and 153 of the Civil Code.
Not every money-related promise is invalid. The key questions are what the money pays for, whether a spouse's property rights are affected, and whether there was coercion or deception.
A promise to give is not always enforceable
Under Articles 657 and 658 of the Civil Code, a gift is a contract to transfer property without consideration. Before the property rights are transferred, the donor may generally revoke the gift unless it has been notarised or falls within a statutory exception.
That means a verbal promise to buy an apartment or pay a monthly allowance may be difficult to enforce before any money or property changes hands. Money already transferred is a different question: whether it must be returned depends on the nature of the payment and the evidence.
Adding a condition does not automatically save the arrangement. If the condition itself is contrary to public order and good morals, it may also be invalid.
When a spouse tries to recover the money
Article 1062 of the Civil Code gives spouses equal rights to deal with joint property. In 2025, the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation II on Marriage and Family added a clearer rule for transfers made to maintain bigamy, cohabitation or another breach of fidelity.
Under Article 7, if one spouse gives joint property to another person for such a purpose, or disposes of it at a clearly unreasonable price, the other spouse may ask a court to hold the act invalid as contrary to public order and good morals. The court then applies Article 157 on restitution.
In practice, the spouse must connect the transfer to the relationship, prove that the money was joint property, and show how much the recipient actually received. Full or partial recovery depends on the evidence.
Breakup settlements are especially fragile
A settlement can be meaningful when it documents real shared expenses, medical costs, joint property or unpaid debts. The more concrete and independent the consideration, the more room there is for a court to examine it.
A document that simply prices the end of an affair, silence or 'youth lost' is more likely to be treated as an attempt to enforce an improper relationship. A signature does not cure coercion either.
Threatening to expose private photos, contact family or report someone to an employer in order to obtain a payment can move the dispute from contract law into extortion. Preserve the threats and seek legal help rather than paying.
If an agreement has already been signed
- Do not keep paying under threats. Personal safety comes first.
- Keep the original agreement, transfer records, chats and any threatening messages.
- For large transfers, property or company shares, consult a lawyer promptly and assess the evidence.
- If someone threatens your privacy, job or family, call the police and keep the report receipt.
- Do not retaliate by publishing the other person's private information. That can create a new legal problem.
Sources and further reading
English edition, condensed and adapted from the Chinese original · Evidence toolkit · Legal index · Get help by situation · In-depth guides · Disclaimer